Linguistic sign theories

Seminar paper from the year 2005 in the subject English Language and Literature Studies - Linguistics University of Heidelberg 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.