Response to Semiotics for Beginners by Daniel Chandler

"We only think in signs."

"Nothing is a sign unless it is interpreted as a sign."

- Peirce

"The sign is the whole that results from the association of the signifier with the signified"

-Saussure 

Chandler explains the human process of defining significance. We create and interpret signs, but nothing is a sign unless it is interpreted as such? In a roundabout and almost unnecessary way, Chandler breaks down the process, overall reaching the conclusion that a sign is what results when whatever form the sign takes is associated with a concept that it represents. This is a model which he has adopted from philosopher Ferdinand de Saussure, as quoted above. It seems as though it was fellow philosopher Susanne Langer who proposed a more mental conception of a sign. She thought of signs as more symbolic. The commonality of the notion of a sign is the necessity of the relationship between the signifier and the signified. 

Chandler goes on to explain that, "The arbitrariness of the sign is a radical concept because it proposes the autonomy of language in relation to reality. The Saussurean model, with its emphasis on internal structures within a sign system, can be seen as supporting the notion that language does not 'reflect' reality but rather constructs it." In other words, that it is language that allows us to translate our ideas or concepts. We construct our reality through language which provides meaning. 

Thus, we create reality through the recognition, association, and interpretation of signs which we are able to translate through language. Chandler breaks down this process for us in his article, which is helpful in understanding the "significance" of the "sign."