186 GRAMIGNA
On the concept of“ostension”:
a survey of contemporary semiotics
Remo Gramigna
Department of Semiotics, University of Tartu
Jakobi 2, 51014, Tartu, Estonia
e-mail: gramigna@ut.ee
Abstract. This paper dwells on the concept of ostension and it seeks to
provide a critical overview of the main perspectives on this notion developed
within semiotics. Roman Jakobson, Umberto Eco and Ivo Osolsobě are
among those leading figures that drew attention to semiosis by ostension. Yet,
this concept has deeper roots in western thought as shown, for instance, by St.
Augustine’s treatise De Magistro where ‘telling’ and ‘showing’ are thought of as
two ways of acquiring knowledge. This work is an attempt to disentangle what
the previously mentioned authors thought about ostension and to pinpoint its
relevance for semiotics.
Keywords: ostension; ostensive communication; ostensive signs; non-signs;
Ivo Osolsobě
Introduction: Origin of the concept of “ostension”
This paper aims to provide a critical overview of how the concept of ostension
is used within semiotics by reviewing the main definitions, models and theories
available in semiotic literature. Showing, exhibiting and displaying are among the
most natural and common forms of communication; ostension is the act through
which such a mode of communicating takes place. Anyone who has had to face
a communicative situation in a foreign country whose language is unknown, has
experienced that one of the first and most effective strategies to make themselves
understood is to convey the meaning of a word by showing its denotata.
Ostension, in its etymological sense, derives from the Latin ostendo, ostendere,
literally means ‘to show’ and it may take various forms. Its pervasiveness in
everyday life is undeniable: we point the finger to show to somebody else the
meaning of a word by the ostension of its referent; we buy and consume goods
and products that are often displayed in shops’ windows; we engage with artworks
displayed in galleries, shows and exhibitions as part of our cultural consumption.
187On the concept of“ostension”: a survey of contemporary semiotics
Indeed, the concept is often used with different nuances of meaning depending
on different contexts, disciplines and academic traditions. ‘Ostensive’, ‘ostensive
definition’, ‘ostensive sign’, ‘ostensive communication’ or simply ‘ostension’ are
recursive terms in the debate on this concept.
Generally speaking, however, at least two different semantic classes can be
singled out:
Ostensive definition;
Ostension.
‘Ostension’ and ‘ostensive definition’ are sometimes used interchangeably,
although the former – thought of as a mode of sign production after Eco’s publication
of his Trattato di semiotica generale (1975) – is mainly used in semiotics,
whereas the latter finds its place in logic and philosophy of language.
The notion of ostensive definition stems from the tradition of logical positivism
and it was first introduced by William Ernest Johnson in his Logic in 1921,
theorised by Bertrand Russell (1948), then adopted by Quine (1960; 1963 [1953];
1969) and discussed at length by Wittgenstein (2001 [1922]; 1986 [1953]). Let us
recall some explications of (i) ‘ostensive definition’ and (ii) ‘ostensive’, as found in
dictionaries of philosophy:
(i) Ostensive definition:
“An ostensive definition proceeds by simply pointing to something or
showing actual examples of the thing being defined, as we usually do
when we teach a child. For example, we point to a house and say, ‘The
word house means this’” (Bunnin, Yu 2004: 503).
“Definition by an example in which the referent is specified by pointing
or showing in some way” (Audi 1999: 247).
“A definition that proceeds by ostension, or in other words by simply
showing what is intended, as one might ostensively define a shade
such as magenta, or the taste of a pineapple, by actually exhibiting
an example. It relies on the hearer’s uptake in understanding which
feature is intended, and how broadly the example may be taken. A
direct ostension is a showing of the object or feature intended, whilst
in deferred ostension one shows one thing in order to direct attention
to another, e.g. when showing a photograph to indicate a person, or a
thermometer to indicate the temperature” (Blackburn 1996: 331).
(ii) Ostensive:
“(Lat. ostendere, to show) Property of a concept or predicate by virtue
of which it refers to and is clarified by reference to its instances”
(Runes 2010: 222).
188 GRAMIGNA
In the present study we leave out the concept of ostensive definition as used
in logic1
and limit our enquiry to the concept of ostension in semiotics. For
this purpose, a preliminary outlook of the authors that have devoted a special
attention to such a concept will be provided.2
The debate on the concept of ostension in semiotics
Showing has an inextricable connection with explicating and learning. Linguists,
philosophers of language and semioticians have drawn attention to the fundamental
role played by ostension in language acquisition and some authors aptly
emphasize the need to resort to such a form of communication in the absence
of a common language. Umberto Eco (1975: 225, emphasis in original), for
instance, stresses that “ostension represents the most elementary act of active
signification and it is the one used in the first instance by two people who do not
share the same language”. In the same vein, Juri M. Lotman (1976: 4) remarks:
“when dealing with people speaking a language which we do not understand, we
resort to iconic signs and illustrations”. Iconic signs (sometimes also termed by
the author as “pictorial” signs) (Lotman 1976: 7), as compared to conventional
signs, posses a higher degree of comprehensibility and, among this class of signs,
Lotman includes the case of “goods displayed in a door window (the goods, in this
case, play the role of signs)” (Lotman 1976: 5, emphasis mine), which is a good
example of ostension.
In this section we locate the concept of ostension within semiotics.
Considering the scope and the context of our survey, we shall, first of all, list
some of the main definitions of the concept as described in handbooks and
encyclopaedic dictionaries of semiotics:
“Ostension is the action of showing, exhibiting, displaying, presenting”
(Sebeok 1986: 656).
“The mode of semiosis by showing an object or event vicariously for a
class of referents” (Nöth 1995: 365). Winfried Nöth, in his Handbook
of Semiotics (1995), treated ostension and indexicality in tandem and
he relies on Umberto Eco’s definition of ostension as theorised in the
1
The literature on the concept of ostensive definition is quite extensive. Some of the authors
that have dealt with this concept are Kamlah and Lorenzen (1967), Kotarbińska
(1960), Lorenz (1970). For one of the most recent studies on ostensive definition in logic
and philosophy of language see Engelland (2014).
2
In addition to this short excursus on the history of the concept of ostension, it ought to
be noted that this notion is fruitfully used in folkloristics where it has found a wide application.
Within folkloristics, ostension is defined as the presentation of a legend text.
Presentation in this respect becomes the counterpart of representation and the legend
text instead of being represented via narration or storytelling is shown through ostension.
For this trend in folkloristics, see Dégh and Vázsonyi (1983) and Dégh (1995).
189On the concept of“ostension”: a survey of contemporary semiotics
Trattato di semiotica generale (1975). Moreover, Nöth distinguished
“the act of showing, which is an index, and the object shown, which is
an icon of the referent” (Nöth 1995: 365).
Schmid (2008) has dealt with “theatrical ostension” and provided an historical
overview of the concept. Ivo Osolsobě (1979c: 74–75) has compiled a selected
bibliography on this concept. Ostension has also extensively been used in the field
of theatrical semiotics (Elam 1980: 26; Pavis 1980) and the semiotics of media
(Sutton 1997). Recently, a novel application was proposed within the semiotics of
law (Klusoňová 2012).
In semiotic scholarship we find reference both to “ostensive signs” (Farassino
1972; Eco 1980 [1973] and to “ostensive communication”, as exemplified by
Jurgen Ruesch:
Codification at the interpersonal level is accessible to observation and
experimentation. In its simplest form, a person may point to a thing, an
organ, or an action and let it speak for itself. This process may be referred
to as ostensive communication. Next in complexity are the action symbols,
which can vary from universally understood gestures from highly individualized
forms of expression. Finally we have the spoken or written word,
mathematics, and all other types of essentially verbal forms of codification
(Ruesch 1972: 73–74).
Roman Jakobson, Umberto Eco and Ivo Osolsobě are among those leading figures
that drew attention to the semiosis by ostension3
. Yet, the roots of this concept
are usually traced back to St. Augustine’s De Magistro. As T. A. Sebeok (1986: 657)
remarked, “the first theory of showing comes from St. Augustine”.
De Magistro – penned in 389 in the form of a dialogue between St. Augustine
and his son Adeodatus – raises a question of no less importance for the purposes
of our study: is it entirely possible to transcend signs in order to signify something?
Are signs an insurmountable necessity in the process of the acquisition and transmission
of knowledge or can we do away with them? The dialogue focuses on the
ability to teach something without signs, using gestures or actions and specifically
addresses the relationship between the sign (signum) and the thing (res).
St. Augustine envisages three different typologies that specify the relationship
signum-res (De Magistro 4.7):
(i) relationship between two signs;
(ii) relationship between sign and the thing signified;
(iii) relationship between things themselves, without the mediation of signs.
3
The authors and works cited in the present study are not arranged in a chronological exposition,
but will rather follow a thematic thread. After Augustine, we will be reviewing
to the work of Roman Jakobson, Ivo Osolsobě and Umberto Eco.
190 GRAMIGNA
The third case will concerns us more closely here, as it considers a direct
ostension of an object or an action without the mediation of any sign, as is clearly
illustrated by the example of the bird catcher:
Suppose someone ignorant of how birds are deceived by twigs and birdlime
should meet a birdcatcher equipped with his instruments but merely
travelling and not actually engaged in his work. Suppose he followed the
birdcatcher step by step and wonderingly thought and inquired what could
be the purpose of the man’s equipment. Suppose he followed the birdcatcher
step by step and wonderingly thought and enquired what could be the
purpose of the man’s equipment. Suppose the birdcatcher, seeing him all
attention, and eager to display his skill got ready his twigs and tubes and
hawk and caught a bird, would he not teach the spectator by the action itself
and without any signs? (De Magistro 10.32)4
The subject of ostension, as we shall soon see, already problematised in St. Augustine
will find applications also in contemporary authors.
Roman Jakonson: ostension as semiotic display
of ready-made objects
Jakobson’s references to the concept of ostension are scattered in several articles.
He did not have his own theory of ostension but, as we shall see, he borrowed this
concept from I. Osolsobě. Nonetheless Jakobson underscored the importance of
such a concept for semiotics. In his early writings, for instance, in his disquisition
about the specificity of cinema as a semiotic system, he pointed out a difference
that is of high relevance for the topic at hand:
What kind of material does this art transform? The creator of Soviet film, Lev
Kulesov correctly states that it is real things that serve as cinematographic
material. [...] But on the other hand, signs are the material of every art.
[...] Is there a conflict between these two theses? According to one of
them film operates with things; according to the other, with signs. [...] The
incompatibility of the two above-mentioned theses was actually eliminated
already by St. Augustine. This great thinker of the fifth century, who aptly
distinguished between the object meant (res) and the sign (signum),
taught that beside signs whose essential task is to signify something, there
exist objects that may be used in the function of signs. It is precisely things
(visual and auditory), transformed into signs that are the specific material of
cinematic art. (Jakobson 1981 [1933]: 732–733)
4
References are given in the translation of John H. S. Burleigh, Augustine: Earlier Writings
(1953).
191On the concept of“ostension”: a survey of contemporary semiotics
Roman Jakobson aptly reminds us that, while discussing ostension, a more fundamental
category ought to be taken into account, that is, the distinction between
signum and res that was outlined by St. Augustine.
Ostension reoccurs in his discussion about the classification of signs. Among
the many valuable insights envisaged in the Selected Writings, Jakobson stresses
the importance of developing sign typologies. Although he never addressed
this issue in a very systematic fashion, on several occasions, Jakobson (1971
[1968]: 699) expressed the necessity to cope with problems of sign typologies.
He qualified the various criteria according to which signs can be grouped in the
following way5
(Gramigna 2014: 169):
1. Type of semiosis (or the relation between signans and signatum);
2. Sign perception (or the nature of the signans);
3. Structuration according to time or space;
4. Sign production;
5. Signs ad hoc produced vs ostension;
6. Pure and applied semiotic structures;
7. Homogeneous and syncretic formations;
8. Various relations between the addresser and the addressee;
9. Intentionality (intended vs unintended signs);
10. Relation between the verbal pattern and other types of signs.
We have treated Jakobsons’s typology of signs elsewhere (Gramigna 2014),
therefore in what follows we shall dwell exclusively on criteria (4) and (5).6
Signs can be grouped according to the nature of their production (4). Jakobson
(1971 [1968]: 701) distinguished between “directly organic and instrumental”
signs and, by coupling the principle of the nature of the signans with the criterion
of the way of sign production, he singled out the following classification as a
result of the juxtaposition of the two criteria. He distinguished between “organic
visual signs”, such as gestures, that are “directly produced by bodily organs”, and
instrumental visual signs, such as painting and sculptures, that instead resort to
an instrument in order to be produced (Jakobson 1971 [1968]: 701).
For the purposes of the present work, it suffices to note that, among the
many possible sign-divisions, Jakobson underscored one between any organic
or instrumental signs, that is, “the signs ad hoc produced by some part of the
human body either directly or through the medium of special instruments” and
“a semiotic display of ready made objects” (Jakobson 1971 [1968]: 702). Drawing
5
It ought to be noted, however, that Jakobson did not list these criteria in any specific
order, nor did he outline a classification of signs in a systematic fashion (except for the
typology of signs based on criterion of the variable relation between signans and signatum).
Therefore, the order in which I organise the criteria in the list is my own.
6
The numbers in parenthesis refer to the ten criteria used for the classification of signs and
listed in the section on Jakobson’s sign typologies.
192 GRAMIGNA
on the study of Ivo Osolsobě, Jakobson referred to the latter class as “ostension”
(Jakobson 1971 [1967]: 661; Jakobson, 1971 [1968]: 702; Jakobson, 1985 [1980]:
171). He defined ostension as
the use of things as signs [that] may be illustrated by the exhibition and
compositional arrangement of synecdochic samples of shop goods in show
windows or by the metaphoric choice of floral tributes, e.g. a bunch of red
roses as a sign of love. (Jakobson 1971 [1968]: 702)
We could synoptically map Jakobson’s basic classification of signs – reflecting
criteria (4) and (5) – with the Fig. 1.
Jakobson was content to credit Ivo Osolsobě, outlining the existence of
ostension as a general category, without delving too deep into such an issue.
Figure 1. Jakobson’s types of signs according to the way of sign production (adapted from
Gramigna 2014).
193On the concept of“ostension”: a survey of contemporary semiotics
Ivo Osolsobě and the extrasemiotic status of ostensive
communication
Ivo Osolsobě,7
Czech dramaturge, theorist of theatre and semiotician, dealt with
ostension since the publication in 1967 of his study “Ostension as a limit form of
communication”, apparently the first systematic and theoretic analysis of showing
as the basic form of human communication (Osolsobě 1979c). He was praised, as
we have just seen, by Jakobson, also quoted by Eco (1977: 110) and remembered
by Sebeok (1974) for his contribution on this issue. Today Ivo Osolsobě is a
forgotten figure in the semiotic debate. Yet, he wrote extensively on the topic at
hand and his ideas remain quite original and worth discussing.
Osolsobě’s first use of this term dates back to 1962 and his source was Russell’s
ostensive definition. However, he admittedly neglected the earlier coinage by
Quine of whose theories he was not aware when he used the term for the first
time. Osolsobě’s use of ostension differs from Russell’s ostensive definition as it is
remarked in the following passage:
If this is the ostensive definition [that part of our vocabulary that cannot be
learnt by verbal definitions and must be defined ostensively, i.e., by showing,
or pointing to, their denotata], then the adjective ostensive as used in this
connection means accomplished by showing, which is in agreement with
etymology, and the term ostension derived from the adjective, also in agreement
with etymology, will signify ‘showing’ rather that ‘defining’. (Osolsobě 1979c: 64)
The embryo of Osolsobě’s theory stems from his engagement with theatre,
cybernetics, information theory and general theory of modelling. Many are
the references to Ashby, Rosenblueth and Wiener throughout his works. The
author often referred to his own approach as an attempt to describe a type
of communication à la Balnibarbi. The reference is to the famous passage
of Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels where a rather peculiar reform in the
Island of Balnibarbi is portrayed that prohibits the use of words and advises
communicating only through things,8
so that man would “carry a greater bundle
7
Ivo Osolsobě (1928–2012) studied theatre arts and aesthetics at the Faculty of Arts,
Masaryk University and worked as Literary Assistant at the State Theatre in Brno and
as a lecturer in Theatre at the University of Brno. His main interests were the theoretical
foundation of theatre and semiotics. Since 1971 he was the executive of the International
Association for Semiotic Studies and in 1972 he took part in the creation of the Working
Group for Semiotics and Mathematical Linguistics at the Czechoslovak Cybernetic Society
in Brno. Among his main theoretical contributions in semiotics he published several
articles on the theory of ostension and on “ostensive communication” (Osolsobě 1967;
1969; 1971; 1979a; 1979b; 1979c; 1980; 2002).
8
“The other project was a scheme for entirely abolishing all words whatsoever. [...] An
expedient was therefore offered, that since words are only names for things, it would
be more convenient for all men to carry about them such things as were necessary to
express the particular business they are to discourse on” (Swift 2005: 172–173).
194 GRAMIGNA
of Things upon his back” (Swift 2005: 172–173, emphasis in original). Sometimes
Osolsobě (2002: 363) termed his own theory as “Adeodatean semiotics” with an
explicit reference to St. Augustine’s son Adeodatus.
Undoubtedly, Osolsobě was a scholar and a semiotician sui generis. According
to his self-portrait sketched out in one of his articles, he was, first of all, a man of
theatre with a hobby for theory and he admittedly remarked that there were two
main sources of inspiration in his life: theatre and semiotics (Osolsobě 1979a:
236). He overtly subscribed to an unorthodox position arguing against the very
central concept of semiotics, namely, the sign. His theory does away the notion
of sign, substituting it with that of model (Osolsobě 1979b: 546) and therefore it
can be thought of as an “anti-semiotics” (Osolsobě 1979c: 68). Viewed through
these theoretical lenses, ostension is conceived as having an “extrasemiotic
status” (Osolsobě 1979c: 63) and the theory of ostension is spelled out, quite
provocatively, as a “theory of non-signs” (Osolsobě 1979c: 68). The following
excerpt highlights the paradoxical status of ostension:
Ostension – like any communication whatever – is a form of human
cooperation, and human cooperation is inconceivable without language,
without signs. However – in case of ostension – all this cooperation in signs
and with signs results only in framing and securing of such a communication
act in which the proper transfer of information proceeds without signs. And
this exactly is important, because what we are interested in is the semiotic
substance of ostension – which is a non-semiotic substance – and not the
problem of its practical feasibility. All signs supporting, accompanying, or
even enabling an ostensive act are nothing else but metacommunication
informing us that something will be, is, or was, shown, whereas the ‘object
communication’, that is the ostensive act itself, is purely devoid of signs.
(Osolsobě 1979c: 68)
At the heart of Osolsobě’s take on ostension lies the difference between model and
original. This difference pertains the use of things in human communication, that
is, things can either be employed as themselves or as substitutes for something
else. On this note it is worth mentioning one example he provided. Following
the teachings of Roman Jakobson, Osolsobě distinguished two approaches – the
metonymical and the metaphorical – that are reflected in two ways of operating
with originals and models. Let us imagine visiting a place we have never been
before. This place is a cave full of stalagmites and stalactites. At the moment of
leaving this cavern we will be faced with the problem of signifying an experience
no longer directly accessible. This issue has two solutions: (i) using samples or
fragments of the stalagmites present in the cavern, that is, physical elements that
have a connection with the context of origin; (ii) using substitutes as surrogates
for the ‘original’ cave; in other words, using verbal descriptions, pictures,
drawings, maps and the like to refer to the cave (Osolsobě 1971: 32). This first
195On the concept of“ostension”: a survey of contemporary semiotics
example shows that we can employ things as pars pro toto. This is a metonymical
approach where a part stands for the whole, traces for their causes, symptoms for
their substances, etc. The second approach is metaphorical in as much as there is
a comparison of things “irrespective of their context and origin” (Osolsobě 1971:
32). As the author remarked:
When we use the metonymical approach we operate with things (or parts
of things) presenting themselves, giving information about themselves or
about broader systems to which they belong. On the contrary, when we
use the metaphorical approach, we are dealing with things not so much
presenting themselves as representing other things, giving information
about other things: so we deal with metathings, metaentities. The present
state of semiotics, however, does not take account of this fundamental
gap, separating signs from “natural signs”, indices from icons and symbols,
“connotations” from denotation. This gap, which is of fundamental logicepistemological
nature, cannot be bridged; it must be respected. (Osolsobě
1971: 35)
For Osolsobě, things as presenting themselves and things standing for something
else are two different logical types. This difference cannot be erased and is
overlooked in semiotics. Contemporary semiotic theory suffers from a “cardinal
sin”, namely, “the mixing together of distinct logical types, different levels of
abstraction” (Osolsobě 1971: 32).
Models and originals
Three main elements concur in Osolsobě’s theory of ostension: (i) the distinction
between “models” and “originals”; (ii) communication is of a different kind and
can occur either employing models or originals; (iii) both models and originals
partake in the acquisition of knowledge, albeit in different ways.
The premise that grounds Osolsobě’s perspective stems from the fact that
models are conceptualised in relation with originals. Thus, it is congenial to posit
this difference from the outset.
The notion of model is employed in different disciplines, from mathematics
to literature. Needless to say, there is not any agreement as to what a model is
or should be, nor does there exist a uniform use of the term in different fields
of knowledge. Even considering the field of semiotics only, we must come to the
conclusion that this concept is used in rather different ways. For instance, when the
term appears among the soviet semioticians in the introduction of V. V. Ivanov at
the Moscow conference of 1962, models are defined as “forms” reflecting objects,
“composed of a finite number of elements”. Despite some ambiguous terms such as
“forms” and “reflecting”, Ivanov’s definition follows that of cybernetics:
196 GRAMIGNA
Like other sciences related to cybernetics, semiotics is concerned primarily
with models, i.e. with forms reflecting (modeling) objects, forms composed
of a finite number of elements and relations between these elements. The
aim is to make these forms (models) in such a way that all the elements and
objects which are present (from the pragmatic point of view of the user of
a given model), in the modeled object are also present in the form (model),
while the converse need not occur. (Ivanov 1962 [1978]: 201)
From the above-mentioned passage it can be inferred that modeling activity
entails a relationship between a model and a modeled object. Viewed under this
perspective, a model is thought of as a model of something. This something is
what goes under Osolsobě’s quite idiosyncratic terminology and is labelled as an
“original”. The many references to Ashby’s cybernetics we find in Osolsobě’s work
prove that his concept of model is deeply rooted in cybernetics.
Osolsobě strived towards a unified theory of models and signs: this was his
ultimate theoretical ambition. In his view both signs and models have their
own syntactics, semantics and pragmatics and every sign can be described in
terms of a theory of models. This does not entail that all signs are models, but
it follows that all signs can be described either as models or as originals (or as
parts of originals – fragments of originals, traces of originals, etc.). Moreover,
both models and originals partake in communication, that is, communication can
occur either through the use of models or via originals. The use of models or the
use of originals can also be thought of as two different modalities of acquisition of
knowledge, namely, direct knowledge and indirect knowledge (Osolsobě 1979a:
238).
In order to fully grasp Osolsobě’s position another premise is in order, that is
the conceptualisation of communication in terms of sharing. According to the
Czcech scholar, and in line with many other thinkers (Lotman 2009), sharing is
thought of as the conditio sine qua non for communicating, although such sharing
needs to not be full in order to avoid redundancy in communication: in order
to be able to communicate something, our universes must be different in some
respect (Osolsobě 1979b: 558). Osolsobě’s dream was to put forth a taxonomy of
epistemic situations that would account for the criteria briefly described above.
He termed this project as “the algebra of epistemic situations” (Osolsobě 1979c:
71).
Osolsobě’s unorthodoxy is reflected in his approach to communication that,
contrary to the well-known Shannon model, envisaged a model that starts from
the receiver instead of the sender.
Osolsobě’s point of departure is the situation of the “present original”. The
minimal and elementary situation of information entails two entities, the original
(O) and the receiver (R), and it occurs when the receiver has the original at his
cognitive disposal (Fig. 2):
197On the concept of“ostension”: a survey of contemporary semiotics
Figure 2. The situation of the present original or direct experience (adapted
from Osolsobě 1979b).
The minimal and ideal communicative situation envisaged by Osolsobě encompasses
only two elements: the receiver and the original. This is what is
referred to above as the ‘situation of the original present’. From this situation he
builds up his theory and constructs other possibilities. The author distinguished
four cases that further specify the situation of the original present. From this
elementary and idyllic situation, Osolsobě’s reconstructs various partial variants.
For the sake of brevity, however, we shall mention them only in passing and
instead focus on the opposite situation termed as “the situation of the absent
original” (Osolsobě 1979c: 71). The four variations that further specify the
minimal communicative situation are the following:
Situation of the shared original (this situation entails that the same
original is at the cognitive disposal of two or more receivers);
Situation of the partially shared original (in this case the original is not
fully but only partially accessible to the receiver – for instance when the
receiver can rely on fragments, traces, symptoms);
Situation where different receivers have access respectively to different
parts of the original and not the same partial original like in the former
case (ii).
The above-mentioned cases are nothing but variations of the minimal communicative
situation, termed as the situation of the present original. However, the
original may not be available at all, that is, the original may be completely absent.
Osolsobě (1979b: 553) referred to this case as the “zero communicative situation”
and it can be schematically represented as follows (Fig. 3):
Figure 3. The situation of the absent original or the zero communicative
situation (adapted from Osolsobě 1979b).
198 GRAMIGNA
This said, the absence of the original could be overcome in two different ways.
First of all, the absence of the original can be replaced by means of a model,
that is, by relying on an apt surrogate of the original. In the ‘situation of the
non-present original’ the model is something that substitutes the original in the
process of knowing. The model is thought of as an information surrogate that
substitutes the original. Viewed through this perspective, a model is thought of as
an apt non-original used as substitute for knowing the original (Osolsobě 1979a:
237). Through the model the receiver represents the original, thus modifying the
former situation of the non-present original, in as much as it presents a model
that stands for an original. As the author points out:
If the original is ‘present’, that is, if it is at the disposal of our cognitive
activities, we can acquire knowledge about it, perceive it, observe it, we can
experiment with it, analyze it, sometimes even dissect it, etc. But if we face
the ‘situation of the non-present original’, that is, if the original is not at the
disposal of our cognitive activities at all, or if it is at the disposal of some
of them only, we must solve this situation either with the help of another
original (which is the solution of models) or with the help of another person
(which is communication). (Osolsobě 1971: 35)
For Osolsobě communication through the model is “non-ostensive” whereas
communication through the original is “ostensive”. For Ivo Osolsobě ostension
is thought of as “a type of communication where the reality itself, the thing, the
situation or event itself functions in the role of message” (Osolsobě 1971: 35).
Ostensive communication is schematised as follows (Fig. 4).
Figure 4. Ostensive communication (adapted from Osolsobě 1979b).
Ostension, thought of as the act of showing that occurs when something is used
to signify itself by means of itself, challenges the very presupposition of the
sign, that is, its standing-for relation. The paradox of ostension – as apparent in
Osolsobě’s perspective – lies in the fact that the semiosis by ostension is based
not on plurality but, on the contrary, its distinctiveness lies in the identity of
the thing with itself, in as much as the object stands for itself and not for
something else. This aspect is apparent in one of the most ‘radical’ definitions
of ostension, described as “a type of communication where the reality itself, the
thing, the situation or event itself functions in the role of message. [...] Ostension
requires absolute similarity, that is, identity” (Osolsobě 1971: 35). Conceived
199On the concept of“ostension”: a survey of contemporary semiotics
in these terms, ostension challenges the very logic of the sign relation, raising
the following question: how can something signify itself and yet take part in the
meaning-generation process bypassing the standing-for relation that each sign
presupposes? Ultimately, ostension, generally defined as “the action of showing,
exhibiting, displaying, presenting” (Sebeok 1986: 656), calls attention to the
object as such and rehabilitates what Charles Morris has termed as the denotatum
(Morris 1955 [1946]: 17). In the case of ostension, the object stands for itself,
signifying itself, somewhat obliterating the fundamental difference that exists
between sign and object.
In conclusion, Osolsobě’s vision of ostension – although highly original – rests
problematic inasmuch as it conceives of ostension as a non-sign.
Ostensive signs in the semiotics of Umberto Eco
Ostensive signs find a specific position in the classification of signs formulated
by Umberto Eco (1976 [1975]; 1979; 1980 [1973]; 1985). If, as explained by Eco
(1980 [1973]: 54), to ask for a packet of cigarettes I show a pack of cigarettes,
the item I have in my hands is conventionally elected as a signifier of the class of
which the object itself is a member.
The author further specifies that the ostensive sign does not coincide
completely with its referent. The ostension of a pack of cigarettes as a sign of
the general class “cigarettes”, in fact, implies the selection of some qualities of
the object that are relevant for the identification of the general class to which it
belongs, while it excludes others (for instance, the cigarettes’ brand) (Eco 1980
[1973]: 54). Therefore, in the example given, it is irrelevant whether these are
Marlboro or Camel cigarettes.
The definition of ostension in the semiotics of Umberto Eco (1985: 179) is,
thus, as follows: “ostension occurs when a pre-existing object is selected and
shown as the representative of the class to which it belongs”.
Moreover, Eco (1980 [1973]: 54) points out that almost all ostensive signs
are “intrinsic signs” or “contiguous” as these are signs that refer to an object
by showing a part of it. In other words, an essential feature that distinguishes
ostensive signs from other types of signs is that the signifier of the ostensive signs
is occasionally formed with a substance that is the same as that of the object
to which they refer; for this reason ostensive signs are “homomaterial” (Eco
1975 [1976]: 225). Not always, though, are ostensive signs homomaterial. In the
example cited, in order to signify “cigarettes” one could resort to the use of a pack
of cigarettes made of plastic instead of a real one.
The problem of the degree of conventionality that ostensive signs posses must
not be disregarded either. Eco, in fact, notes that ostensive signs also have an
element of conventionality that is proportional to the degree to which meaning is
200 GRAMIGNA
determined by cultural codes. The simple gesture of ostensively displaying an object
with one hand suggests different meanings in different socio-cultural contexts.
Finally, for Eco (1975 [1976]: 225) – as recalled before – ostension is “the most
elementary level of active signification” and can be used as a substitutive code in
the absence of a common language.
Summarising Eco’s position on the subject, we can list the essential characteristics
of ostensive signs as follows:
a) Ostensive signs entail a selection of a pre-existing object and the latter is
shown as the representative of the class to which it belongs;
b) Ostensive signs are occasionally homomatirial;
c) Ostensive signs are conventional;
d) Ostension is the basic level of active signification;
It is clear that, in his treatment of ostensive, Eco pays particular attention to the
phenomenon of sign production and its variety. Ostension, therefore, is conceived
of as a specific modality through which a sign can be produced.
Conclusion
The present study attempted to account for the relevance of the concept of
ostension by tracing its fundamental aspects and situating the debate on this
subject in the framework of contemporary semiotics. The study has favoured the
exposition of three perspectives on the subject – R. Jakobson, I. Osolsobě and
U. Eco – which, in our view, summarise the essential features of the concept given
in the context of the typologies of signs theorised within semiotic theory.
As we have seen, for Osolsobě ostension is coextensive with the referent that
is signified by means of the act of showing and, for this reason, is paradoxically
considered a non-sign. Although innovative and suggestive, Osolsobě’s hypothesis
of a pure exposition we think can be justified only as pure abstraction. The
possibility that the sign is completely identified with its referent can in fact be
met only if we assume that all objects that are selected as a vehicle of ostensive
communication become, in turn, signs, verifying in this way a “semiotisation of
the referent” (Eco 1980 [1973]: 54). Osolsobě’s interpretation, unanchored from
this important corollary, is ultimately problematic.
Thomas A. Sebeok, for his part, had already highlighted the difficulties of this
approach:
Osolsobě wants to sharply distinguish ostension from indexicality, deixis,
natural signs, communication by objects, and the like. However, I find his
paradoxical assertion that ‘ostension is the cognitive use of non-signs’, and
his elaboration of a theory of ostension as a theory of non-signs, muddled
and perplexing”. (Sebeok 2001 [1994]: 89)
201On the concept of“ostension”: a survey of contemporary semiotics
Unlike Osolsobě, Eco’s approach, which seems to us more consistent and sensitive
to the pragmatic context of signification, does not assume that there
is coincidence between the ostensive sign and the referent and, even in the
possibility that a complete overlap may occur, the object selected as a signifier for
the general class to which it refers enters, indeed, into the process of semiosis and
therefore it must be considered a sign.
Jakobson’s vision – which, as we have seen, did not fail to emphasize the
importance of ostension as a type of signs – in its turn, can be seen as a middle
ground between the approaches of Eco and Osolsobě. Jakobson, in fact, in
a way not dissimilar to Eco, holds that ostension is a fully-fledged part of the
typologies of signs. He, however, does not sufficiently explore the issue and
merely provides what is for him an undisputed and important tenet: namely, that
ready-made objects are fully included in the production of signs. In conclusion,
the definition of ostensive sign formulated by Eco seems to us still the most valid
and comprehensive in the context of contemporary semiotics.
References
Audi, Robert (ed.) 1999. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. (2nd ed.) Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Aurelius Augustinus De Magistro, in PL, Vol. 32, Col. 1193–1220 “(Ital. trans.) Il maestro
e la parola, Il maestro, la dialettica, la retorica, la grammatica. (Bettetini, Maria, ed.)
Milano: Bompiani, 178–221.
Blackburn, Simon (ed.) 1996. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Bunnin, Nicholas; Yu, Jiyuan (eds.) 2004. The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy.
Malden: Blackwell.
Burleigh, John H. S. (ed.) 1953. Augustine: Earlier Writings. (Library of Christian
Classics 6.) London: Westminster John Knox Press.
Dégh, Linda 1995. Narratives in Society: A Performer-Centered Study of Narration. (FF
Communications 255.) Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica.
Dégh, Linda; Vázsonyi, Andrew 1983. Does the word “dog” bite? Ostensive action: a
means of legend-telling. Journal of Folklore Research 20(1): 5–34.
Eco, Umberto 1975. Trattato di semiotica generale. Milano: Bompiani. [Eng. trans. 1976,
A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.]
– 1977. Semiotics of theatrical performance. The Drama Review 21(1): 107–117.
– 1979. Proposals for a history of semiotics. In: Borbé, Tasso (ed), Semiotics Unfolding.
Proceedings of the Second Congress of the International Association of Semiotic Studies
Vienna, July 1979. Vol. I. Pt.1 Theory and History of Semiotics. Berlin: Mouton, 75–89.
– 1980 [1973]. Segno. Milan: Mondadori.
– 1985. Producing signs. In: Blonsky, Marshall (ed.), On Signs. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 176–183.
Elam, Keir 1980. The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama. London: Routledge.
202 GRAMIGNA
Engelland, Chad 2014. Ostension: Word Learning and the Embodied Mind. Cambridge:
The MIT Press.
Farassino, Alberto 1972. Richiamo al significante. Versus. Quaderni di Studi Semiotici
3: 48–53.
Gramigna, Remo 2014. Roman Jakobson on signs. Blityri. Studi di Storia delle idee sui
segni e le lingue III: 177–207.
Ivanov, Vyacheslav V. 1962. Predislovie. In: Simpozium po strukturnomu izučniju
znakovych system. Tezisy dokladov, Moscow, 3–9. [Engl. trans. 1978, The science of
semiotics. New Literary History 9(2): 199–204.]
Jakobson, Roman 1971 [1967]. Linguistics in relation to other sciences. Selected Writings
II. Word and Language. The Hague, Paris: Mouton Publishers, 655–696.
– 1971 [1968]. Language in relation to other communication systems. Selected Writings
II. Word and Language. The Hague, Paris: Mouton, 697–708.
– 1981 [1933]. Is film in decline? In: Jakobson, Roman, Selected Writings. Vol. III.
Poetry of Grammar and Grammar of Poetry. (Rudy, Stephen, ed.) The Hague: Mouton
de Gruyter, 732–739.
– 1985 [1980]. Brain and language: cerebral hemispheres and linguistic structure in
mutual light. Selected Writings VII. Contributions to Comparative Mythology: Studies
in Linguistics and Philology 1977–1982. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 163–180.
Johnson, William E. 1921. Logic (Part. I). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kamlah, Wilhelm; Lorenzen, Paul. 1967. Logische Propädeutik: Vorschule  des vernünftigen
Redens. Manneheim: BI Wissenschaftsverlag.
Klusoňová, Markéta 2012. Ostension in law. In: Araszkiewicz, Michał; Myška, Matěj;
Smejkalová, Terezie; Šavelka, Jaromír; Škop, Martin (eds.), Law and Literature:
Argumentation. Brno: Masaryk University, 13–21.
Kotarbińska, Janina 1960. On ostensive definitions. Philosophy and Science 27 (1): 1–22.
[Reprinted in: Przełęcki, Marian; Wójcicki, Ryszard (eds.), (1977) Twenty-Five Years of
Logical Methodology in Poland. (Synthese library v. 87.) Dordrecht: Reidel, 233–260.]
Lotman, Juri 1976. Semiotics of Cinema. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
– 2009. Culture and Explosion. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lorenz, Kuno 1970. Elemente der Sprachkritik. Eine Alternative zum Dogmatismus und
Skeptizismus in der Analytischen Philosophie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Morris, Charles 1955 [1946]. Signs, Language, and Behaviour. New York: George
Braziller.
Nöth, Winfried 1995. Handbook of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Osolsobě, Ivo 1967. Ostenze jako mezní případ lidského sdělování a její význam pro
umění [Ostension as a limit case of communication and its significance for art].
Estetika 4 (1): 2–23.
– 1969. Tractatus de artis genere proximo. Estetika 6(1): 19–39.
– 1971. The role of models and originals in human communication: Theory of signs
and the theory of models. Language Sciences 14: 32–36.
– 1979a. Segni, modello e teatro. In: Prevignano, Carlo (ed.), La Semiotica nei Paesi
Slavi. Programmi, Problemi, Analisi. Milan: Feltrinelli, 236–240.
– 1979b. Il teatro che parla, canta e balla. Teoria di una forma comunicativa. In:
Prevignano, Carlo (ed.), La Semiotica nei Paesi Slavi. Programmi, Problemi, Analisi.
Milan: Feltrinelli, 546–574.
203On the concept of“ostension”: a survey of contemporary semiotics
– 1979c. On ostensive communication. Studia Semiotyczne 9: 63–75.
– 1980. Cours de théâtristique générale. Études Littéraires 13(3): 413–435.
– 2002. Ostenze, hra, jazyk. Sémiotické studie. Brno: Host.
Pavis, Patrice 1980. Dictionnaire du Théatre: Termes et Concepts de l’Analyse Théatrale.
Paris: Editions Sociales.
Quine, Willard Van Orman 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.
– 1963 [1953]. From a Logical Point of View. New York: Harper Row.
– 1969. Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press.
Ruesch, Jurgen 1972. Semiotic Approaches to Human Relations. The Hague: Mouton.
Runes, Dagobert D. (ed.) 2010. The Dictionary of Philosophy. New York: Philosophical
Library.
Russell, Bertrand 1948. Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
Schmid, Herta 2008. A historical outlook on theatrical ostension and its links with other
terms of the semiotics of drama and theatre. Semiotica 168: 67–91.
Sebeok, Thomas A. 1974. Semiotics: A survey of the state of art. In: Sebeok, Thomas A.
(ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. 12. The Hague: Mouton, 211–264.
– (ed.) 1986. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics. Tome 2 N–Z. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
– 2001 [1994]. Signs: An Introduction to Semiotics. (2nd ed.) Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Sutton, Philip C. 1997. The surrogate audience: Ostension of spectator response in
televised shows. In: Nöth, Winfried (ed.), Semiotics of the Media: State of the Art,
Projects and Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton, 403–416.
Swift, Jonathan 2005. Gulliver’s Travels. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig 2001 [1922]. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Routledge.
– 1986 [1953] Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.