The Semiotic System of Language

33

2.1 The Semiotic System of Language

Semiotics is defined as ‘the academic study of language and other signs to their meanings’ Sinclair 2001:1408. In the semiotic system of language, the relationship between the content and the expression of a sign is really arbitrary. In this respect, Eggins 1994:201-201 describes that there are two kinds of relations between linguistic signs or axes, namely syntagmatic axis which captures the relations of sequence or chain relations between signs and paradigmatic axis, which captures the relations of opposition or choice between signs. To illustrate, a conventionalized phrase ‘Sugeng rawuh, para tamu kakung saha putri Welcome, ladies and gentlemen can be labeled syntagmatically as; Sugeng—Rawuh—Para— Tamu—Kakung—Saha—Putri It is arbitrary and thus based on convention that ‘Sugeng’ is followed by Rawuh, which is followed by Para, followed by Tamu, followed by Kakung and finally followed by Putri. Thus the syntagmatic relations are ‘relations along the axis of chain by which signs can go together in sequence or structure. In other words, the relationship between one sign and the signs that go before and after it is ruled out in the syntax of Javanese. Meanwhile, different paradigms may be expressed using the same syntagmatic construction, such as Sugeng rawuh , para tamu kakung saha putri Welcome, gentlemen and ladies Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, Sugeng enjang , para tamu kakung saha putri Good morning, gentlemen and ladies 34 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, Sugeng sonten , para tamu kakung saha putri Good afternoon, gentlemen and ladies Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, Sugeng ndalu , para tamu kakung saha putri Good evening, gentlemen and ladies Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, In this respect, the relationship between rawuh and each of the other words is a matter of choice in order to be able to express different meanings. Thus, paradigmatic relations are the relations by which signs stand in opposition along the axis of choice. It is the knowledge of pragmatics that can determine which lexical item is selected to fit an intended meaning. In short, semiotics involves three fields of study, namely syntax how words are arranged in correct syntagmatic relationship, pragmatics how choice of lexical items fit the intended meaning and semantics the study of meaning itself. To further put language in its social context, Halliday 1978 views language as social semiotic in which it is theoretically divided into three parts, two of which are relevant to the study. They are 1 elements of a sociosemiotic theory of language, which include text, situation, register, code, the linguistic system, and social structure. 2 sociolinguistic view of semantics which highlights the semantics of situation types, structure of the situation, and sociosemantics of language development. The third part is towards a general sociolinguistic theory which is somehow beyond the study. 35 With respect to the elements of a sociosemiotic theory of language, text is the central since, as ‘the instances of linguistic interaction in which people actually engage: whatever is said or written in an operational context’, it represents choice of what is meant, or the actualized meaning potential, which is in sociolinguistic terms characterized by a particular type of situation or social context Halliday 1978:108-109. Meanwhile, situation as the second element, to be specific context of situation, is very significant in the text or meaning potential that creates social contexts represented in field, tenor and mode. From this point, register as the third element presents its role in the meaning potential. Register, which is defined as ‘the configuration of semantic resources that the member of a culture typically associates with a situation type’ Halliday 1978:109. It, therefore, contributes meaning potential in a given social context. For example, when a Javanese master of ceremony Pranatacara in a wedding reception describes a bridegroom as a ‘one-day-king’, it does not necessarily imply a king who governs a country for only one day. Rather, it has a particular meaning embodying the characteristic of a bridegroom who becomes the central attention in a given social context—that of a wedding reception. However, the choice of such meaning potential is very much determined by the third element, namely the code. In other words, the code is actualized in language through the register since it foregrounds the semantic orientation of speakers in particular social contexts. Thus, codes are beyond language system; they are types of symbolic orders of meaning generated by the social system Halliday 1978:109. The code, in order to function, must be incorporated with the linguistic system the fourth element, especially with the language metafunctions, namely ideational, interpersonal and textual. With respect to the ideational function, it is argued that, 36 The ideational function represents the speaker’s meaning potential as an observer. It is the content function of language, language as ‘about something’. This is the component through which the language encodes the cultural experience, and the speaker encodes his own individual experience as a member of the culture Halliday 1978:112. The above quotation mentions something about experience as the content function of language, that is what is talked about. It is what functionalists refer to as the field. Therefore, the ideational function will yield ideational meanings or sometimes referred to as experiential meanings. Meanwhile, Halliday elaborates the interpersonal function of language as follows. The interpersonal component represents the speaker’s meaning potential as an intruder. It is the participatory function of language, language as doing something. This is the component through which the speaker intrudes himself into the context of situation, both expressing his own attitudes and judgement and seeking to influence the attitudes and behaviours of others Halliday 1978:112. The interpersonal function of language, as stated above, indicates how the speaker and hearer or the writer and the readers are related through the use of language. The interpersonal meanings that come into existence as a result of interactions are what the study focuses on, even though the other two language functions ideational and textual cannot be entirely left out or ignored. Finally, dealing with the textual function of language, Halliday points out that it ‘represents the speaker’s text forming potential; it is that which makes language relevant Halliday 1978:112. In other words, it is the mode of language. In this respect, text can therefore be either ‘written’ or ‘spoken’. These two types of text can be put into the 37 experiential distance continuum by which spoken text is characterized as language companying social process or language as action; while written text is characterized as language constituting social process or language as a reflection Eggins 1994:54. Furthermore, the fifth or last element of sociosemiotic theory of language is of a social structure. The social structure incorporated into the interpersonal function of language creates the norms of speech or as functionalists refer to as the tenor of language. It rules out how attitudes towards the use of language differ from one individual to another Halliday 1978:114. Secondly, with respect to the sociolinguistic view of semantics, I will not itemize as previously mentioned. Rather, I will just highlight that, as stated by Halliday 1978:116 that ‘There is thus a systematic correspondence between the semiotic structure of the situation types and the functional organization of the semantic system’ that can be outlined in as follows. 1 ideational systems are activated by features of field 2 interpersonal systems are activated by features of tenor 3 textual systems are activated by features of mode Halliday’s view on social semiotic theory of language will be further elaborated in 2.9 on the outline of Systemic Functional Linguistics. It should be noted that semiotics can be further dealt with in terms of broader philosophical perspective called ‘rhetoric’ which I will describe below.

2.2 Rhetoric