Reclassification of Signs

1 Introduction

Ever since the time human beings first walked on the earth, they have invented and used signs to carry meanings for their better living and effective communication. Before the appearance of human language and its writing systems, every physical object around the primitives, such as rocks, turtle shells, rope knots, etc. were used as signs to record their activities, though they might carry meanings only in a practical sense. After the birth of human language and its writing systems, signs were eventually classified into linguistic signs and non-linguistic signs. Along with the development of intelligence and logic, linguistic signs were further categorized into oral signs and writing signs. Regardless of whatever type they belong to, signs have been invented and used as means to carry meanings. This process is by nature what Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) introduced as the sign process (semiosis), namely to describe a process that interprets signs as referring to their objects. In essence, a sign is the product arising from the referential meaning between the objects and sign inventers and users in their daily perceptions and communications. Hereby, without the carrying of meanings, there would be no signs in existence, so humans and their meanings are the essence of a sign as it is.

Previous semiotic studies have centered around linguistic signs, with the non-linguistic signs of gestures and other body languages at the periphery. However, in order to cover the full array of all sign activities and semiotic transformation in the broad sense, the sign family should not be limited to linguistic signs (i.e. human languages and their writing systems) and non-linguistic signs. Therefore, it is necessary to reclassify human signs based on their medium in order to better investigate the semiotic transformations in translation semiotics.

2 Classification of signs and its limits

The Dictionary of language and linguistics (Hartmann and Stork 1972/1981) includes the entries of ‘Sign’ (Chinese version, 1981: 315) and ‘Semiotics’ (1981: 311), with the former dividing human signs into oral and writing signs and the latter defining semiotics as a systematic study of linguistic and non-linguistic signs. Though both definitions mention linguistic signs, which are comparatively easier to understand, it was not elaborated what non-linguistic signs are and what they consist of. As an authoritative reference book, the Dictionary is the first of its sort to define sign classifications. As seen from a search for ‘linguistic sign’ as a Keyword on the CNKI (China’s National Knowledge Infrastructure) database dated August 4, 2017, journal articles in 1965 and 1966 already mentioned the classification of linguistic and non-linguistic signs. Since then, hundreds or even thousands of relevant articles involving this classification have appeared in the areas of cross-culture, semiotics, linguistics, etc.

Although there is comparatively rich literature (specifically 2,301 articles in China only) involving the distinction between linguistic and non-linguistic signs, little has mentioned non-linguistic signs in the area of translation studies. It is obvious that traditional translation studies has confined itself to the transformation between linguistic signs, which, in Jakobson’s terms, are further divided into intralingual and interlingual translations, taking almost no account of the semiotic transformations of cipher codes, sign language, and other signs at the periphery of the sign family. Viewed globally, the reason why translation researchers in China and the world at large mainly investigate the transformations between linguistic signs is simply that international translation studies has primarily focused on interlingual translation, which is limited to translation in the narrow sense. However, translation in the broad or narrow sense is by nature sign activity, specifically called semiosis. In this sense, translation in the broad sense should not confine itself to transformations between linguistic signs only, but should also cover transformations between linguistic and non-linguistic signs, as well as transformation(s) between signs in mental activities and signs in written texts. This is not included in the classification of linguistic and non-linguistic signs, but does exist in practical semiotic operations. Therefore, this essay seeks to develop, justify, and substantiate the reclassification of signs with reference to the medium of signs from the translation semiotics perspective.

3 Reclassification of signs

Before we move to reclassify human signs in terms of semiotic transformations, it is necessary to define what a sign and translation semiotics are respectively and to explain why there is the need to reclassify signs in an alternative way. Translation semiotics aims at the interpretative, transformative, and processual aspects of sign activity in order to:

examine the semiotic and textual associations arising from the communicative and informative contents in the semiotic transformation process, and the discursive practice (actually sign activity in Peircean sense), habits, proficiency, ideology, social needs and functions, translators’ intention and purpose, textuality (mainly intertextuality and paratextuality) in the ‘life forms (introduced by L. J. Wittgenstein)’ of human beings. (Jia 2016a: 96)

Therefore, a sign in the perspective of translation semiotics is a sign in its broad sense, which covers all that carries meaning in sign activity as semiosis. In this sense, translation as a sign activity must cover (1) transformations between different stylistic, genre, and spatio-temporal aspects within the same ethnic sign system; (2) transformations between different stylistic and genre aspects in the same time and space, and/or between the same stylistic and genre aspects across a different time and space, and, of course, across different ethnic systems; (3) transformations from a conventional sign text into a multimedial and multimodal synthetical text, not only merging sound, musical, theatrical, filmic, gestural effects into a coherent whole but playing or to be played anywhere at any time; and (4) transformations from signs in mental activities to those in written texts, or vice versa. All those mentioned above cannot be included and treated enough in the triadic divisions of intralingual, interlingual, and intersemiotic translations introduced by Roman Jakobson (1896–1982) in 1959 (cf. Jia 2016a, Jia 2016b, Jia 2016c, Jia 2017), which makes it necessary to reclassify signs with reference to the media in which a sign exists and functions in terms of translation semiotics.

Usually signs exist in physical forms, in the meaning they carry, and in the media carrying the signs themselves. However not all signs are visible and tangible. There are also signs in mental activities that are not visible and tangible, though they are as perceptible as the other signs are. If not uttered or written down, they can only be felt and perceived by the thinker or the user him-/herself. The tangibility of a sign is similar to the idea that cultural heritages are divided by the UNESCO into tangible cultural heritage and intangible cultural heritage (cf. Wang 2010:2–12). Accordingly, judged by whether they are presented in physical and tangible forms as cultural heritage is, signs can be divided into tangible and intangible types.

The distinction between tangible signs and intangible ones lies in whether the medium is tangible or intangible. Signs presented in physical and tangible forms are tangible signs while those that are presented in non-physical and intangible forms in mental activities are intangible signs. The tangible signs presented in outer physical forms (such as on paper, on air, by human actions) are visible, tangible, and perceptible in sign activities, including linguistic and non-linguistic sign mentioned above. The linguistic signs here are verbal signs in human communication, excluding the signs (not presented in linguistic and physical forms) in mental activities, while non-linguistic signs are non-verbal signs (such as color, gesture, light, music, sound), helping the users better express their communicative meaning. Usually, verbal signs are dominant in human communication, with non-verbal signs as their supplementary means. Under normal circumstances in China, sign languages for the blind and deaf are not included in the categories of verbal and non-verbal signs, because sign languages are designed as communicative symbols peculiar to the population with special needs, and are presented in body movements and actions to express their meanings. To be specific, sign languages, though used as an effective means for the blind and deaf to express their meanings, are by nature arbitrarily constructed languages, a special sign system to present the relations between sign, object, and interpretant. In this sense, sign languages also belong to human signs, though at the periphery of the linguistic sign family. Meanwhile, the sign language system also has its non-linguistic signs, but as this is not the focus of this article, there is no further elaboration here. Because intangible signs exist independently of outer physical media, and lie in the inner physical media (or neurons) in charge of language and mental activities in the human brain, they only live and are active in the thinkers’ brain during sign activities or mental activities, so they are invisible and intangible to outsiders. Although they are, by nature, also a kind of linguistic sign, they are different from ordinary linguistic signs in that they only exist in mental activities, especially when the sign users are thinking, analyzing, speculating, planning, designing, etc. (cf. Jia 2016a:97).

Based on the data on “tangible sign” as a Keyword in CNKI (dated August 5, 2017), the three articles available are sufficient to show: (1) “tangible signs” as a term in contrast to “intangible signs” has been established in Chinese literature, since Xu (2012), Yu (2012), and Qu (2014) have dealt with tangible signs from the perspectives of sound training, the functions of signs in local drama, and sound communication for the blind respectively; (2) the existence and application of tangible signs semantically implies that the concept and category of intangible signs exists.

Furthermore, the relevant literature in China and the world at large shows that previous philosophers and semioticians have always sporadically talked about or implied the existence of such a type of signs. For instance, American semiotician Charles Sanders Peirce (1931: 521) elaborated this idea in the horticultural metaphor going in this way: “Very wretched is the notion of the categories that can be conveyed in one lecture. They must grow in the mind, under the hot sunshine of hard thought; and you must have patience, for a long time is required to ripen the fruit.”Although Peirce aimed to discuss the process of concept growth in mind, he had, in reality, touched on the birth and growth of intangible signs.

Another example is cited from the 1980 novel by Italian semiotician Umberto Eco (1932–2016), The name of the rose (1986: 188):

The print does not always take the same shape as the body that impresses it, and it doesn’t always derive from the pressure of a body. At times it reproduces the impression a body has left in our mind: it is the print of an idea. The idea is a sign of things, and the image is sign of the idea, sign of a sign. But from the image I reconstruct, if not the body, the idea that others had of it.

Here, Eco is talking about the struggle between Christianity and royal power, the aristocrats and the plebeians, belief and reason, but involving the relations between thought (idea) and signs and stressing that “The idea is a sign of things.” In other words, the idea is an intangible sign arising from sign activities in mind.

Peirce happened to mention the growth and activities of intangible signs in the human mind, while Eco concretely elaborated the fact of the idea being a sign in the mind, though he did not place it in opposition to tangible signs or classify them accordingly. In spite of this, the ideas introduced by the two semioticians can serve as important evidence for the classification into tangible and intangible signs. The discussion on the classification in terms of semiotic transformation as one aspect of sign activity in translation semiotics must sooner or later involve transformations between the two types of signs.

4 Transformations in translation semiotics

As for semiotic transformations, previous researchers in the fields of semiotics and translation studies focused on transformations and translations between linguistic signs or between linguistic and non-linguistic signs (cf. Nida 1993, Gorlée 1994, Sui 1994, Chen 1996, Jiang 2003, Huang 2015). They all considered the term “translation” in the narrow sense, only taking into account intralingual translation and interlingual translation but ignoring transformations from ideas, thoughts, and concepts into written signs or into sign languages and gestures, so these models might not be able to comprehensively examine translation in an effective and efficient way. Therefore, in order to address the problem, we can take the intellectual impetus for textual transformations in a general sense from modern semiotics, and even applied semiotics in China (cf. Wang 2015, Wang 2016, Jia 2016a, Jia 2016b, Jia 2016c, Jia 2016d, Jia 2017, etc.), establishing translation semiotics as an emerging branch of general semiotics, and examining translation in the broad sense as a general semiotic transformation from the perspective of semiosis. It is necessary to make a scientific, logical and systematic study of translation broadly as sign activity and semiosis grounded on the new classification of tangible and intangible signs. As for transformations between tangible and intangible signs, Jia (2016a, 2016b, 2016c, 2016d, 2017) has provided a series of discussions, but this could be further developed in order to elaborate semiotic transformations from tangible signs into tangible ones, from tangible signs into intangible ones, and from intangible signs into tangible ones.

The transformation from tangible signs into tangible ones has remained a key topic of current translation studies so far in China, and even in the world at large. However, most translation researchers only focus on translators as agents manipulating the semiotic transformations, the transformations between tangible signs and their related activities, and the internal and external topics relevant to tangible sign activities. Meanwhile, they neglect the important aspect of sign users recognizing and interpreting the information the signs carry and transmit, which can be seen in “interpretation as translation” (Steiner 1975), “dialogue as translation” (Landa 1995), “rewriting as translation” (Lefevére 2005), etc. Although they proceed from the examination of interlingual translation from different angles, they all perceive translation in the broad sense. Furthermore, these scholars do not pay attention to abstraction and summarizing in the reading and interpretation of a sign text, and transformations into sign languages and gestures from what the sign users see and hear in their daily communication. As tangible signs include linguistic and non-linguistic signs, transformations between tangible signs should also include transformations between linguistic signs and between linguistic and non-linguistic signs.

Usually, transformations between tangible signs can be categorized according to following five types. Firstly, there are transformations between linguistic signs, including (1) transformations between different stylistic texts through time within the same ethnic language, such as modern Chinese versions of Tang Poems, present-day English versions of Shakespeare’s dramas, semiotic transformations from a novel into a script or comic (or cartoon texts) for children, etc.; (2) transformations between texts of the same or different style and genre through time or at the same time across languages, such as translation from Putonghua (or Mandarin) into a Chinese ethnic language, from Chinese into English, from a Chinese novel into an English script, or the writing of an English summary based on the reading of a Chinese book.

Secondly, there are transformations from linguistic signs into non-linguistic ones, including (1) semiotic transformations within the same ethnic language, including transformations from the textual information the signs carry and transmit into body language and behavior (such as stimulus–response cases in structural linguistics), from oral or written commands into flag signals or Morse code, from oral or written news reports into sign language, etc.; (2) semiotic transformations between or across different ethnic languages, including Chinese translators transforming English textual information into body language or gestures, foreign translators transforming Chinese poetic textual information into music, opera, or theatrical texts, etc.

Thirdly, there are semiotic transformations from non-linguistic signs into linguistic ones involving transformations within the same ethnic language system, such as transforming traffic signals into oral instructions, transferring stage performance to verbal expressions, translating facial expressions into utterances of some sort, etc.

Fourthly, there are semiotic transformations from linguistic signs into a synthetical text consisting of linguistic and non-linguistic signs which mainly concern transformations within the same ethnic language system, as is the case of transforming a script derived from a novel written in a particular ethnic language into a synthetical, repeatedly played text in the same language combining sound, light, setting, clothing, color, subtitles, and other stage aspects into a whole, which may be illustrated by the semiotic metacreation and recreation of the novel Red Sorhgum and its drama and film scripts in Pan (2016).

Finally, there are transformations from non-linguistic signs into synthetical texts consisting of linguistic and non-linguistic signs which are related to transformations within the same ethnic language system, as in the case of a Taiqi Boxing (or Tai Chi) performance being transformed into a text combining verbal instructions with performance teaching, which is very common in dancing teaching and practice, and the best-known case of which may be square dance by Chinese senior woman dancers everywhere.

Although transformations from tangible signs into intangible ones are prevalent in human communications or sign activities, they have been paid little attention. Since tangible signs consist of linguistic signs and non-linguistic ones, transformations from tangible signs into intangible ones can be subdivided in the following three ways, namely linguistic signs (of tangible signs) being transformed into intangible ones, non-linguistic signs being transformed into intangible ones, and a synthetical sign text consisting of linguistic and non-linguistic signs being transformed into intangible ones. Firstly, transformations from linguistic signs of tangible signs into intangible ones are frequently presented in the invisible and intangible signs used for thinking, speculation, and conception arising from the sign activities in the text of signed sounds and/or letter symbols, with the striking example of Peirce’s aforementioned sign growth and its activities being reflected as horticultural and metaphorical ideas and concepts in his mind. Secondly, transformations from non-linguistic signs (of tangible signs) into intangible ones refers to the transfer from non-linguistic, visible signs to linguistic or non-linguistic, invisible ones in the human mind, of which the best-known cases are Morse code being transferred into the invisible and intangible signs used for brain computing operations and its relevant activities in the decoding process, a given traffic signal being transferred into signs for making driving decisions, a street brawl being transferred into signs for thinking about social mores and ethics, or sign languages being transferred into signs for semantic operation and recognition in the interpretation process. Thirdly, transformations from a synthetical sign text consisting of linguistic and non-linguistic signs into intangible ones are characterized by the invisible and intangible signs derived from a synthetical sign text, as is the case with the libretto as linguistic signs and dancing, lighting, and other stage settings as non-linguistic signs. To illustrate this case, my personal experience was the occasion of watching a ladyboy performance in Thailand in March, 2016. On that occasion, the stage performance related to historical events in ancient China and the effect achieved on its audience reminded me of the Spring Festival Gala that year.

As is the case of transformations from tangible signs into intangible ones, transformations from intangible signs into tangible ones are also prevalent in our daily communication, and this still remains one of the most important means for people to convey their ideas and feelings, but it has also been ignored for a very long time. In ancient times, the primitives used shell, small stones, and other things to record what they wanted to remember and to express their ideas and feelings. In this sense, they touched on the transformation from intangible signs to tangible ones.

Furthermore, transformations from intangible signs into tangible ones come with transformations from intangible signs into linguistic signs (of tangible class), into non-linguistic signs, and into a synthetical sign text consisting of linguistic and non-linguistic signs. Firstly, transformations from intangible signs into linguistic signs of tangible class are primarily transformation of the signs for thinking, speculation, and conception in the brain into letter symbols or words, or transformation of the signs for story plot construction into a sign text, as is the case of the translation from plot construction into a sign text for A Dream in Red Mansions.

Secondly, transformations from intangible signs into non-linguistic ones can be illustrated by the transformation from ideas and/or conceptions into body movements and stage performance. When a director reads a given script, all kinds of stage performance designs will occur to him, followed by the practical stage setting arrangements of lighting, color, clothing, sound, actors’ behavior, and other related things.

Finally, with the advance of computer technology and related technical skills, sign activity in the present-day world is also pushed into a complicated situation which involves transformations from intangible signs into a synthetical multimedia and multimodal text consisting of tangible signs. For instance, after a director reads a particular script, a given conception of stage performance will occur in his/her mind, followed by the practical setting arrangements of lighting, color, clothing, sound, libretto, actors’ behavior, etc., recording and filming with cameras for repeated play, post production and processing, and the configuring of a Chinese or Chinese-minority ethnic language and/or English subtitles. In this process, transformation of this sort constitutes a synthetical virtual multimedial and multimodal text consisting of tangible signs, supported by modern synthesis technology for repeated filmic and theatrical play.

In summary, signs can be divided into tangible signs (including linguistic and non-linguistic signs) and intangible ones according to the properties of in/visibility and in/tangibility in sign activities. And the configuration and interaction between the tangible and intangible signs brings about three types of translation, namely translation (transformation) between tangible signs, translation from tangible signs into intangible ones, and translation from intangible signs into tangible ones, of which translation from linguistic signs as the core family member of tangible signs has been considered the focus of traditional translation studies, with two variations of Jakobson’s intralingual and interlingual translation included. Whereas transformations from linguistic signs and/or non-linguistic signs of the tangible class into intangible signs, and those from intangible signs into linguistic and/or non-linguistic ones exist in all aspects of sign activity in human life, traditional translation researchers and semioticians have attached little importance to them until now.

However, besides the conventional types of translation, both the aforementioned transformations as the objects of sign activity and semiosis have become indispensable objects of translation semiotics. The reason for this is that all that involves semiosis and interpretation is what translation semiotics focuses on, not only the one aspect of transformations from tangible signs into tangible ones. Though transformations from tangible signs into intangible ones, and those from intangible signs into tangible ones feature in/explicitness, in/visibility, and in/tangibility, they are precisely the important objects of translation semiotics, as they both involve semiosis and interpretation just as transformations between tangible signs do.

5 Conclusion

Previous semiotics and studies relevant to it focused on human language and its writing system as the only core member of the sign family, following the division of signs into linguistic and non-linguistic signs. Starting with the insufficiency of the division applied in the study of translation in the broad sense, this article re-examines the symbolic classification from the perspective of the physical property of the media and space in which signs carry and transmit meanings. Specifically, the signs existing, growing, and carrying meanings in outer physical media, with the features of explicitness, visibility, and tangibility, are tangible signs, including linguistic signs and non-linguistic signs. And those existing in the inner, cerebral nervous system and carrying meanings in the process of thinking, speculation, conception, etc. with the features of inexplicitness, invisibility, and intangibility, though by nature of their function belonging to linguistic signs, are different from the linguistic signs of tangible class in the state and pattern of their existing, living, and growing, even carrying meanings in sign activity.

In the perspective of translation semiotics, sign activities or semiosis include three types of transformations, namely transformations between tangible signs, those from tangible signs into intangible ones, and those from intangible signs into tangible ones. Of these, transformations from tangible signs into tangible ones include transformations between linguistic signs, from linguistic signs into non-linguistic ones, from non-linguistic signs into linguistic ones, from linguistic signs into a synthetical sign text consisting of linguistic and non-linguistic signs, and from non-linguistic signs into a synthetical sign text consisting of linguistic and non-linguistic signs; transformations from tangible signs into intangible ones are related to transformations from linguistic signs into the signs for thinking activities in the mind, those from non-linguistic signs into signs for mental activities, and those from a synthetical sign text consisting of linguistic and non-linguistic signs into signs for mental operation; transformations from intangible signs into tangible ones mainly concern transformations from signs for thinking into linguistic signs, non-linguistic signs, and a synthetical sign text consisting of linguistic and non-linguistic signs, the latter being a synthetical virtual multimedia and multimodal sign text for repeated play on screen.

In conclusion, the classification of and transformations between tangible and intangible signs can serve as the theoretical foundation for semiosis, and the category of sign activity and classification from the perspective of translation semiotics. In terms of its significance, such a classification of signs can not only enrich semiotic theories of sign types, human communication, and sign-text interpretation, but also inspire new research on translation types, the translation process, translators’ thinking systems and psychology (including black box and glassy essence of translation), and the mechanism of machine translation. Meanwhile this research can also promote the development of applied semiotics in the long run.