Semiotics and Information System - Literature review Example

?SEMIOTICS AND INFORMATION SYSTEM Like any discipline, semiotics is called and explained by adherents, critics and experts in various ways. The most basic commonality among the definitions is that it is the study of signs. Lidov (1999, pp.4), however, faulted this overly generic explanation, pointing out that not all study of signs is semiotics. This paper will investigate what semiotics is and what it can do for information systems. Particularly, its capability to provide a unified framework for the processes that transpire within information systems will be explored. For this purpose, a definition and background information are forthcoming, along with sections that discuss information system and the relationship between the two concepts. These elements will provide the basis of the discussion on how the unified frameworks along with other capabilities will help organisations solve the challenges entailed in designing, building and maintaining information systems. The Quest for Meaning Henry Stubbes was credited to have first coined the term "semeiotics" when he identified it as a branch of medical science that interpret signs (Bhaduri, 2008, pp.246). John Locke also referred to the terms semeiotike and semeiotics when he explained his notion about the branches of science. He stated: All that can fall within the compass of human understanding, being either, first, the nature of things, as they are in themselves, their relations, and their manner of operation: or, secondly, that which man himself ought to do, as a rational and voluntary agent, for the attainment of any end, especially happiness: or, thirdly, the ways and means whereby the knowledge of both the one and the other of these is attained and communicated; I think science may be divided properly into these three sorts (Locke, 1823, pp.174). It was Locke’s third branch, where he mentioned semiotics as one of those part of exact knowledge. The work of Charles Pierce and later on Ferdinand de Saussure, however, established the modern notion of the discipline. Pierce referred to the concept of semiotic as a quasi-necessary or formal doctrine of signs. His position on signs is based on his three classifications of its dimensions: icons, indices and symbols (Rahmann, 2001, pp.4). Saussure contributed to the semiotic thought through his discourse of his version of semiotics, which he called as semiology. In 1915, he declared that: A science that studies the life of signs within society is conceivable; it would be a part of social psychology and consequently of general psychology; I shall call it Semiology. Semiology would show what constitutes signs, what laws govern them… Linguistics is only a part of the general science of semiology; the laws discovered by semiology will be applicable to linguistics (cited in Rahmann, pp.3) Today, adherents of semiotics consider, interpret, classify and analyze signs according to the manner of transmission. The code is a crucial variable in this process because it is the means by which meaning is understood. A new word, for example could easily be coined. Saussure did this with his “semiology” term. The act alone did not ensure that meaning is transmitted. First, the word must be recognized by the society. Then, it must be transmitted according to the grammatical structures and codes of such society. This is the general framework that underpins semiotics. In the present language, semiology is semiotics. Let us consider the case of a poem. It is an example of a semiotic system because it is consisted of signs in the form of content or rhythm, wherein each constitute a term and a concept not unlike the sensation that one will experience with the aesthetics of the figure of speech. One can also cite the case of a song. Say, in Kenny Loggins’ song Footloose: the lyrics is the message, the score becomes a text and the device where these are communicated could be a digital music player. These examples show how semiotic systems are considered the organisation of patterns that typify signs, which – in turn - constitute a specific system of meaning. Therefore, concluded Rahmann (pp.3), it is consisted of “syntax which defines the manner in which terms may be organized, and semantics, which indicates how meaning can be attributed to a syntactically correct pattern of terms.” The organisational capability is the foundation of the capability of semiotics to provide a unified framework for activities, processes and infrastructures in an organisation or a social environment, with their diverse and complex processes. This is highlighted in the case of communication or in information systems. Information systems Liu began his discourse on information systems with an explanation about information. Essentially, he cited that it is processed data that has meaning to its users (Liu, 2000, pp.1). The concept of sign is an important variable in this definition and also prominent in the manner in which information was described because it is how meaning is derived. Shaumyan (2006, pp.52) stressed that “any information can be described by any language, but information is a fact of language only insofar as a given language has a sign to represent it directly.” Put in another way, information exists when it provides what a sign means. If this is not the case, said information will merely be “facts of thought rather than facts of language” (Shaumyan, pp.52). It was pointed out that information system pertains to the information processing and communication in an organisation accomplished through the creation and utilization of signs (pp.1). From the perspective of the information system as a form of social interaction system, information systems can produce message, create information and define and alter meanings because social systems, infrastructure and processes are part of the system (Liu, pp.2). From the perspective of semiotics, hence, information systems are consisted of signs that are diverse, complex and structured. Problems and challenges entailed in these respects can be approached effectively according to the semiotic point of view. This aspect will be explained later on. Information Systems and Semiotics The communication theory provides insights to the relationship between information system and semiotics and to the development of information system itself. In this respect, Luhmann’s model is particularly helpful: communication would be understood as basic operation, information as hetero-reference, utterance as self-reference, and understanding as a prerequisite of the transfferal of communicatively condensed meaning into further communications (Luhmann & Rasch, 2002, pp.56). Luhmann’s model is a version of the sender-message-feedback that is specific to explaining concepts such as semiotics because it focuses on the message and how it is relevant to each of the components of the process: the message as information from the sender; the message as utterances and the message and its meaning that allows feedback to be possible. Here, semiotics plays an important role as the communication process emphasized the involvement of signs that are functioning according to two relationships. The first is how “one links something called ‘sign’ to something else which exists independently of interpretation and is called object; the other relationship links the sign to an ‘interpretant’ – a disposition to act or another sign – which completes the meaning-making process” (Gambier and Van Doorslaer, 2010, pp.314). These variables can explain how the communication process or, rather, the sign-making process within it, occurs between information systems (or cybernetics in general) and semiotics. As a matter of fact, this factor led experts such as Brier to develop a discipline called cybersemiotic, a marriage between information science and semiotic paradigms. In the Brier cybersemiotic model, the information is created inside an autopoietic system, which Maturana and Varela (1980, pp.78-79) identified as a system organized : as a network of processes of production (transformation and destruction) of components that produces the components which: (i) through their interactions and transformations continuously regenerate and realize the network processes (relations) that produced them; and (ii) constitute [the system] as a concrete unity in the space in which they (the components) exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network. Using the cybersemiotic perspective, the autopoiesis is recognized to be an important condition so that the differences in the environment can demonstrate meaningful signs through the process of semiosis (Yolles, 2006, pp.489). The process is complex but essentially Luhmann’s communication model assumes that communication is what is being communicated and that it is independent of the sender and the receiver’s consciousness. Instead, actions within the process are offshoots of communication itself, particularly of attribution of social descriptions to the system (Renckstorf, 2004, pp.85). What this means is that the social system of a society or an organisation influences the interpretation of information in signs, messages and information. This is related to Liu’s (2000, pp.83) argument that the language action view of information system validates an information system based on the human communication system, where the analysis of communication is critical not just in the design but also the analysis of the information system. For Liu, language is action and actions are also language, hence: Speech acts have the capacity not only to represent the relevant social world, including its actions but also to constitute part of its (social) actions. Accordingly, information communicated through language has its complement in the social world of situations, norms, institutions and cultural patterns; and vice versa (Liu, pp.83). Therefore, an information system based on the human communication process can be explained by semiotics and approached through semiotics effectively because of the discipline’s focus on signs and meaning within society or a social environment. Yolles’ interpretation of semiotics is depicted in her position that the process of semiotics has three dimensions, namely, pragmatics, syntactic and semantics (Yolles, pp.489). These dimensions are significant in establishing the relationship between semiotics and information systems. This can be demonstrated when information systems are approached according to the position that it is built from components (Guarino, 1998, pp.210). For instance, relationships exist among components that eventually make it possible to achieve some semblance of interpretation of a system’s nature, condition or environment. This depicts semantic links. Semantics can be based on compositions so that interpretation can be defined through the interpretation of the components, including the complex tangle of expressions and assumptions made in the process (Schewe and Thalheim, 2008, pp.2). Its semiotic relationship stems from the fact it is a rationalization of social meaning and that the abstraction can be achieved through the activities of semiotic communities (IASS, 1997, pp.243). Indeed, as a study of meaning, semantics is a branch of semiotics. In addition, there exist associations in information system components that are derived through the method of constructing the information system (Guarino, pp.209). These associations depict the concept of structural links, where such associations are considered to lead to the identification of “conventions, referential integrity, constraints, relationships of implementation components – say, database column names – to high level design constructs (Guarino, pp. 209-210).” According to Yolles, the structural links are prerequisite to semiotic exchange (pp.490). For instance, in order for the meaning of a message to be recognized, it is necessary to identify structural distinctions and relationships. An information system can understand the crux of a message through signification by evaluating the message and its contents according to its knowledge pattern. The structural links and distinctions are crucial in this process. When Guarino tried to identify what he called as a definition with ontological completeness, he also explored how information system is operated in a semiotic system in the process. He explained that “an information system functions by interacting with its environment. Its environment consists largely of people interacting in a social system. The people interact via a semiotic system (p.210).” But in this perspective, there is a distance attributed between information system and semiotic system or, at least, it was highlighted how information system could function without or with less of the semiotic system. The key to such relationship is how a type of information system must first be defined in order to determine the degree of semiotic influence. This can be demonstrated in the case of change intervention in an information system. For example, if an organisation decides to change the manner in which people interact, the impact to the semiotic system could be minimal. This is because the initiative will entail costs to resources such as in the workforce (i.e. new training, new functions, new technologies, etc.). Consequently, there will be minimal change especially when the semiotic system is reflected in the internal structure of the organisation (Guarino, p.210). All in all, the link between semiotics and information system is underpinned by the principle of the latter as a provider of a way and condition for human communication. That is why information systems are communication systems with linguistic nature, social implications and with technical implementation. Semiotics is relevant in this respect because at the core of these factors are sense-making of meaning in signs found in the language used. As such, the process, methods, and programs must be based on the semiotic framework in order to be effective and efficient. Semiotics and Problem-Solving in Information Systems For this section, Liu’s work will be extensively referenced. The author provided a dedicated portion of his book on semiotics to the problems and challenges in information systems. First, Liu cited the poor turnover of information systems. The argument is that organisations have been funneling tremendous amount of money and resources on information with mixed results. He cited a study in 1990, for example, which found that investment in information technology did not guarantee increased organisational performance or profitability (pp.2). Several empirical evidences were also outlined to support this, including the consistent failures of many systems to satisfy users or achieve the intended objectives. Liu identified the case of the Transfer and Automated Registration of Uncertified Stock or the Taurus project launched by the London Stock Exchange, which was eventually scrapped after the institution spent a staggering 400 million-pound investment (pp.3). One of the recognized causes of this dilemma, observed Liu, is the failure of the actual design and infrastructure because of inappropriate user requirements. Now this seemingly simple and straightforward cause is actually underpinned by a complex set of issues that has social, cultural and organisational characteristics. Consider the case: an information system is built to provide information. Such system, as has been explained previously, is composed of processes, workers, signs, structures and a host of other variables present in a social interaction system. Then, there is the case of the organisation with its own set of workers, culture, processes and bureaucracy. The interaction between these can become overwhelming resulting to an overload of information and misinformation, which will eventually weigh down performance (Liu, pp.3). This will result in further complications. For example, Liu pointed out that long lead-time will inevitably ensue, resulting to projects getting delayed and requirements getting changed in the process (pp.4). There is also the case of the challenges in documentation. An inefficient system will lead to a mismatch in deliverables where products are directed to the wrong recipient or people who could simply not understand them. As a result, wrote Liu, “the analysis products are presented in some artificial languages that are specially invented by and for the systems development communities” so the owners found them difficult to understand (pp.4). The above problems underscore the utility of semiotics. In applying the semiotic model or in approaching information activities from the semiotic point of view, a design can finally be developed to address the situation present in the system, particularly one that solves the dilemma entailed in interactions and relationships among humans and between human and the environment. Semiotics can provide a unified architecture in which processes, systems and other related variables are configured for successful interaction and efficient activities. Towards a Unified Framework What semiotics does is provide the infrastructure that, according to Liu, Clarke and Andersen (2002, pp.207) enables: 1) membership in an environment characterized by diversity; and, 2) “a communication process that recognizes the different natures of codification within internal and external zones of operations,” one that treats information and knowledge as not only different from each other but are distinct within the internal and external zones. In addition, semiotics provides the framework capable of organisation to deal with the factors governing the economics of signs (Liu, pp. 26). It should also be a model, which links all elements from the point of view that information system is a social system. The semiotic framework, here, links the physical and social worlds instead of separating the issues into problems for different experts to address (Liu, pp.40). The Semiotic Triangle is a specific semiotic framework use to approach an information system. It operates on the principle that a human observer is able to claim that some sign or symbol stands for some perceived thing (Siau and Halpin, 2001, pp.76-77). This framework is effective because it focuses on a two-stage process that emphasizes human perception and conceptualization. It is successful in depicting interactions and communications because participants use signs (Siau and Halpin, pp.77). As such, the framework can explain and analyze information systems modeling and developmental processes. The semiotic framework works to understand the mind, hence, it is familiar with the dynamics of human memory and, as has been cited by this paper, it is quite general and comprehensive. What this means is that major disciplines to understanding remembrance in people such as psychology, sociology and linguistics, among others found commonality in or links to semiotics. The semiotic framework, hence, is interdisciplinary in nature, a characteristic necessary to deal with the complexities of the human mind and the social dynamics embedded in recognizing and remembering signs so that systems are established appropriately, processes are fruitful and problems are easily dealt with within the system. Conclusion All in all, semiotics approaches the information system as a social construct built from the behavior of participants. It is, hence, differentiated from conventional methodologies that follow the objectivist framework, which prescribes that systems and softwares be modeled according to the objective reality. By focusing on the social aspect, semiotics is subjectivist in nature. When people playing different roles within a system pose different opinions in approaching an issue or in dealing with a problem, the semiotic model requires negotiations through people participation. This becomes useful in process-oriented problems that tend to overwhelm information systems. References Bhaduri, S., 2008, Translating Power: Stories, Essays, Criticism. New Delhi: Katha. Gambier, Y., and Van Doorslaer, L., 2010, Handbook of Translation Studies. Volume 1. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing. Guarino, N., 1998. Formal Ontology in Information Systems: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference June 6-8, 1998, Trento, Italy. New York: IOS Press. International Association for Semiotic Studies (IASS). 1997, Semiotics Around the World: Synthesis in Diversity : Proceedings of the Fifth Congress of the International Association for Semiotic Studies, Berkeley, 1994, Volume 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Lidov, D., 1999. Elements of Semiotics. St. Martin's Press. Liu, K., 2000. Semiotics in Information Systems Engineering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Liu, K., Clarke, R., and Andersen, P., 2002. Organisational Semiotics: Evolving a Science of Information Systems. Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Locke, J., 1823. The works of John Locke. London: W. Sharpe and Son. Luhmann, N. & Rasch, W., 2002, Theories of Distinction: Redescribing the Descriptions of Modernity. Stanford University Press. Maturana, H.R., & Varela, F.J., 1980, Autopoiesis and Cognition: the Realization of the Living. Boston: Reidel. Rahmann, S.M., 2001. Design and Management of Multimedia Information Systems: Opportunities and Challenges. London: Idea Group Inc. Renckstorf, K., 2004. Action Theory and Communication Research: Recent Developments in Europe. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Schewe, K., and Thalheim, B., 2008, Semantics in Data and Knowledge Bases: Third International Workshop, SDKB 2008, Nantes, France, March 29, 2008, Revised Selected Papers. Berlin: Springer. Shaumyan, S., 2006. Signs, Mind, And Reality: A Theory of Language As the Folk Model of the World. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing. Siau, K. and Halpin, T.A., 2001. Unified Modeling Language: Systems Analysis, Design and Development Issues. London: Idea Group, Inc. Yolles, M., 2006. Organisations As Complex Systems: An Introduction to Knowledge Cybernetics. Charlotte, NC: IAP. Read More