Form, communication, meaning

1 Meaning generation

As a consequence of the dominance of linguistics in Westerns Semiology, for many, many years, the main concern of researchers focused on the analysis and production of sense/signification/meaning. The insistence of several authors on the exclusive primacy of verbal language also played its part. Despite Charles Morris, Roman Jakobson, and Max Bense, it took decades for triadic thinking to present itself as a valid and practical alternative. Without pretending to establish an automatic consequence, we can suspect that the concept of Secondness proposed by Peirce was creating the need to consider the pragmatic aspect of verbal languages, and to finally acknowledge the visual languages their own agentive capacity (Acebal et al. 2014: 71–90).

I have to agree with Yu (2019: 429) that “Meaning generation, or meaning making as understood in a semiotic sense, reaches beyond the convenient distinction between the encoding versus the decoding of information.” Indeed, the dyadic sign system does not facilitate us to include the extralinguistic complexity of meaning construction operations in its anthropological, sociological, and psychological aspects.

In this article, starting from Jakobson’s (1960) model of communication and language functions, and from the logic-Peircean-based Semiotic Nonagon operative model (Guerri 1988, 2000, 2003, 2016 [2014], 2019), I will try to show how the triadic method allows having under scrutiny those absent variables.

2 Triadic thinking

Considering what is written as ut supra, the first question involves deciding with what logic to approach the problem of communication and meaning. For some complex reasons that we will not discuss here, there is a hidden and dismissed history of triadic thought in Western culture, and this insistent, forced denialism implies, we could say, a conceptual distortion, an ethical behavior, and a specific moral assessment not always necessarily related to semiotic reasons.

We can give some examples. The oldest I came to know of is that of Aristotle, who held that: “Not every problem, nor every thesis, should be examined, but only one which might puzzle one of those who need argument [Thirdness], not punishment [Secondness] or perception [Firstness]. For people who are puzzled to know whether one ought to honor the gods and love one’s parents or not need punishment […]” (350 BC: 1, 11; emphasis mine).

This is how, two thousand years after, the practice of argumentation is raised only at the level of moving and convincing, as Barthes (1993 [1970]) still maintained in his well-known seminar about Ancient Rhetoric, later published in Communications. Recently, Acebal (2016 [2014]: 97–113) proposed the emotion–impose–convince triad, developing the three forms – the nine aspects – and the ten figures of manipulation using Peircean logic through the Semiotic Nonagon and the diagram of the ten classes of signs.^[1]

A very close example is that of Ferdinand de Saussure, who proposes a dyadic sign but at the same time says: “The sound-image [signifier] is not the material sound, a purely physical thing, but the psychological imprint of the sound” (1956 [1915]: 66). Only 50 years later, Jacques Lacan proposes considering the bar as the material sound – Secondness – as mediator between signifier and signified. Although Peirce and Saussure were contemporaries, there is no record that they had met, otherwise, probably, the history of semiology would have been different.

On the other side, Peirce had his ideas clear in dismantling the Christian dogma, and the very beginning of his writings, subtly suggests: “In many respects this trinity agrees with the Christian trinity; indeed, I am not aware that there are any points of disagreement. […] I will not, however, carry this speculation any further, as it may be offensive to the prejudices of some who are present” (MS 359, 1866). On the other hand, I do not agree with the interpretation of Robinson (2010: 61), who maintains a triad like Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, apparently confusing Firstness with first. The Holy Spirit represents knowledge; the bishop’s slap in the face at confirmation is precisely intended to bring you the difficult wisdom. Therefore, knowledge is Form, Firstness, and on the other hand, the Father is obviously Value, Thirdness, which gives meaning to everything because of a necessity or law. Clearly the “existent manifestation” of the Son as Secondness is not disputed. Moreover, for the time being, Peirce’s crutch remains in force: “Symbols grow” (CP 2.302, 1895; 1.420 1896), and therefore: Holy Spirit, Son, Father in logical order.

3 The semiotic nonagon

By considering the concept of interrelations and interdependence of Trichotomies and Correlates, the semiotic nonagon (Table 1) is presented as an empty grid of three columns and three rows – a double-entry table – capable of showing the system of relations that semiotically supports works or objects, disciplines, theories, or concepts in the limits of our own knowledge. Thus, the semiotic nonagon acts in two senses: it provides a taxonomy – a phenomenological description of the object to be analyzed – and at the same time, it allows an approach from the internal cognitive processes that the grid itself shows as interdependent relationships.

Table 1:

Diagram of the semiotic nonagon with its nine aspects of the sign. In italics, the original terminology by Peirce (CP 2.243, 1897), and in roman, the terminology proposed by Magariños de Morentin (1983: 91, 1991: 195) to differentiate the practical application of the categories and subsigns in the semiotic nonagon from the original logico-philosophical proposal by Peirce. The arrow indicates the logical place of connection of the sign under analysis with its spatial and temporal Umwelt.

The semiotic nonagon, maintaining the central concepts of the Peircean sign theory, can be considered a “logical machine”^[2] or “a machine to think with” by operating a cut in the Gordian knot of the sign for a practical purpose. “In this way, semiotics provides an instrument of cognition that has the virtue of freezing as many cuts of the sign as the meaning requires. The semiotic nonagon shows and demonstrates. This powerful conjunction of two apparently foreign logics rests on the power of the diagrammatic icon that sustains the entire set of relationships” (Ledesma 2016: XXIV, trans. mine).

For Peirce, everything can be considered or analyzed as a sign: “All thought […] must necessarily be in signs” (CP 5.251, 1893); “There can be no question that anything is a sign” (CP 5.307, 1893); “All association is by signs” (CP 5.309, 1893). In the context of Peircean semiotics, this means the possibility of recognizing three constitutive aspects in every sign, as well as analyzing each of these aspects again as signs, that is, with three new sub-signs or aspects, and so on, “ ad infinitum ” (CP 2.92, 1902) [emphasis in the original].

Notwithstanding this, it is very clear to me that Peirce would never have drawn a grid – despite his predilection for diagrams – because the graphic closure could be contrary to his idea of continuity – synechism (CP 1.172, 1897; 6.102 1892) – of the signs. However, we could also recognize that it is amazing that – the father of logic-based semiotics – has never analyzed a simple or complex sign in relation to the nine aspects that he created. I believe that this fact leaves us hands free for a concrete proposal like the semiotic nonagon, since, finally, Peirce maintained that diagrammatic icons always improve reasoning and advance knowledge (CP 1.54, 1896; 1.383 1890; 2.778 1902).

4 Jakobson’s functions and communication model

One of the practical functions of the semiotic nonagon is to order and allow visualization of the logic of any discursively presented proposal. Without order and a logical coherence, the list of singularities has no beginning and no end and, eventually, only forces remembering it by heart.

Using the logic of Peircean categories, we can clearly place the message in the second Trichotomy (Table 2) insofar as it is a concrete materialization that takes place in a given present. The first Trichotomy can be assigned to the Addresser as the producer of the Form of the message in a Past prior to its production. Finally, the third Trichotomy will be the logical place of the Addressee as the receiver, in a logical Future, of the strategic Values of the message.

Table 2:

Semiotic nonagon developed from the proposal of Jakobson’s six language functions (1960: 357) and his proposed – and criticized – communication scheme (1960: 353).

On the other hand, the second Correlate is related to the messages of the Addresser’s emotive/expressive function (FE), to the message with referential function (EE), and to the message to the Addressee in conative/appellative function (VE). The phatic function is located both in the Addresser’s and in the Addressee’s Secondness of the FE and of the VE respectively, since that contact verification message can have the emphasis placed either on the Addresser or on the Addressee.

“Symbols grow,” and indeed the message must have its origin in a personal but also sociocultural need of the Addresser in relation to his contextual Past – FV – just as the VV contemplates the possible semiotic horizon of the Addressee for the purpose of achieving the comprehension of the message. Verbal Forms – as possibilities of meaning, FF – that the available languages do not provide cannot appear in culture nor can they perform in society – FV. But conversely, culture – Thirdness, FV – will not produce meaningful Forms – Firstness, FF – that are not a necessity for that culture. “Idiom-speakers are largely unconscious of the laws of language; and if they are unaware of them, how could they modify them? Even if they were aware of these laws, we may be sure that their awareness would seldom lead to criticism, for people are generally satisfied with the language they have received” (Saussure 1956 [1915]: 72).

Therefore, the diagram allows the visualization of the complexity that involves both the production – first Trichotomy – and reception – third Trichotomy – of a message to be staged. As can be seen, the problem is not limited only to the morpho-syntactic construction of the message related to coding, but includes the conscious and unconscious decisions of the Addresser and the Addressee with respect to their theoretical knowledge – first Correlate, FF and VF – and the political knowledge of both – third Correlate, VF and VV. “All our conceptions are obtained by abstractions and combinations of cognitions first occurring in judgments of experience [subsequently in the Past, in FV]” (CP 5.255, 1893, emphasis mine).

At the same time, we can verify that the relation message–meaning is not a simple notion, and we can share with Paul Cobley that:

[…] any event in the natural world that is observed by some entity that is other than that event will be deriving meaning from it and translating that meaning through the process of recognition, memory, categorization, mimicry, learning and communication. If the event observed is itself an event involving interpretation, then the matter becomes that much more complicated. (Cobley 2016: 88)

Incidentally, the diagram of the semiotic nonagon shows the enormous variety of design decisions involved in the morpho-syntactic construction of the message, both through the second Correlate and the first Trichotomy. Again, the arrows – in VE – mark the logical places from where it can be verified how effective the message may have been in the context of the Umwelt.

5 For an eclectic ending regarding meaning

Organizing a genuine triad – that is, a triad in which the three parts fulfill the function assigned to the categories by the Peircean logic – is not always an easy task. However, in the case of these three authors – Jacques Lacan, Louis Althusser, and Charles S. Peirce – the attempt seems to be very useful in trying to seize the logical complexities that the meaning generation possibilities have (Guerri 2016 [2014]: 63–66).

Every problem, concept, object, or fact always implies a cognitive complexity that is difficult to unravel and symbolize with any language. “Grounding meaning and even the inquiry of meaning on codes exclusively is not only overly simplistic, but also methodologically wrong” (Yu 2019: 430), and Paul Cobley adds that even if “meaning is required for the functioning of codes […] code is not responsible for meaning making but semiosis is” (216: 88, emphasis mine), and further he adds that “there is always the possibility of uncertainty or indeterminacy, a fact that distinguishes semiosis from code.”

In this sense, what is offered by this genuine triad Lacan–Althusser–Peirce are different ways of approaching the cognitive and performative complexity of meaning making. For this purpose, the semiotic nonagon (Table 3) allows us to present them in its logic relation, as well as organize and systematize these three modes of semiotic approach.

Table 3:

Diagram of the semiotic nonagon of the different levels of reasoning and meaning production possibilities (Guerri 2016 [2014]: 64). In this diagram, it can be seen how no discipline is independent, nor can it give all the answers. The three authors develop complementary fields, independent only at an analytical level. The diagonal difference–different–differentiation was proposed to me by Martin Krampen. The arrows show the relation of the SN with the inside in VV, with the Umwelt in VE, and the influence of the outside in VF.

Althusser (1996 [1965]: 186–197) proposes that we think any social phenomenon in terms of social practice – theoretical, economical, and political.^[3] In this way, Althusser accounts – in the second Trichotomy – for the different aspects in which the complexity of a sociocultural practice effectively manifests itself.

On the other hand, Lacan (1981 [1972–1973]: 113–114), as a psychoanalyst, researches the unconscious meaning-production possibilities from the records of the constitution of a subject, and proposes the triad: the imaginary, the real, and the symbolic.^[4]

Finally, Peirce, based on his proposal of the “normative sciences” – aesthetics, ethics, and logic (CP 1.573, 1902) – allows us to realize the relationship established by the social practices studied by Althusser with certain cultural strategies that will operate as interpretants, that is, as their evaluations.

Without going into the subtleties of psychoanalytic theory, we can accept as reasonable that the unconscious implies a relative general knowledge construction, and a real difficulty accessing it.^[5] Thus, the formal possibilities of organizing a specific discourse – in some social practice foreseen in the second trichotomy – depends centrally on the amount of conceptual information – possibilitant Forms – that the imaginary of the enunciating subject has. Basically, nothing can be said or thought that is not already available in the speaker’s imaginary – FF.

Consequently, the beginning of all reasoning corresponds to the column of a logical Past – first Trichotomy – since logically, it will always happen before any concrete practice – Present, second Trichotomy – or any aesthetic, ethical, or logical evaluation – Future, third Trichotomy. There cannot be any strategic thought or reasoning belonging to the third Trichotomy without the enabling and conditioning filter – FF – of the unconscious. Accordingly, the semiotic nonagon shows us that there is no possible logical reasoning – differentiation – without a concrete performance – different – that was not enabled “first” by the imaginary level of the unconscious – difference.

Through the semiotic nonagon it is possible to establish the different levels of possible reasoning and their interrelationships, either for a creative-theoretical instance, a practical-economic instance, or a strategic-political instance. As we have seen, it would seem that the three authors can take the place of the three trichotomies of the semiotic nonagon and thus sweep the spectrum of necessary and sufficient variables to be able to operate at the analytic or performative level.

With the Peircean logic of “symbols grow” we can follow the arrow sequence: 1) the diagonal arrow – in VV – organizes the internal coherence in the semiotic nonagon from a political strategy; 2) the arrow that looks outwards in ethics – in VE – will indicate the possible agentive capacity that EE’s action of the message may have in the Umwelt; and 3) the inward arrow – in VF – marks the eventual influence of a pre-existing aesthetic in the external context, regarding the possibility of “free” selection of forms in the unconscious of the speaking/writing subject.

Another fundamental concept for any researcher or designer is that which Lacan considers “the real” – which is not “reality” – since it can never be “fully” symbolized. The symbolic construction of the real represents just the margin of possibilities for successive interpretations or representations. The real comes as that which cannot be apprehended, to which it is impossible to allude with a symbolic formulation. Lacan says “if the real is defined by the impossible, it is situated at the stage where the registration of a symbolic articulation is defined as impossible to prove” (Seminar XVII, : 186, translation mine).^[6]

At the present, we could introduce an anecdote in the best Peircean style. John, a young boy, tells his friend Peter that he is very worried. The day before he had had a very ugly fight with his girlfriend. He had said something that had made her very angry, but he could not understand why, since he had explained “very clearly” the reasons why he had said what he had said. However, Peter quickly replies, “How could you say that to her?” and explains in detail to his friend the reasons why his girlfriend must have been offended. Understanding the explanation, John smacks his forehead and says, “How could I not think of that before!?” However, that was something logically impossible, for the simple fact that John did not have in his unconscious – and their unconscious did not mutually coincide – the available ways to avoid the entanglement. In John’s unconscious and in his cultural formation – both in FF and in FV of Table 2 – the organization and codification of the conceptual forms such as those possessed by his girlfriend – in VF and VV of Table 2 – were not available.

In this case, it can be verified that there was not a coding problem, since both handled the same verbal language. The disagreement is that John did not have – in FV – the necessary cultural formation to construct a Form – in FF, a difference – that would prevent him from confronting his girlfriend with a negative – VV – differentiation.

To conclude, we can say that “reality” – EE – will always be only that small portion of meaning that can be constructed with the “generally” limited field of forms available in the unconscious – FF – and in relation to the political needs – VV – of a given community and at a given time – FV. Although the cultural-historical context was the same for John and his girlfriend, the selection and appropriation of certain sociocultural values – from FV – by John are inevitably constructed from the inscrutable structure of the unconscious – FF. In other words, with the semiotic nonagon as a tool – as a logical machine – one can diagram the meaning of any qualitative inquiry as the interrelation of the nine logical aspects, in the limits of our own knowledge, as Peircean interpretants.