SEMIOTIC ANALYSIS

mohamadnizar@manggala.ac.id
STIT Manggala, https://manggala.ac.id/penelitian-dan-pengabdian
Institut Teknologi Nasional, https://ejurnal.itenas.ac.id/index.php/index/index

A. Literature Study

1. Triangle of Meaning

Several approaches used in semiotic analysis include Peirce’s triangle meaning theory, which consists of three elements: sign, object, and interpretant. According to this theory, the “sign” is a symbolic representation, the “object” is the thing or entity referred to by the sign, and the “interpretant” is the understanding or image that appears in a person’s mind about the object referred to by the sign (see Figure 1). When these three elements interact, the meaning of a sign is formed (Fiske, 1990:42). In addition to Peirce’s theory, there is a similar theory proposed by Richards, called the semantic triangle. Richards states that the top of this triangle is “reference” or thought, which represents the recollection of a past reality in the present context.

The two other elements are “referent” and “symbol” (see Figure 2). The “referent” refers to the perceived object that creates an impression in memory, while the “symbol” refers to the words used to represent that referent or object. The choice of a particular symbol results from a selection among available symbols, influenced by sociological and psychological factors related to the object being symbolized (Qodari, et al., 2001:81). In Richards’ explanation of the semantic triangle and the roles of the elements “reference,” “referent,” and “symbol,” the apex of the triangle, which includes “reference,” represents the process of recalling memory or mental concepts associated with the object being referred to.

2. Labeling and Text Fracture

Regarding labeling issues, Peirce’s labeling theory¹ suggests that labels can have a significant impact, often risking misinterpretation that is difficult for the labeled party to avoid. Labeling is similar to euphemism²; however, the difference lies in using offensive terms for individuals, groups, or activities, whereas euphemism employs softer terms to replace those considered unappealing (Nimmo, 1993:108). In analyzing labeling, Corcoran also advises attention to aspects of print media³ coverage (Littlejohn, 1996:328-329). Additionally, semiotic analysis will employ the “text fracture” theory,⁴ which highlights symbols within texts to understand further meanings and interpretations. This approach can be described as a method of researching the symbolic meaning of communicated messages (Krippendorff, 1991:17). Symbolic meaning here is intended as the result of social action within a society. By observing signs within the text, we can discern the emotional and cognitive expressions of the text creator, including denotative, connotative, and mythological meanings (Qodari, et al., 2001).

This semiotic method does not focus on the process of message transmission but rather on the creation and exchange of meaning. The primary emphasis is on the interactions within the text that contribute to the production and interpretation of culture; this analysis highlights how communication reinforces and sustains the values that impart meaning to the conveyed message (Lyons, 1983)⁵. In the structuralist approach, it is assumed that a text functions as a combination of content and codes, while meaning arises from a system of relationships. In this context, newspaper documents are included as products of a relational system, much like other communication products such as speeches, which are produced within a system that shapes and imparts meaning to the text. The study of documents such as newspapers has its roots in early empirical research in sociology.

3. Saussure as a Pioneer and Barthes’ Two-Stage Theory of Signification

Saussure is considered a pioneer in semiotics, and his ideas are crucial because he viewed signs in the context of communication through the separation of the signifier and the signified ⁶(see Figure 3). These two elements are interrelated, representing the concept and the acoustic image. The signifier is the sound or written mark with meaning, while the signified is the mental image or concept of what is referred to by the signifier. The relationship between the physical existence of the sign and the mental concept is called signification⁷, which refers to the process of attributing meaning to the world (Van Dijk, 1985). The relationship between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary and determined by conventions, agreements, or rules within the culture of the speakers.

Barthes argued that all cultural objects can be understood textually through the analysis of signification, which not only examines the signifier and the signified but also the relationship that binds these signs into a coherent whole (Susilo, 2000:47). For Barthes, “text” is not limited to linguistic aspects; it encompasses signs that are encoded within a system, such as news, films, advertisements, fashion, fiction, poetry, and drama. Barthes employed a systematic model to analyze the meaning of signs, focusing on the concept of two orders of signification⁸, as shown in Figure 4.

---

Figure 3
Saussure’s Elements of Meaning

Figure 4
Barthes’ Two Orders of Signification

In the first order of signification, there is a relationship between the signifier and the signified within a sign that represents external reality. Barthes refers to this as denotation, which is the most fundamental and objective meaning of a sign. The second order, called connotation⁹, is an additional level of signification where the sign interacts with the reader’s emotions or feelings and their cultural values. Connotation is subjective or at least intersubjective. In this second order, the sign operates through myth. Myth is a part of culture that serves to explain or understand certain aspects of reality or natural phenomena and is a product of the dominant social class (Fiske, 1990:88)¹⁰.

4. The Role of Myth in Ideology

Studying myths can be an effective way to understand ideology, as myths serve as a medium for ideology to manifest (Susilo, 2000:24)¹¹. These myths then form a mythology, which plays a significant role in cultural unity¹² and can be identified in texts by analyzing the connotations contained within them (Van Zoest, 1991:70).

Ideology itself is an abstract concept, while mythology, as a collection of coherent myths, presents an interaction of meanings that flow within an ideological framework. To be understood, ideology must be realized in the form of a story, and that story is a myth. In media texts, which function as communicators, there is always a dominant ideology formed through the use of signs. This means that media texts carry broader and more complex interests. The differences in the tendencies of each media in conveying information to the audience can be seen from the layers or levels surrounding the media institution, namely the individual level, media routines, organization, extramedia, and ideological levels¹³.

B. Discussion

1. Comparison of the Approaches of Saussure, Peirce, Richard, and Barthes

The explanation regarding the main focus of Saussure’s and Peirce’s theories, which center their analysis on the structure of signs without considering the ideological or cultural context. Barthes developed this approach by incorporating cultural and ideological aspects into the process of signification. Saussure and Peirce focused their theories on the sign structure itself without directly integrating ideological or cultural contexts. However, Barthes integrated contextual and cultural aspects into the process of signification, thereby expanding Saussure’s theory by broadening the analysis of meaning into the cultural realm. Barthes used the concepts of denotation and connotation to describe the more complex layers of meaning within signs, adding cultural and ideological elements to the meaning-making process. This goes beyond Saussure’s basic, static model. Barthes considered connotation as a secondary layer, which was not explicitly addressed in Saussure’s theory.

Peirce, on the other hand, had a more complex approach by introducing three components of the sign: representamen (sign), object, and interpretant. His theory emphasizes a more dynamic interaction, with signs always involving a process of interpretation. Barthes also acknowledged subjectivity, particularly at the connotative level, where individual emotions and culture influence the interpretation of signs. Barthes linked this connotative meaning to ideology and myth. Peirce tends to focus on interpretation as part of a continuous semiotic process. Barthes, in contrast, connects connotation directly with ideological meaning, which is more focused on broader social and cultural contexts, not just at the individual interpretive level.

Richard developed the semantic triangle consisting of the symbol, referent, and reference (thought or concept), where the symbol (word) connects the mental concept with the object in reality. This theory, like Saussure’s, views the meaning of a symbol or sign as dependent on the concept agreed upon by language users. Richard tends to view meaning within the framework of the basic relationship between symbol and referent, while Barthes emphasizes the additional meaning (connotation) that emerges through cultural interaction. Barthes enriches Richard’s theory with layers of meaning that reflect the more complex cultural values and myths.

2. Integration of Semiotics with Cultural Studies

Barthes integrated semiotic theory with cultural studies and ideology, expanding Saussure’s and Richard’s sign theory into the realms of anthropology and sociology. This shows a difference in focus, where Barthes developed sign theory to analyze social and ideological constructions, while Saussure, Peirce, and Richard focused more on the structural aspects of signs. Regarding the relationship between denotation and connotation, there is no inconsistency in the understanding of denotation and connotation between Barthes and the other scholars discussed. Barthes introduced two stages of signification—denotation as the basic meaning and connotation as the extended meaning related to the culture and emotions of the reader.

This view aligns with interpretations in semiotics, which are generally accepted by other experts in the context of sign analysis. Barthes’ statement that myth is part of the second stage of signification is agreed upon by Fiske, who sees myth as part of the second layer of meaning in the signification process. However, Barthes emphasizes that myths are cultural and reflect social meaning systems in a more flexible form, while Fiske views myths more rigidly as tools for the dominant class to maintain ideological control in society. This can be seen as a slight difference in focus; Barthes emphasizes the interaction of meaning within a broader cultural context, whereas Fiske highlights the more rigid aspects of social and political influence.

3. Myth in the Process of Signification and Ideology

Regarding the role of ideology in signs and texts, Susilo mentions that myth can function as a means of conveying ideology, and Van Zoest reinforces this by explaining mythology as a cultural unity that plays an important role in maintaining the interaction between myth and culture. Meanwhile, Barthes links ideology with connotation in texts as a form of cultural encoding. These views are continuous, though Barthes’ approach is more focused on texts and systems of signs as representations of culture, while Van Zoest views myth within the framework of a structured mythology as a broader cultural unity. This indicates a slight difference in the scale of analysis but is not fundamentally contradictory.

Concerning the structure of ideology in media, the view that media contains layers of ideology—from individual to organizational and ideological levels—provides a structural perspective on the dissemination of ideology in media texts. Barthes emphasizes signs in a textual context, while this media analysis expands the perspective to the institutions that shape texts. There is no clear discontinuity, but it shows an expansion of focus from the semiotic approach to the field of media studies, which incorporates elements of media organizational structure in the formation of ideology.

Regarding the distinction between myth and ideology, it is noted that ideology is something abstract, while mythology as a series of myths is a way of conveying ideology in narrative form. This is a common consensus among experts like Barthes and Susilo that myth visualizes ideology. However, Barthes considers connotation as the layer that mediates between myth and ideology in texts, whereas Susilo views myth more as a medium for understanding ideology. This is a difference in approach but does not create a discontinuity in the overall understanding of the concept.

C. Conclusion

The primary discontinuity among these scholars lies in the expanded context of sign analysis. Saussure, Peirce, and Richard adopt a structural or process-oriented approach to signs, without delving deeply into the ideological or cultural context. In contrast, Barthes and Fiske add cultural and ideological dimensions, enriching semiotic analysis by considering how signs function in shaping and sustaining social values. This difference does not constitute a direct contradiction but rather represents an evolution of semiotic concepts toward a more contextual and interdisciplinary approach. Overall, there is no significant discontinuity among the scholars in this text. Most of the differences lie in focus or scale of analysis (for instance, Barthes being more textual and symbolic, and Fiske more structural and political), which enriches the perspectives without causing contradictions. All scholars generally agree that myth, connotation, and ideology play an essential role in the process of meaning-making in signs and texts.

---

Works Cited

Berger, Arthur Asa. 1982. Media Analysis Techniques. Sage Publication. Beverly Hills/London

Christians. et. al., 1977. Natural Law and Devine Law dalam The Philosophy of International Relation: A Study in the history of thought. F. Parkinson (ed.) Vol. 52. Sage Publications. Beverly Hills/London.

Derrida, Jacques. 1976. Of Grammatology. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Beltimore. London.

Djajasudarma, Fatimah T. 1993. Semantik 2: Pemahaman Ilmu Makna. Eresco Bandung.

Fiske, John. 1990. Introduction to Communication Studies. Second edition. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.

Gregory, Donna. U. 1989 dalam International/Intertekstual Relation, editied by James Der Derian and Michael J. Shapiro. Toronto. Canada.

Habermas, Jurgen. 1996. dalam Debatting the State of Philosophy edited by Jozef Niznik and John T. Sanders. The Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of the Polish Academy of Sciences.

Krippendorff, Klaus. 1991. Analisis Isi: Pengantar Teori dan Metodologi. Penerjemah Farid Wajidi. Jakarta. Rajawali Press.

Listiorini, Dina. 1999. Mengembangkan Ilmu Komunikasi melalui Semiotika. Dalam Abrar. et. al., (ed.). Membangun Ilmu Komunikasi dan Sosiologi. Yogyakarta. Universitas Atmajaya Yogyakarta.

Lyons, John. 1983. Semantics. University Press. Cambridge. Australia

Littlejohn, Stephen. W.  1996. Theories of Human Communication. Fifth edition. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Nimmo, Dan. 1993.  Komunikasi Politik: Komunikator, Pesan, dan Media. Penerjemah Tjun Surjaman. Bandung. Remaja Rosdakarya.

Susilo, Muhammad Edy. 2000. Pemberitaan  Pers Selama Masa Kampanye (Analisis Struktural Terhadap Surat Kabar Kompas dan Republika selama Kampanye Pemilu 1999). Tesis. Bandung. Program Pascasarjana Universitas Padjadjaran.

Van Dijk, Teun A. 1985. Handbook of Discourse Analysis Vol 4: Discourse Analysis in Society. Academic Press. Harcourt Brace Javanovich Publishers. Tokyo.

Van Zoest, Aart. 1996. Interpretasi dan Semiotika. Dalam Sujiman P. dan Aart van Zoest (ed.). Serba-serbi Semiotika. Jakarta. Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

1. The labeling theory is more commonly associated with sociologists such as Howard Becker rather than Charles Peirce. Peirce is better known in the context of semiotics with his concepts of the sign, object, and interpretant. When referring to labeling theory, it is more accurate to cite Becker’s perspective, which argues that labels can have a significant impact on societal perceptions and on the identity of the individual receiving the label. ↩︎
2. The statements regarding euphemism and labeling refer to the use of different terms to highlight the social effects of words. Nimmo’s (1993) view accurately explains that euphemisms are used to replace terms considered less appealing, thereby making the message more acceptable. ↩︎
3. The explanation of print media coverage analysis aligns with Corcoran and Littlejohn’s views on the influence of media in shaping public opinion. This perspective is relevant for understanding how labels applied by the media affect public perception. ↩︎
4. The “text fracture” theory and semiotic approach mentioned by Krippendorff, regarding symbols and meaning within texts, align with the semiotic method. This theory indeed aims to interpret the symbolic meaning of signs within a cultural context. ↩︎
5. The structuralist approach, outlined based on Lyons’ view of texts as the result of the relationship between content and code, aligns with structuralist thought in semiotics, which views meaning as the product of a system of relationships within a text. ↩︎
6. Saussure’s concept of the sign, which divides the elements of a sign into the signifier and the signified, aligns with his structuralist semiotic theory. Saussure asserts that the relationship between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary and determined by social conventions, making it relevant within specific cultural contexts. ↩︎
7. Van Dijk’s view of signification as a process of giving meaning to the world aligns with Saussure’s concept of signification. Van Dijk emphasizes that this process involves the relationship between the physical element of the sign and the mental concept it represents. ↩︎
8. Barthes developed the concept of two orders of signification, where he viewed texts as a broader system of signs beyond just language. Barthes’ analysis involves cultural signs in various forms, including media and art, enriching the interpretation of texts as cultural codes. This approach also distinguishes between denotative and connotative meanings produced in the second order of signification. ↩︎
9. The use of the concepts of denotation and connotation aligns with Barthes’ theory, where denotation is the basic or literal meaning of a sign, while connotation involves additional layers of meaning connected to the reader’s emotions, culture, and experiences. Barthes indeed emphasizes the importance of connotation in linking signs to a broader cultural context. ↩︎
10. The explanation of myth as a tool for understanding certain realities or phenomena aligns with Fiske’s view. Fiske describes myth as a cultural construct that supports the dominant social structure, with myth serving as a channel for ideological values. ↩︎
11. Susilo’s view that myth can serve as a tool for ideology is accurate. Myth allows ideology to be manifested in a more easily understood form, such as stories or narratives, and this analysis aligns with Barthes’ approach, which sees connotation as a medium for conveying ideological meaning. ↩︎
12. Van Zoest’s opinion regarding mythology as a cultural unity and a collection of interconnected myths aligns with Barthes’ concept of mythology. The analysis of connotation in texts is a way to trace the presence of myth in cultural discourse, which is generally accepted in semiotics. ↩︎
13. The view that media texts carry dominant ideologies through the use of signs is relevant in media studies. The perspective on the layers of media, from the individual to the ideological, provides a deeper understanding of how information is shaped and conveyed to the audience, while also reflecting a critical view of the structure and processes of the media. ↩︎