Page 53 - Literacy in the New Media Age

42 LITERACY IN THE NEW MEDIA AGE

no meaning until there was an interpretation. This he called the interpretant. He
focused on the sign-characteristics from the point of view of the type of
relation between signifier and that which it represented, something that seems to
have been of only marginal interest to Saussure. Peirce consequently
distinguishes between iconic signs, which in their form parallel the meaning of
the signified – the drawing of flames to mean fire; indexical signs, in which there
is a relation of ‘consequence’, as in smoke signalling combustion; and symbolic
signs, where the relation between form and meaning was largely sustained by
convention – the red cross of the Red Cross. Hence there is a distinct difference
in focus between the two theorists, which could be taken to mean that they had
produced distinct and potentially irreconcilable theories. In fact, the two theories
are compatible and complementary, if one accepts their different foci.
In my use of the concept of sign I reject the idea of arbitrariness. I assume that
the relation between signifier and signified is always motivated, that is, that the
shape of the signifier, its ‘form’, materially or abstractly considered, is chosen
because of its aptness for expressing that which is to be signified. That is, the
shape of the signifier offers itself in its material ‘shape’ as an apt expression for
that which is to be signified. In effect, I take Peirce’s iconic sign as the model of
all relations of signs to their referents. The example which I have used on a
number of occasions is that of a drawing by a three-year-old boy (see Figure 4.1).
The three-year-old drew this, sitting on my lap. As he was drawing he said, ‘Do
you want to watch me? I’ll make a car … got two wheels … and two wheels at
the back … and two wheels here … that’s a funny wheel.’ When he had finished
he said, ‘This is a car.’ This was the first time he had named a drawing – rather
than, as frequently until then, providing a running account of what he was
drawing. Had he not provided the ‘key’ himself, I might still be puzzling – or
rather, I would hardly have remembered this example. A car was defined by him
by the criterial characteristic of ‘having wheels’, and his representation focused
on that which he wanted to represent: ‘wheelness’. To a three-year-old that may
well be the most significant thing about a car, whether in looking from his
position in the world at the (wheels of the) car, or in the action of wheels. The
three-year-old’s interest is most plausibly condensed into and expressed as
‘wheels’. Wheels are themselves plausibly and aptly represented by circles, both
because of their look and because of their motion.
This sign is a double sign: once circles as signifying ‘wheel’, and once as
wheels signifying ‘car’. But each of the two signs is not an arbitrary conjunction
of signifier (circle) with signified (wheel), and signifier (wheels) with signified
(car). The relation is – thinking in terms of ‘shapes’ – iconic, or – thinking in
terms of the principles of the connection – motivated. ‘Principles of connection’
for me is the principle of analogy, itself the principle of the formation of
metaphor. Circles are apt forms for meaning wheels; ‘circles are (like) wheels’ –
the principle of analogy, so circle is a metaphor for wheel; ‘wheels are like cars’,
so wheels here is a metaphor for car. ‘Many wheels’ is an apt way – particularly
if you are three years old – for meaning car. Whether we see this as a motivated