Signs are organized into sign systems (semiotic systems), which some authors refer to as “codes,” while others call them “languages.” Phrases such as “language of fashion” and “fashion code,” or “language of painting” and “visual code,” can be encountered with equal frequency.
4.1.1. On the Term “Code”
Etymologically, the term “code” originates from the Latin word codex, meaning “tree trunk” or “stump.” The first writing tablets were made from such stumps, leading to the second meaning of codex as “writing material.”
The ancient Romans practiced announcing laws on wooden tablets, thus evolving the term to its third meaning, “a collection of laws.”
In Western European culture, the term penetrated with its third meaning, “a collection of laws” and through the broadening of its meaning, it began to denote any system of elements along with the rules for their use (e.g., “Traffic Code”). Umberto Eco refers to this meaning as the institutional meaning.
Later, the word began to be used in cryptography to signify a secret code. By further broadening its meaning, the word began to denote any system that transmits another system through a special regulation (e.g., the postal code transmits the name of a locality through numbers). Eco refers to this as the correlative meaning. The correlative meaning gained widespread use with the development of telecommunications (e.g., telegraph code, Morse code).
The term became extremely popular after 1949, when Shannon and Weaver created the famous communication model for telecommunications:
- Source -> Encoder -> Signal -> Decoder -> Receiver
Under the influence of the rapidly developing field of informatics, the term “code” quickly entered other sciences. Informatics defines a code as any system of symbols (signs) that is predetermined by agreement to represent information and transmit it from the sender to the receiver.
In 1970, the French linguist and semiotician Georges Mounin explored the path of the term “code” into linguistics:
The use of the concept of ‘code’ in linguistics is recent. Whitney, who extensively uses the words ‘system’ and ‘structure,’ does not use them. In Sapir (1968), the term is only about the ‘telegraph Morse code.’ In Bloomfield, it appears only once, when discussing ‘signal codes,’ undoubtedly referring to the same reality. The term is also absent in Peirce as a fundamental unit in the theory of signs. It is similarly absent in Hjelmslev’s Prolegomena: it does not appear in the definition index, nor is it used to construct any of them. Saussure is the only one among the founders of modern linguistics who used it once in the same sense we use it today, as a synonym for language: ‘Speech,’ he writes, ‘are the combinations through which the speaker uses the linguistic code to express their thoughts’
The very slow penetration of the term as a cardinal concept in European linguistics is thus evident.
In Éric Buyssens (1943), the word is used in its true sense only once. By 1967, it appears at least twelve times.
The word ‘code’ must have penetrated linguistic terminology via American publications. In these publications, the increased frequency of use should be attributed to information theory and later to automatic translation.
Jakobson adapted Shannon and Weaver’s technical communication model into a model of linguistic communication.
In linguistics, the concept of code is defined as
“a set of signs and the rules for their use.”
The spread of the concept in linguistics was also facilitated by the publications of Roland Barthes, who, according to Eco, “is one of those who provoked the code boom in the early 1960s”
4.1.2. Language, Speech, Code, and Message
The code, as a system of elements and rules for their use, serves to transmit information in the form of messages. Therefore, the opposition code/message is equivalent to the dichotomy language/speech introduced by Saussure. In linguistics, language is defined as an abstract system of linguistic elements and rules, which is realized concretely in the form of speech.
This correlation was noted as early as 1960 by the famous French linguist André Martinet, who titled a chapter in his monumental work “Elements of General Linguistics” as Language, Speech, Code, and Message, writing: “The traditional opposition between language and speech can also be expressed by the terms code and message, where the code is the organization that allows the arrangement of the message, and it is that to which every element of a given message is opposed to extracting its meaning”. After this publication and after Barthes‘ publications, there was a real expansion of the term “code” in linguistics and semiotics.
Many linguists and semioticians do not share the enthusiasm for such a replacement of language with code. As early as 1963, Pierre Guiraud wrote:
“There is a fundamental difference between language and codes: the conventions of a given code are explicit, pre-established, and imperative; those of language are implicit, they are established spontaneously during communication itself. Man created a code for the purposes of communication, while it is precisely in communication that language is created. This is why the code is closed and frozen, it transforms only through explicit agreement among users, whereas language is open and changing with every new speech”
Lotman also opposes the substitution of “language” with “code.” Examining the prevalent communicative model—sender, message, receiver, and code—he notes:
At the basis of the above reasoning lies an abstraction that presupposes the complete identity of the sender and the receiver, and this abstraction is transferred to the linguistic reality. The abstract model of communication, however, assumes not only the use of the same code but also an identical memory of the sender and receiver. And the substitution of ‘language’ with the term ‘code’ is far from as innocent as it seems. The term ‘code’ implies something newly created, artificially introduced into operation at a given moment by agreement. The code has no history, which psychologically directs us towards artificial language, towards the ideal model of language in general. The term ‘language,’ however, unconsciously evokes in us an association with long historical existence. Language is a given plus its history. Such an understanding of communication directs us to certain fundamental conclusions. Information transmission in a ‘structure without memory’ really assumes a high degree of identity. If the sender and the receiver have an identical code and no memory, they will ideally understand each other, but the value of the transmitted information will be minimal, and the information itself will be strictly limited. Such a system cannot perform all the diverse functions historically assigned to language. It can be said that the identical sender and receiver will understand each other perfectly, but they will have nothing to talk about.
The objections listed above seem justified to the extent that the concept of code is far from reflecting the rich content of the concept of language.
4.1.3. Semiotic System and Code
The discussions about language and code concern the linguistic system, recognized as one of the most perfect semiotic systems. Since using “code” is undesirable for the most representative semiotic system, it would be equally inappropriate for the remaining systems. The mentioned objections cast doubt on the institutional meaning of the word “code”—a system of elements along with the rules for their use.
As for its correlative meaning (a system that transmits another system through a special regulation), in telecommunications, from which the term “code” is borrowed, “coding” and “decoding” refer to the conversion of one type of physical signal into another physical signal – for example, sound waves into electrical impulses in telephone communication.
Many semioticians refer to the definition of a sign as a substitute for another object. But a sign is not a simple substitute; it implies the generation of meaning.
The semiotic system does not simply “encode” another system; the relationships between the two systems are usually much richer and more complex. Therefore, the term semiotic system (or sign system) is preferable from the standpoint of scientific accuracy.