Tourist sights as semiotic signs: a critical commentary
Raymond W . K . Lau
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Abstract
AI
AI
The paper critiques MacCannell's sight-as-sign concept in tourism studies, arguing for a re-evaluation that reconciles it with his essentialist notion of authenticity. It engages with the semiotic theories of Peirce and Saussure to differentiate between signs and markers, emphasizing that tourist sights can function both as signs and as objects of significant intrinsic value. The authors propose that while certain tourist attractions may exemplify the sight-as-sign concept, many others possess inherent qualities that attract tourists independently of their informational markers.
Related papers
Tourism sites as semiotic signs: A critique
In a recent research note Raymond Lau (2011) calls attention to a trend in tourism theory-tourism sites as semiotic signs-and in so doing returns to MacCannell's original formulation in an effort to link the concepts of site-as-sign, authenticity, and pilgrimage. Lau makes two points. First, he argues that the idea of sites as signs is anti-essentialist, while authenticity and pilgrimage are essentialist concepts. Second, he contends there exists a flaw in MacCannell's site-as-sign concept, in which the signifier and the signified are confused. To correct this latter point, Lau argues that, contra MacCannell, the signifier is the site itself, and not the marker of the site and the signified is what we as a society have come to make of it (and thus we make a pilgrimage to it). Having clarified MacCannell's concept of site-as-sign using Saussurian semiotics, Lau fails to recognize that MacCannell's original formulation actually engaged Peircean semiotics. To address his first point, the author identifies an essentialist element to sites-as-signs, which he argues makes it complementary to an essentialist authenticity. This strict re-working of MacCannell's site-as-sign, authenticity, and therefore pilgrimage, may provide a consistent essentialist theoretical framework, but this framework will not work generally, particularly given the new developments toward understanding tourism as a performance.
Signs in Society: Studies in Semiotic Anthropology
Language, 1996
Signs in Society brings together a number of papers, articles, and chapters that were presented or published between 1985 and 1992. Eight chapters follow a loosely sequential order according to four general themes: (1) Peircean semiotics, (2) semiotic ethnography, (3) comparative semiotics, and (4) social theory. Transitions from one chapter or section to another are at times a little abrupt, leaving the reader to search for interrelations between theory, method, and substance. Nevertheless, the overall organization into four thematic sections is generally successful as a way of entering into different levels of developing and applying Peirce's theory of signs to studies of language, culture, and society.
Article ID: IJCIET_10_02_063 Lianto, the Meaning of Means: Semiology in Architecture Case Study: Villa Savoye
As a sign system, architecture could be analyzed the way we examine a work of literature. While group of words arranged syntagmatic could establish an integrated meaning, elements in a building are systematically configured to form a meaningful work of architecture. Analogous to words, those architectural elements are symbols representing meaning which serves as a foundation for an architectural object. Therefore, as a system of signs, architecture serves as a medium which communicates relevant and contextual meaning. Occasionally, architects overlook meaning which lives among the cultural context of the society, or even worse, they neglect the meaning possessed by signs built in an architectural work. More or less, buildings subsequently turn into meaningless signs. With the semiology approach of Saussure and Jencks, we could decipher the formation of meaning possessed by architectural objects from various standpoints, both denotative and connotative, and through the lens of architect and user. Thus, we may understand architectural work as a whole, even to its most fundamental meaning.
Related topics
Related papers
Semiotics and Semiology: From Sign to Semiosis and From Code to Discourse
2021
I originally wrote this document in French as a supplement to an academic course I taught in the first semester of the academic year 2020 - 2021. The main goal was to lead students to see the link between semiotics, semiology, and linguistics, as well as some of their main terms and how they evolved over time. While semiology is stable, semiotics is presented in different forms: Briefly under philosophy to highlight how ancient it is, and as a generality to spark curiosity and encourage students to learn more about the topic, then according to the first account of C.S Peirce with an eye toward the three types of signs and some ideas that were ahead of their times in his era, and later as an art after it was a science as an introduction to some of the post-structural ideas which will be needed thereafter to understand the raison d’être of fields that fall into it. This course is more suitable for license students following an LMD course and its equivalent in the anglosphere, bachelor’s degree.
Semiotics and Semiosics:the Terminological Connotations and Conceptual Relations
2020
The exploration of relations between semiotics and semiosics is a very new scope from terminological connotation and conceptual relation involving sign, its object, interepretant, “the action of signs” (semiosis).This article is to card the definitions of the terms in semiotics so as to clarify the relations of semiotics, semiosis, semiosic, and semiosics from the perspectives of term connotation and conception relations. On the foundation of analysis the definition and connotation of semiotics and semiosis given by Charles Sanders Peirce and Charles Morris, the author discovered that semiosics is indeed a part of semiotics in terms of Morris’s three dimensions of semiotics, which is the products of trajectories of sign action. The distinction and the correlated relation between semiotics and semiosics are, therefore, drawn a conclusion as semiosis includes the three aspects of semiosic and semiotic properties, semiosic activities and its products, and semiosic products. Semiotics, ...
Sign vehicles for semiotic travels: Two new handbooks
Semiotica, 2002
Re-thinking Semiotics: a New Categorization of a Sign?
RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics
The study discusses the fundamental issues of semiotics. Semiotics still involves no broadly agreed upon theoretical assumptions, models, or empirical methodologies. Faced with much disagreement among notable semioticians about what semiotics actually entails, the study opens up the way to its theoretical re-thinking. Starting from the analysis of the discussions of scientists it indicated that the signs are not identical to what they represent this studies the issue through a theoretical concepts analysis, literature review, combined with comparative analysis of the main classical theoretical parameters of signs. The basic approach of this study is that signs, whether it is symbolic, iconic, or indexical, are not what they mean. The nature of the sign, whether it is symbolic, iconic, or indexical, determines the way it is used, and the same signifier can be used in different ways in different contexts. The role of an interpreter should be taken into account. A sign meaning is not i...
“On ‘Semiotics’ as Naming the Doctrine of Signs”
This article traces the comparative fortunes of the terms 'semiology' and 'semiotics,' with the associated expressions 'science of signs' and 'doctrine of signs,' from their original appearance in English dictionaries in the 1800s through their adoption in the 1900s as focal points in discussions of signs that flourished after pioneering writings by Charles Sanders Peirce and Ferdinand de Saussure. The greater popularity of 'semiology' by midcentury was compromised by Thomas Sebeok's seminal proposal of signs at work among all animals, and Umberto Eco's work marked a 'tipping point' where the understanding associated with 'semiotics' came to prevail over the glottocentrism associated with 'semiology.'
Book Review: The Semiotics of Heritage Tourism
Papers from the Institute of Archaeology
Signs and values: For a critique of cognitive semiotics
Journal of Pragmatics, 1993
After various phases in the development of semiotics, commonly tagged 'code semiotics' or the 'semiotics of decodification' and 'interpretation semiotics', the boundaries of this science are now expanding to include studies that focus more closely upon the relation between signs and values. In truth, this relation is already inscribed within the make-up itself of semiotics, within its very history: whereas Ferdinand de Saussure founded his sign theory on the theory of exchange value taken from marginalist economics, Charles S. Peirce, in his sign model, breaks the equilibrium of the logic of equal exchange with his theory of unlimited semiosis, or, if we prefer, of infinite deferral from one sign to the next. This approach allows for an opening toward otherness, for the concept of signifying surplus. Charles Morris explicitly emphasized the need to theorize about the relation between signs and values, and in fact oriented a large part of his own research in this direction. However, official semiotics has largely emerged as a predominantly cognitive science, as a descriptive science with claims to neutrality. Our proposal is that we recover and develop that particular bend in semiotics which is open to questions of an axiological order and consequently to studies focusing on a more global understanding of man and his signs. The expression 'ethosemiotics' (proposed by August0 Ponzio) captures the sense of such an orientation with its focus on the relation between signs and sense, and therefore on the question of significance as value; but if we go back to the end of the last century, we soon discover that Victoria Welby had already introduced the term 'signifies' for the same purpose, thus marking her distance from what was commonly intended at the time by both 'semantics' and 'semiotics'. When considering the philosophical question of 'communication' with reference to semiotics and to the contribution that may come from it, presentday experts think less and less in terms of 'sender', 'message', 'code', 'channel', and 'receiver', while practitioners of the popular version of the science of signs still tend to cling to such concepts. This particular way of presenting the communication process derives from a certain type of semiotics (best called 'semiology', owing to its prevalently Saussurean matrix), currently identified as 'semiotics of decodification' (criticized by Rossi-Landi (1968) as
The Semiotic Perspectives of Peirce and Saussure: A Brief Comparative Study
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2014
The primary purpose of this paper is to make a comparative analysis between two leading scholars' perspectives on semiotic theory, namely Charles Sanders Peirce and Ferdinand de Saussure. In addition, it is also aimed at discussing the linkage between communication and semiotic which can be grasped as a signification of symbol or simply as a study of sign in societal life. Apart from the communication field itself, the theory is commonly used as a reference in various fields such as philosophy, linguistic, arts and literature, archeology, architecture, mathematics and so on. The data has been attained by using content analysis technique of various studies on semiotic and related subject. This article is expected to generate positive contribution in underlining the significance of semiotic theory, not only towards the enhancement of the semiotic epistemology but also to other researchers and academicians in related fields or specific areas.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.