Linguistic sign theories

Seminar paper from the year 2005 in the subject English Language and Literature Studies - Linguistics, printed single-sided, University of Heidelberg, 10 entries in the bibliography, language: English, abstract: We seem to be a species that is driven by a desire to make meanings (Chandler: 1995) by creating and interpreting signs. Indeed, it is a fact that we think only in signs (Peirce: 1931-58, II.302). These signs can have the shape of sounds, images, objects, acts or flavours. Since these things do not have an intrinsic meaning, we have to give them a meaning so that they can become signs. Peirce states that Nothing is a sign unless it is interpreted as a sign (Peirce: 1931-58, II.172). This means that everything can become a sign as long as it signifies something refers to or stands for something other than itself (Chandler: 1995). Our interpretation of signs is an unconscious process in our minds as we constantly relate the signs we experience to a system of conventions that is familiar to us.This system of conventions and the use of signs in general is what semiotics is about. There are three major models that give a detailed explanation of the constitution of a sign; these are the models of Ferdinand de Saussure s, Charles Sanders Peirce s and Karl Bühler s model. At first, they will be presented in detail and secondly, there will be a brief discussion about them.