Tuesday, 7 April 2026

Toward a Theory of the Semiotic — 1 Why a Semiotic System Cannot Be Defined by Signs

A semiotic system is commonly defined as:

  • a system of signs,
  • a means of communication,
  • or a structure for representing reality.

These definitions are not merely inadequate.

They are:

structurally circular.


1. The problem with “the sign”

To define the semiotic in terms of signs presupposes:

  • that something stands for something else,
  • that this relation is already in place,
  • and that the system consists in organising such relations.

But this leaves unanswered the only question that matters:

what must be true for anything to stand for anything at all?

The sign is not an explanation.

It is:

the phenomenon to be explained.


2. Representation as a derivative notion

Similarly, to define the semiotic as:

  • representation,
  • symbolisation,
  • or encoding of reality,

is to assume:

that meaning already exists and requires only expression.

But this simply relocates the problem.

Because:

  • what is being represented?
  • how does it exist as meaning prior to representation?
  • and how does representation differ from mere correlation?

Without answers to these:

representation explains nothing.


3. Communication is not foundational

The appeal to communication fares no better.

To say that a semiotic system:

  • transmits information,
  • enables interaction,
  • or coordinates participants,

is to describe what such a system can do

not what it is.

Because:

  • coordination exists without meaning,
  • interaction occurs without construal,
  • and information can be transferred without anything standing for anything.

Communication presupposes:

that something is communicated as something.

Which returns us to the same problem.


4. The missing primitive

All standard definitions fail in the same way.

They begin with:

  • signs,
  • symbols,
  • representations,
  • or communication,

each of which already assumes:

the existence of meaning.

What is missing is a true primitive.

Not:

  • a component within the system,

but:

the minimal condition under which the semiotic exists at all.


5. Construal as the primitive

That condition is:

construal.

Not:

  • a process applied to pre-existing content,
  • not an interpretation layered onto behaviour,

but:

the organisation by which something functions as something.

This is the first semiotic event.

Everything else:

  • sign,
  • symbol,
  • representation,

depends on it.


6. Why construal cannot be reduced

Construal cannot be derived from:

  • association,
  • correlation,
  • or causal relation.

Because none of these:

  • introduce substitution,
  • establish roles,
  • or bind an element to what it construes.

They operate within:

value.

Construal operates within:

the semiotic.


7. The immediate consequence

If construal is the primitive, then:

a semiotic system is not a system of signs.

It is:

a system in which construal is possible and organised.

Signs are:

  • outcomes,
  • stabilisations,
  • and recognisable forms within such a system.

They are not:

its basis.


8. Why a single construal is impossible

At this point, a further constraint emerges.

If construal is:

something functioning as something else,

then:

  • it must be distinguishable from other possible construals,
  • it must operate within a space of alternatives,
  • and it must be identifiable as a role.

This implies:

no construal can exist in isolation.


9. The necessity of system

From this, the necessity of system follows.

Not as:

  • an aggregation of elements,
  • nor as a structure imposed from outside,

but as:

the condition under which construal can exist at all.

Without:

  • contrast,
  • variation,
  • and relation,

there is:

no identity,
no selection,
no meaning.


10. System redefined

A semiotic system is therefore:

a structured potential for construal, organised as relations among alternatives.

This is not:

  • a collection of signs,
  • nor a repository of meanings,

but:

a space of possible construals.


11. The displacement of the sign

Within such a system:

  • signs are stabilised instances,
  • recurring configurations,
  • and recognisable realisations.

They are:

derivative.

To begin with them is to:

  • mistake product for condition,
  • and effect for cause.

12. The shift in focus

The consequence is immediate.

The study of the semiotic cannot begin with:

  • signs,
  • symbols,
  • or communication.

It must begin with:

the organisation of construal as system.

Everything else:

  • emerges within this organisation,
  • depends on it,
  • and cannot be used to explain it.

13. What follows

Once this is accepted, a new problem opens.

If a semiotic system is:

  • a structured potential for construal,
  • organised as relations among alternatives,

then:

what determines these relations?

What:

  • structures the space of possibilities,
  • organises contrasts,
  • and stabilises variation?

We can no longer appeal to:

  • value,
  • behaviour,
  • or external function.

The answer must lie:

within the organisation of the semiotic itself.

And that will be the next step.

No comments:

Post a Comment