The Reflexivity of the Semiological Studies: Thinking Back to the Sign Systems

Being a significant methodology of esthetic and textual analyses, semiotics often applies to the research field of communication studies. Most of the academic researches of communication semiotics in Taiwan focus on the articulation and practices of the signs. Those studies analyze and discuss the arbitrary relation between signifier and signified and the specific cultural meaning of signs. Moreover, the researchers use theories of ideology or two semiological systems to interpret the cultural myth in the process of signification. The investigation of the arbitrariness and immutability of signs in cultural system and the interpretation of signs are the central concerns in those studies. However, the reflexivity of the semiotic methodology is irregularly discussed. The sign system itself as a tool of interpretation is seldom investigated and rethought. Why did the researcher interpret signs as they would be? What kind of sign system influences the researcher's interpretation? How does this certain structure of sign system practice in the process of interpretation? Those are reflexive thoughts in semiotic researches. Ferdinand de Saussure, the father of semiotic linguistics, developed the structuralist analysis of linguistics and emphasized language as a practice of code system. Christian Metz, the master of cinema semiotic studies, brought up that film could be seen as a language, but never a language system. Jean Baudrillard, the famous scholar on the study of the system of objects, indicated that, unlike a language system, the system of objects was not constructed by a fixed and immutable system. These important discourses could remind researchers of returning to the investigation of sign system. Thus, the aim of this article is to rethink the reflexivity of semiotic studies. Those questions such as the mutability of signs, the application of synchronic and diachronic finding methods, the reinvestigation of sign system, and the reflexivity of the researchers world be discussed and rethought. From reflexive thinking, returning to the concern of interpretation system would help semiotic researchers toward a deeper discussion of sign practice.