There are two dominant models of what constitutes a sign. Ferdinand de Sausser offers a dyadic model of a sign while Charles Sanders Pierce offers a triadic model of what constitutes a sign. Sausser argues that a sign is composed of a Signifier and a Signified. The signifier is a sound image (Lecture, Module 2), which can be interpreted as a material form and the signified is the psychological concept, how we perceive the material form. The sign as a whole therefore results from the association of the signifier to the signified.  However, Charles Sanders Pierce’s theory of sign differs from Sausser’s. His theory states that the signifying process consists of the representamen, object and interpretant. The representamen is similar to Sausser’s signifier, the form the sign takes. While the object is similar to the signified, which is what the sign stands for. However Pierce adds a third element, the Interpretant, which is the act of sense making, or the interpretation of a sign (Lecture, Module 2)

   Sausser’s theory is dependent on the notion of signs and their relationships to other signs while Pierce is more concerned about how individuals determine meaning for a sign. I agree more with Pierce’s theory because of its rationale. Sausser’s view confines a sign as something that is purposely conveyed

Comments are closed.