STRATAGet the app

Home / Learn / General

Semiotics — the study of signs and meaning

GeneralFoundationFive days6 modules24 lessons~183 min read

First Lesson

Cratylus vs. Hermogenes: Nature or Agreement?

Plato's dialogue on whether names have an inherent link to the things they represent

Cratylus vs. Hermogenes: Nature or Agreement?

Around 385 BCE, Plato wrote a dialogue called the Cratylus. It is one of the oldest surviving arguments about a question that still haunts language theory: Do words connect to things because of some natural bond, or only because people agreed to use them that way? The dialogue features two characters on opposite sides. Cratylus argues that names have a natural correctness — that the sounds and shapes of words somehow fit the things they describe. Hermogenes argues the opposite — that names are purely conventional, a matter of custom and habit. Socrates, as usual, plays referee, poking holes in both positions. The debate never fully resolves, and that is part of the point. Plato wanted us to sit with the tension.

Natural theory of language (physis)The idea that words are connected to the things they name by some intrinsic, natural link — that the sound or form of a word reflects something real about its object. In Greek, this position is associated with the concept of physis, meaning 'nature.'
Conventional theory of language (nomos)The idea that words have no built-in connection to what they name. Their meaning comes entirely from social agreement — from people deciding, over time, to use certain sounds for certain purposes. In Greek, this is linked to nomos, meaning 'law' or 'convention.'

Think of it this way. When you hear the English word "crash," it sounds a bit like the thing it describes — a sudden, loud impact. That might make you lean toward Cratylus. The sound seems to carry meaning on its own. Words like "buzz," "hiss," and "splash" work this way too. They are examples of onomatopoeia, words that imitate the sounds they refer to. But now consider the word "dog." There is nothing dog-like about those three letters or their sounds. In French, the word is "chien." In Japanese, "inu." If names were natural, why would different languages use entirely different sounds for the same animal? This is the strongest card in Hermogenes' hand. The sheer diversity of human languages suggests that most words are arbitrary — they mean what they mean because a community treats them that way, not because nature demands it.

A linguistic sign is not a link between a thing and a name, but between a concept and a sound pattern.— Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics
  • The debate between nature and convention is not just about words. It is about whether meaning is found in the world or made by people — a question that runs through philosophy, art, politics, and everyday life.

Why This Ancient Argument Still Matters

More than two thousand years after Plato, the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure gave Hermogenes' position its modern form. In his lectures at the University of Geneva (published after his death in 1916), Saussure introduced a key idea: the arbitrariness of the sign. A sign, for Saussure, is made of two parts — a concept in your mind (he called it the "signified") and a sound pattern you use to express it (the "signifier"). His central claim was that the link between these two parts is arbitrary. There is no law of nature that forces the concept of a tree to be paired with the English sounds t-r-ee. Any sound would do, as long as speakers agree on it. This principle became a cornerstone of modern semiotics — the study of signs and meaning. It means that language is, at bottom, a social contract. Words work because we trust each other to keep using them the same way.

But Cratylus was not completely wrong, and the natural side of the argument keeps resurfacing. Research in sound symbolism has shown that certain sound-meaning links appear across unrelated languages. In a famous experiment, the psychologist Wolfgang Köhler showed people two shapes — one spiky, one blobby — and asked which was called "kiki" and which "bouba." Overwhelmingly, people matched "kiki" to the spiky shape and "bouba" to the round one, regardless of their native language. This suggests that our brains do sometimes feel a natural fit between certain sounds and certain meanings. It does not overthrow Saussure's principle — the vast majority of words remain arbitrary — but it adds a wrinkle. Language is mostly conventional, yet not entirely deaf to the textures of the world it describes. The old tension between Cratylus and Hermogenes lives on, not as a settled debate, but as a productive one.

  • Saussure's arbitrariness principle did not end the ancient debate — it sharpened it. Most signs are conventional, but phenomena like sound symbolism remind us that the boundary between nature and agreement is not a clean line.
  • A sign is never just a label stuck on a thing. It is a relationship — between a concept and an expression, held together by the quiet, ongoing consent of a community of speakers.

Plato, Cratylus, trans. C.D.C. Reeve, in Plato: Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper (Hackett, 1997). — The foundational text for this debate. Reeve's translation is clear and well-annotated, making it accessible for first-time readers of Plato.

Keep going — the rest is free in the app

You've just read the opening lesson. Every module below, with quizzes, audio, and progress tracking, is waiting in STRATA.

Continue this course free →

Full curriculum

  1. Module 1 Plato's Cratylus and the Ancient Quarrel Over Names The Greek debate over whether words connect to things by nature or by convention, and why it never went away
    • Cratylus vs. Hermogenes: Nature or Agreement?Plato's dialogue on whether names have an inherent link to the things they represent
    • The Stoics and the SignifierHow Stoic logic introduced the concept of the lekton — a layer of meaning between word and object
    • Augustine's De Doctrina ChristianaThe first systematic Christian theory of signs, dividing them into natural signs and conventional signs
    • John Locke's SemiotikéThe coining of the term in the Essay Concerning Human Understanding and its vision of a science of signs
  2. Module 2 Ferdinand de Saussure's Course in General Linguistics The 1916 posthumous publication that rebuilt the study of language around the sign, the system, and difference
    • Geneva, 1907–1911: The Lectures That Changed EverythingSaussure's three courses on general linguistics, reconstructed from student notes after his death
    • Signifier and Signified: The Two-Sided SignSaussure's model of the linguistic sign as an inseparable pairing of sound-image and concept
    • Langue and Parole: System vs. SpeechThe distinction between the shared language system and individual acts of speaking
    • The Arbitrariness of the Sign and the Principle of DifferenceWhy signs have no positive terms — only differences that create meaning within a system
  3. Module 3 Charles Sanders Peirce and the Triadic Sign The American philosopher's lifelong project to classify every possible type of sign through icon, index, and symbol
    • Peirce at Johns Hopkins: Logic as SemioticHow Peirce arrived at his claim that all thought is in signs and that logic is a branch of semiotics
    • Icon, Index, Symbol: The Three RelationsPeirce's taxonomy — resemblance, physical connection, and convention — illustrated through photographs, weathervanes, and flags
    • Object, Representamen, Interpretant: The Triadic ModelWhy Peirce insisted on three elements instead of Saussure's two, and what the interpretant actually does
    • Unlimited Semiosis: The Chain That Never StopsPeirce's insight that every interpretant becomes a new sign, producing an infinite process of meaning-making
  4. Module 4 Prague, Copenhagen, Paris: Structuralism's Golden Age How Saussure's ideas were extended into phonology, anthropology, and narrative by the structuralist movements of the mid-twentieth century
    • Roman Jakobson and the Prague Linguistic CircleThe structuralist analysis of phonemes, poetic function, and the six functions of communication
    • Louis Hjelmslev's Prolegomena to a Theory of LanguageThe Copenhagen School's radical formalization of Saussure into expression-plane and content-plane
    • Claude Lévi-Strauss and the Mythology of the BororoApplying Saussurean binary oppositions to kinship systems, totemism, and hundreds of indigenous myths
    • A.J. Greimas and the Actantial ModelThe Lithuanian-French linguist's structural grammar of narrative — subject, object, sender, receiver, helper, opponent
  5. Module 5 Roland Barthes and the Signs of Everyday Life From wrestling matches to detergent ads, Barthes decoded the ideological messages hidden in popular culture and photography
    • Mythologies, 1957: Steak-Frites and the Citroën DSBarthes's short essays revealing how French bourgeois culture naturalizes its own values through everyday objects
    • Denotation and Connotation: The Two Orders of SignificationHow Barthes layered meaning — a photograph denotes a scene but connotes an ideology
    • The Rhetoric of the Image: The Panzani AdvertisementBarthes's 1964 dissection of a pasta ad into linguistic, coded iconic, and non-coded iconic messages
    • Camera Lucida and the PunctumBarthes's late meditation on photography, grief, and the irreducible detail that pierces the viewer
  6. Module 6 Umberto Eco, Derrida, and the Unraveling of Fixed Meaning How semiotics confronted its own limits through open works, deconstruction, and the politics of interpretation
    • Umberto Eco's A Theory of SemioticsEco's 1976 attempt to unify Peirce and Saussure into a single general theory of sign production and interpretation
    • The Open Work and the Model ReaderEco's argument that texts are machines for generating interpretations — but not infinite ones
    • Jacques Derrida and DifféranceThe deconstructionist challenge — meaning is endlessly deferred, and the sign never arrives at a fixed signified
    • The Limits of Interpretation: Eco vs. Derrida at Tanner, 1990The debate at Cambridge over whether texts can mean anything or whether interpretation has boundaries

Learn Semiotics — the study of signs and… properly

STRATA turns any subject into a complete, structured course in seconds. Start this one — or build your own.

Open in STRATA →

This course was generated by STRATA's AI at the request of a learner, then reviewed for our community guidelines. Content is for general learning.

← All courses© STRATA · Koa Tech App Studios