Signs have meaning, however, meanings are not immutable and fixed but fluidly contextual since a sign may mean for one person something different to what it may mean for another. Words convey meaning but there is nothing inherent in the word to suggest it’s meaning. What a word means is decided by language, history and context, for example: the same word in different sentences can have connotations vastly different in tone. What this article is saying is that, whilst words have associated meaning, as do visible symbols, this meaning is ever-changing with each audience to the sign. For example, the word cat brings up many different images. For a person with a cat allergy, their reaction may well be stress and disgust, but this will not be the case with every person who sees the word cat, as the word does not invoke the cat itself, but merely the meaning that has been attached to the word. The study of this meaning is seimology and this transforms meaning from an identity to a difference. Instead of invoking the idea of “a cat”, instead, the cat is “not a dog, not a chair etc.” This creates much less specific meanings for words, and the concept can mean many different permutations of a theme.
The founder of seimology, while presenting a cohesive argument and theory overlooked unintentional signs and assumed that the the role of the sender of the sign was an important one. Also, there is no real difference between what he labeled as the signifier and the signified. The theory evolved to address these issues by expanding the meaning of signs to include whatever means something -anything- to somebody. However, another problem was detected – that of change. If meaning is relational and can change depending on the viewer, then it is wrong to assume that the system used for understanding how meaning is created is static. It was argued that meaning could not be exactly reproduced.
Since meanings are so able to be manipulated, this has political and social consequences.With the choice of words comes a choice of interpretations. The article provides the example of the European ‘invasion’ / ‘settlement’ of Australia, and the associated ‘occupation and disinheritance of the culture of the Aboriginal people’ / ‘burden of care of the Aboriginal savages’. These both are two viewpoint that are in some ways accurate, but the choice of words portrays a very different picture in each of them. In one the British are the invaders, taking land, culture and people away from where they belong. In the other, they are seen as kindly conquerors, taking care of the ‘savages’. As seen in this example, words can be twisted to manipulate meaning to transfer blame.
In the here and now, meanings are used to sell products, win voters etc. and it is imperative that all meanings are recognised.
