Introduction

1I would like to begin with a preliminary question: Why have semioticians been so interested in food lately? Why is there so much semiotic work on food, much more than on other social subjects such as music or art, for instance, or sports, politics, or even fashion? Or on subjects like the items listed by Saussure (1916) as examples in his proposal for a future science to be called “semiology”? It is worth here reading again this “prophetic” list to understand what the founding father had in mind as a possible object of semiology:

Language is a system of signs that express ideas, and is therefore comparable to a system of writing, the alphabet of deaf-mutes, symbolic rites, polite formulas, military signals, etc. […]
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 (from Greek semeion ‘sign’). Semiology would show what constitutes signs, what laws govern them (Engl. trans. 2011, p. 16).

1. Food it is undoubtedly a social object capable of incorporating collective relationships, emotions and cultural facts.

2. Although it satisfies an unavoidable natural need, food is an always regulated, cultural and grammatical phenomenon.

3. Therefore, it is always well established in every single cultural time or environment, but it always changes from culture to culture, from time to time. Although necessary, it takes different arbitrary configurations in time, shape, ingredients, tastes and ways of consumption.

4. Furthermore, in many societies, it is usually divided into well-established units and has a complex hierarchical organization.

3From these characteristics (cultural and grammatical character, arbitrariness, articulation), we can certainly say that food is really a social phenomenon that is more similar to language; more similar to it, one could argue, than some of the examples proposed by Saussure, as for instance “symbolic rites”. And yet, as we will see, there are essential differences, precisely with respect to the main function identified by Saussure for language: expressing ideas. But anyway, what matters for us is the fact that under the sociological or journalistic interest in food, it is possible to find a theoretical motivation for working in this field.

4However, in my opinion, this widespread semiotic interest is also marred by numerous problems and methodological imperfections. This occurs especially if semiotic analysis is automatically articulated in the usual jargon, taking for granted principles and methods elaborated for completely different objects. This happens for instance when the category of text is immediately applied to food, without sufficiently questioning its methodological presuppositions. In reality, the theme of food is very difficult to deal with in properly semiotic terms, for instance as “text”, because from the start, these labels are somehow generic and they don’t easily adjust to this item. I shall try to quickly explain the reasons for this criticism. The object on which the semiotic theme is modeled is ambiguous. We have to ask ourselves what exactly are we talking about when we use the analytical category of “food”.

5Basically, there is no such thing as the food. On the contrary, there are many different foods presented at many levels of organization in many culinary traditions, combined in many ways, made in many ways, eaten in many ways, possibly conveying many different meanings (or none of them) for different people and different occasions. It is not even clear what, in a given situation, can be considered food, or what is instead just an ingredient, a dish or an accompaniment. Under the category of “food”, we collect and analyze recipes and dishes prepared, solid objects and liquids that are swallowed, model images and audiovisual representations of the preparation, raw foods, as well as sophisticated visual presentations of the same edible matter. Food can be an object, a social practice, an action, a typology. The terms of these contrasts have a less defined relationship with each other than those which, in the semiotic tradition, are characterized according to the oppositions type vs. token, langue vs. parole, competence vs. performance—which of course differ from one another. The possibility for variation in the “execution” of the same dish is much wider than the already wide variation that is normally allowed for the performance of a theatrical or musical piece, so much as to authorize us to think that any single dish (for instance, “risotto alla milanese”) is defined by more than by an identity of object, but by a kinship—by what Wittgenstein (1953, new ed. 2001, § 67) used to call a “family resemblance”. All of this could stem in part, but only in part, from language. In the context of food, the fact is that the pertinence criteria and the commutation tests that are used to identify linguistic structures work little or not at all. The same problem of vagueness and imprecision arises just as well for the dishes, the recipes and the practices that generate them or for the contexts in which they are consumed. What does “roast” really mean and what is a “gala dinner”? The sense changes greatly according to time and place.

6In short, it is not clear what the precise object of the semiotic analysis of food is. It is quite clear that at this time, there is a semiotic field around food, but not a granted semiotic methodology suitable for such field. As I did in the previous paper (Volli 2021) for the context of food (“alimentation”), in this article, I propose to outline a theoretical framework of analysis, usable in a general way. For the reasons just given, this framework also implies strong limitations for the semiotic analysis of food.

1. Problematic definitions

1.1. Circumstantial theory

8It is worth starting with circumstantial theory, whereby food denotes the circumstances of its typical consumption. To understand this point, a brief comparison with clothing (or with its most studied and popular side, fashion) is useful. It is possible to argue, as Roland Barthes (1967) did, that every dress has a circumstantial meaning, that is, one (e.g. a tuxedo) is “for the evening”, another (e.g. jeans) is “for work” (or rather, today, “for leisure”), another (e.g. sneakers) is “for sport”, and so on. According to Barthes, this inherent finalization holds even when the clothes are worn out of context and always constitutes their “content”: for clothes, the standard context of use is the meaning, even if the situation is different. I am not convinced by this semantic framing of clothing, but it doesn’t matter to discuss it here.

9What is certain is that for most foods, this suggestion of circumstantial semantics does not work. Referring to Italian culture, certainly, there are birthday foods (for instance, cake with candles), Easter foods (e.g. roasted lamb), morning foods (e.g. “cappuccino” and “cornetto”), summer foods (e.g. ham and melon), winter foods (e.g. “polenta”), autumn foods (e.g. “castagnaccio”), etc. But first of all, this circumstantial meaning is not exclusive, because these foods can also be consumed outside of canonical time and do not carry with them the reminder of the occasion of their normal consumption. For example, it often happens for someone to consume a cappuccino even in the afternoon, without such fact implying any confusion regarding the time of day or any implicit allusion to the beginning of the day. To signal the holydays, it is customary to put cherries and other spring fruits on the table of the New Year’s “cenone” (i.e. a special dinner), and in this case, there is also no temporal confusion or attribution of a meaning other than the luxury of expensive food. One should also consider that most foods, both those “cultured” and elaborated by the chefs, and the popular foods of daily cooking, simply do not carry any circumstantial reference. Except for the fact that they are mainly consumed during meals and not in more casual situations, it is difficult to find any circumstantial significance for pasta with tomato sauce or roast veal, and likewise for most of the elaborate creations by the masters of the kitchen. At most, there are circumstantial exclusions: pasta is not normally eaten for breakfast or cappuccino consumed during a main meal. But certainly, it is difficult to consider such prohibitions as “negative circumstantial meanings”.

1.2. Identity theory

10Circumstances can be more broadly specified geographically or temporally. So you can think of seasonal or territorial or identity connotations. “Caponata” can remind of Sicily; “risotto allo zafferano” of Milan; “paella” of Spain or rather Valencia. The same with time: ice cream certainly can carry with it a connotation of summer, and “mulled wine”, one of winter. But this is not their meaning. In the right times or places, these connotations do not exist. Greek people do not think of Greece while eating “suvlaki” in Athens, nor do Israelis think of the Middle East while enjoying “felafel” on the beach of Tel Aviv. You do not need a “granita al caffé con la panna” (i.e. coffee granita with cream) to know that you are in summer in Sicily. On the contrary, if you are in Catania in July, you might be tempted to consume one. These connotative meanings are secondary and somehow parasitic. They are phenomena to be considered among the cultural effects of food, but they are certainly not the heart of its semantic mechanism. This argument against circumstantial semantics obviously holds true also against identity semantics, the idea according to which the meaning of food is first and foremost the expression of a cultural identity. Under normal circumstances, I do not eat pasta, risotto or “tiramisù”, or even drink a Barbaresco because they “express” my Italian identity, but because I like them; to me, they simply seem “appropriate” in their place and time, because they are “good” or just “usual” for me, and this happens on the basis of my Italian identity. Thinking the other way around is like believing that the meaning of Renaissance churches is the effect they have on tourists.

1.3. Flavor theory

12A first objection quickly arises: Are these qualities, like their visual equivalents (chromatic, eidetic, topological categories) and the affordances of these foods (for example being edible with a spoon or with a knife and fork) not part of the plane of expression instead of that of content? Are they not signifying qualities rather than signified? I will come back to elaborate on this point later. For now, it is appropriate to better observe the implications of this hypothesis and above all, its contraindications.

13We know that flavors result from the interaction of four types of chemical sensors in the mouth, but also that the much more differentiated chemical sensors of odors in the nose interact with these, besides thermal sensations (e.g. hot vs. cold), proprioceptive sensations (e.g. hard vs. soft), acoustic sensations (e.g. crispy vs. soft) and even visual sensations. However, the phenomenological organization of flavors does not correspond directly to all this perceptual apparatus. First of all, flavors are not absolute properties of every single food, they depend on food combinations and relations. Secondly, all cultures (and the people within them, no matter how competent and professional their taste) are limited in their judgment of flavors by widespread effects of confusion and vagueness, even regarding fundamental tastes. This is not only a linguistic effect of verbal vagueness: “spicy” is equally as vague a qualification as “red”, since the same object can be spicy or red or redolent for me and not for you; but there is something more and something more concrete here than the sheer feeling. Just think of the many different ways in which the sensations of “sweet”, “bitter” or “sour” tastes are produced, which different chemicals can elicit the same perceptual response. There is always a certain subjectivity and therefore vagueness: How salty is “salsa verde”? How sour or how garlicky? Will it not taste bad because it is excessive or too weak? How sweet is a jam? Isn’t this cranberry venison roast sickeningly sweet? The answer is cultural and social, not just individual. It is obvious that certain parameters of taste are established through experience, in which education and habit are fundamental. As happens with colors and also in the case of flavors, the perceptual and physiological dimension is not sufficient to determine individual awareness and the subsequent reactions of taste and meaning because a variable cultural grid is superimposed upon them. In both cases, there is a strong effect of “horizontal arbitrariness”: not only are the names of colors and tastes variable in different cultures, but also, the découpage of the perceptual continuum into different cultural units strongly depends on social choices.

14But the fundamental point is another. Let us consider the flavors of individual foods. They are undoubtedly produced by these perceptual/cultural mechanisms and are made up of the overlapping and interference of elementary qualities of taste, smell and texture, as I have mentioned. But we don’t recognize them as such; we do not have an analytical perception of it, but we always refer to complex categories, which are evidently defined according to a mechanism of prototypes. These definitions through prototypes rather than through pertinent traits (Violi 1997) always have a cultural nature. Let us think for instance about the taste of a banana. Let us imagine having to describe it to an inhabitant of a remote Arctic area who has never known such a fruit. We would tell him: it is a bit “sweet” and “creamy”; it has a “soft” texture. We could resort to making some references to vanilla, in some cases (but what is the flavor of vanilla if not that of another food? What if, as is likely, the Eskimo neither knows vanilla?). Here, we are faced with a problem similar to that of “radical translation” exposed in Quine (1960). If it is immature, the banana can be a bit “sour” and “astringent”. If it is too ripe, it is “cloying”. But is this all of the taste of banana? What does banana taste like if not of “banana flavor”? And what about a tomato? A peach? Capers? Milk?

15We must consider that the food industry has found chemicals that simulate certain tastes, for example, that produce the sensation of sweetness without being composed of sugar, or that even give the sensation of peaches or other fruits without using them. So, the technicians know how to produce completely artificial flavors. Today, we know some molecules that produce the sense effect of certain tastes and smells. But this obviously does not mean that these molecules are the meaning of the foods characterized by those flavors. And this is based on the fact that our taste perception is not analytical (knowledge of abstract qualities) but synthetic (comes from several co-occurrent chemical effects) and, above all, that it is concrete, because it refers primarily to concrete natural objects, particularly foods, such as peaches. One must have known and eaten them before in order to identify the flavor. Therefore, such perception depends on historical-cultural facts, even if it has a chemical-physiological basis.

16Some very formal paradigmatic schemes have been proposed for placing the specific taste of certain foods within their categories. For instance, market operators have prepared specialized schemes for honey, beer, and coffee in order to classify their products. But for semioticians, interested in communicative facts, it is more useful to consider how the tastes of foods are denominated in series that are the subject of public communication and of the commercial offer to consumers, rather than expert classification. If we consider for instance the commercial offer of ice cream parlors or pizzerias, or even restaurant menus, we find that characterization by flavor is hardly used. We almost never find the offer of a “spicy” pizza or a “very sweet” ice cream; instead, we will find the proposal of pizzas such as “Neapolitan style”, “Margherita” or “with ham and buffalo mozzarella”; steak voronoff; spring rolls; or “strawberry” or “tiramisù” ice cream. There is a very clear tendency to name flavors of food after fantasy associations or after materials that are used in their preparation. Of course, the names of the foods constitute a lexical subsystem which is organized in a biplanar manner, having the linguistic locutions as the level of expression and the foods as the level of contents; but it is a fragment of the semantics of the language. It is certainly not possible to argue that the planes can be reversed by considering the names as contents of the semantics of the dishes they name.

17It is worth adding that a componential analysis of flavors is an interesting and useful goal:

1. On the chemical-physical-physiological level, where many industrial simulations of flavors have been carried out;

2. On a phenomenological level, where it is however more difficult to simply reduce, even in the case of dishes that are a combination of many elements, flavor A to the sum of flavors B, C, D. The taste of a carbonara pasta is not the simple sum of that of pasta, salt, egg yolk and bacon (or rather “guanciale”, as purists insist). And above all, it certainly does not serve to represent them. It seems difficult to say that the meaning of the dish lies in the taste of its components.

18In short, even thinking about a semantics of flavors, it is clear that this kind food semantics is difficult to describe in this way and is essentially not biplanar.

1.4. Narrativity

19At this point, however, we must acknowledge that the above considerations correspond to a traditional semiotics of signs, which tries to find correspondences between the units of expression and those of the content, for example using commutation tests to identify them. Semiotics of recent decades has found it more effective to hypothesize that the text must be analyzed in its “depth” and that its fundamental articulation is narrative.

20If we consider every item of food as an enunciated statement, undoubtedly, there is an enunciational narrativity of food: its production, preparation and cooking take place over time according to processes that aim at making food ready in view of its consumption and that are therefore naturally framed in a narrative: someone (the subject) accepts the task (established by himself or by another, the sender) of preparing some food, obtains certain ingredients and instructions for use (recipes); with the help of various people and tools, overcoming the technical difficulties and obstacles, this subject manages to realize the object of value, namely, the required food (or fails to do so); eventually, the success of the preparation is recognized or not. The most classic example is that of the famous analysis by Greimas (1983) of “pesto soup” (soupe au pistou). The same can be said regarding consumption. The guest (subject), on the basis of his/her desire or social conventions (sender), with the help of certain tools and perhaps of the staff, overcoming any technical difficulties, appropriates food and ingests it (joins the object of value), and in conclusion, is satisfied with it or not (gives a positive or negative sanction).

21But really, can we find a narrative of food (subjective genitive)? Not some story of eating, cooking or consuming food (a narrative about food—there are many of them), but an intrinsic narrative where food is the subject of action? All this stereotyped and somewhat boring level of analysis concerns the level of enunciation, what we could call, reworking the terminology of Genette (1972), para-food or peri-food and that I once called “alimentation” (Volli 2021). We cannot consider these narratives as the meaning of the enunciated food; they only pertain to the social process that surrounds it. As far as real food is concerned, not only does the fundamental mechanism of narrativity (the definition of the purpose, preparation, achievement or otherwise of the objective, the recognition of the new situation) obviously not apply, but it is very doubtful that one can find the transcendental dimension that is presupposed by every story, that of a sequential temporality, as a line open to change in only one direction.

22In some culinary traditions, but not all, there is a temporal organization of meals. For example, in Italian contemporary culture, we commonly distinguish according to certain criteria between an “antipasto” (appetizer), a first course, a second course and a dessert; in France, between an entrée, a plat, etc. In some cases, these temporal sortings can further grow richer and involve limits to the materials and flavors that can be incorporated into some point of the succession (When you can serve sweet foods? Should the cheese be eaten before fruits or after them?). But this chronological structure (the so-called “Russian service”) is always only partial; even where the service is sequential, there are always foods that accompany and do not follow other foods (side dishes, drinks, bread, condiments). Often, choices are given within the courses. In other cultures, however, such as in Indonesia and also once in Europe with the so-called French services (but also today in certain “buffet” meals), this linearized syntagmatic (namely: enunciated narrative) organization of “services” is replaced by a predominantly parallel structure. In any case, even where the process is linear, we are confronted with a grammatical structure, like that of the linguistic sentence and not a narrative organization, except in the case of meals to which a narrative meaning is superimposed from the outside, as sometimes happens in religious or ritual circumstances.

2. Appearance

23From everything I have said so far, it is clear that it is not easy to come up with a content plane for food. Looking at the facts, it’s hard not to agree that the food system has a substantially monoplanar organization. Its level of expression is highly articulated, complex and richly organized according to the two axes of paradigm and syntagm. The level of content is instead weak, occasional, not articulated in a systematic way even when it appears. It is worth saying that this is by no means a rare case among social systems that have a strongly communicative role. Similar situations are found in well-known and relevant fields such as architecture, clothing (including fashion), industrial design, face make-up, landscape, furniture, etc. In all these systems, there is: (1) a more or less developed functional level (for food, nutrition; for architecture, housing; for clothing, body protection; for the landscape, agriculture, and so on). They also evidently have a communicative function, in the sense that their items are often made in such a way as to exert an influence on those who are confronted with them, giving them feelings of pleasure, reverence, curiosity, sex appeal, etc. In addition to these meaning effects, there are also sometimes (2) actual semantic indications, which however are usually limited to a few types of content. First of all, the objects of these fields show what they are and what their function is, possibly specifying the circumstances of use in which they typically appear. In short, they function according to a double logic of the prototype: on the one hand, they make sense of resembling or distancing themselves in some way from a prototype object; on the other, their meaning is determined by the typical social role of that object. They claim to perform the function that is typically associated with their model.

24Examples can be the evening dress or the lawyer’s robe, the bathroom, the coffee cups, the cocktail canapés. Secondly, they can qualify these functions by alluding to a social, aesthetic and cultural level linked to their use. Examples of this semantic connotation are easy to find in fashion, in the cuisine of great chefs, in furnishings designed by great architects and, generally, in luxury objects. Thirdly, they can embody metaphors or semi-symbolisms that enrich their identity. This happens, for example, in the layouts of churches that include the cross, or in foods that contain representations relating to their use or their ingredients, as in wedding sweets or in other foods such as Easter “doves” or the “pastries” shaped like fish.

25In all these cases, the founding metaphor of transmission that is implied in most theories of communication or of signs does not work. There is no signifier/container that contains and delivers a signified/content that is sent from someone to someone else in some precise circumstance. What matters instead is a certain appearance, available always to anyone who encounters it, which just expresses itself and its typical circumstances of use. I have proposed elsewhere (Volli 2017) to call “appearance” this type of substantially monoplanar and self-referential production of meaning.

3. Syntax

26What semiotics can accomplish about “appearance” systems is a monoplanar, namely, syntactic analysis. However, this task is complicated in the case of food by the fact that the syntactic system of food, as I said at the beginning of this paper, has multiple articulations. This same multiplicity, at least at the higher levels of articulation, is changing. The syntactic system of a restaurant is usually different, richer and at the same time more rigid than the domestic one. Below, I propose a summary analytical grid for the first (with particular reference to the Italian situation and its semi-sequential way of organizing meals).

3.1. First level: ingredients

27At the first level, we find the ingredients. Very often, they have a hierarchical organization, and it is worth distinguishing:

1. the main ingredients (e.g. fish);

2. secondary or accompanying ones (for example, the sauces that are served with them);

3. those of completion (for example, fillings);

4. those that serve as dressings, seasonings or working materials.

28In general, the objects of this level are not directly visible in the dishes, precisely because the ingredients are combined together and subjected to various physical-chemical treatments to compose the dish; but sometimes, especially in nouvelle cuisine, they remain identifiable even when juxtaposed.

3.2. Second level: single foods

29Some elements of level 3.1—namely (a) (main ingredients), (c) (fillings), and (d) (working materials)—are combined at a further level, the first one visible to the consumer, that of the single food (which can be highly complex, as in the case of “spaghetti alla carbonara”, “selle de veau orloff” or even pizza, or very simple, as in the case of a steak). In some cases, some element of level 3.1 is used as a unit at this level, without being further worked upon (for instance, a fruit or oysters).

30At this level, it may be useful to apply the matrix proposed by Barthes (1967) for explaining the morphological organization of the fashion system: what is meaningful in the fashion system for Barthes is an implicit defining syntagm, which can be deduced from the captions of the images, as Barthes did, or which in any case can be verbalized by the observer as follows: “an Object O, whose Attribute/Support S has this or that Variant V”. For instance “a skirt (O) with a wide (V) blouse (S)”; “a closed (V) neck (S) sweater (O)”, etc. The Object O is some type of object recognized as an element in the lexicon of clothing of the culture, which is therefore provided with a common name: for example, in our society, “pants”, “skirt”, “shirt”, “coat”, etc. In the defining syntagm, the attention of the observer is directed somehow (mainly because they are characterized by a relevant Variant) on certain parts or qualities (S), for example the fabric from which it is made, the length, the width, the folds, the color, etc. These are what Barthes calls Attributes/Supports. These parts or qualities are necessarily made in a certain way in every single piece of clothing: the length is large or small; the color is a certain shade of pink or blue, the buttons are made of a certain material, there are creases or not, etc. These details are what Barthes calls Variants. While the Attributes/Supports are part or aspects of the garment (Object) and the latter is a specimen of a type already existing in the clothing lexicon, the Variants are elective, even if, in reality, in a certain moment of the culture, they can be standardized: within a certain period, jeans are almost all blue or washed out, cropped or flared; during other years, shirts present mostly angled or rounded collars, trousers end up with a turn-up or not, ties are wide or narrow, etc. Hence, Variants characterize the quality of the object, its “classic” or “avant-garde” character, its adherence to the fashion of the moment or to the style of a certain designer label. The communicative and aesthetic point of clothing is therefore given by the choice of the Object and above all by the determination of its Variants. It should be noted that each garment (O) can be considered in reference to different Attributes/Supports (for example, a skirt has a length, a width, a color, a shape, a fabric, a closure, it can have pleats, decorations or inserts, and so on). Each of these Attributes/Supports admits several Variants and the style possibly expressed by the garment does not derive from a single Variant but from the isotopy that joins several of them.

31The same Object/Support/Variant pattern can be applied to foods, with the caveat of a greater freedom left to the chef than to the stylist. We can thus speak of “pasta (O) with artichoke (V) sauce (S)”, “fish (O) cooked in a salt (V) crust (S)”, “strudel (O) stuffed (S) with apricots (V)”, “fillet (O) cooked (V) ‘à point’ (S/A)”, and so on. Also in this field, the Objects are chosen within the repertoire of the relevant culture. It is evident that the Objects of Chinese cuisine are different from those of Arab cuisine; and that those of contemporary European cuisine are different from those of the Renaissance. They too are characterized by certain Attributes or Supports (usually many more than one): pasta can have certain shapes and is generally defined, for instance, by the sauce that seasons it, by the cooking time, by salting, by its colors or by the stuff of which it is made; meat can have various shapes, textures, sauces, ways of being cooked, animal breeds and pedigrees, and so on. In general, the food culture of a certain time and place implies standard modalities (V) of these Attributes for every food (O), but “creative” cuisine (as well as fusion or even incompetent cooking) modifies them in making certain qualities pertinent. Spaghetti (O) whose sauce (S) is tomato sauce (V1) are standard in the Italian culture of the last century and therefore of little significance; “pesto” (V2) carries a Ligurian connotation; if, on the other hand, the sauce (S) were made with caviar (V3), apples (V4) or coffee (V5), we would find a less usual and more communicative object. At this level, things such as rhetorical games, metaphors, imitations, litotes or irony are practiced.

32It is important to note that food systems are often recursive and multiple. Here, we find the articulation between the morphological and the syntactic planes of the food system. The point is that the components are not only juxtaposed, but must be combined according to certain cultural rules, expressed in recipes. This “polyphonic” character of food brings us to a further level.

3.3. Third level: dish

33The following level is that of the first commercial unit. Dishes are presented separately to customers in different contexts, often have an individual price and can be consumed alone. A “dish” can be just the same object that we called “food” at the previous level (as happens in language, where we often find phrases composed by a single word), but at this level, often two or more of those elements are presented and consumed together (for instance: roast chicken with fried potatoes; assorted appetizers; fish with mixed vegetables; ice cream in a cookie cone). Especially at the level of the dish, syntax is pertinent, because this level consists of combinations that involve a relationship of taste, temperature, proprioceptive sensations, colors, and cultural compatibility of materials. All these qualities constitute oppositional elements that can be called “values” (VA)—in the sense of Saussure (1959), not of Greimas (1970).

34For example, in the greatest part of Italian food culture today, certain combinations are prohibited or require to be somehow justified and made pertinent: for example fish and meat (which can go by the monikers “seas and mountains”), meat and sweet condiments such as jam (which instead is diffused as a German habit), etc.

3.4. Fourth level: meal

35The subsequent level is that of a complete meal, whether it is made of a succession of dishes, of their simultaneous presence, or with an intermediate degree of simultaneity (the “courses”). Also in this case, there are complex rules of succession or co-presence that determine the syntax of the meal. In classic French cuisine, the rule used to be starting the meal with a soup, followed by entrées (hot and cold) and then by a plat; in contemporary Italian culture, there is the notion of “antipasto” (for example ham) followed by a “first course” based on carbohydrates and then by a protein “main course”, with the conclusion of fruit, cheese and dessert. These rules vary over time and space and can be very complicated in haute cuisine. Also at this level, the syntactic conditioning is strong, indicating what can be eaten or served together, which dishes go before or after each other, possibly also establishing transversal elements (a meal of only fish, a “light” dinner, etc.). The juxtaposition rules also apply to the introduction of “supra-segmental” products, such as drinks and in some cases bread.

3.5. Fifth level: the cycles

36Above the complete meal, we find other levels of organization: a daily cycle of food often exists in many cultures. Sometimes there are longer cycles, for instance of the week or even of the year, connected with the festivals and the seasonal availability of materials.

3.6. Axis of system

37The paradigm axis exists only virtually in most structural systems, both in biplanar ones and in those of appearance. In some cases, it is only partially exemplified, for example for clothes in wardrobes and clothing stores or books in libraries. As far as food is concerned, it is easy to find some interesting partial representations of this axis, for example in restaurant menus and cookbooks, which however are in turn usually organized according to the syntagm axis of the meal level. It is clear that even these transcripts are partial (and the books also have a certain normative character). These axes of the system are numerous: there is the restaurant menu on a certain day and there is (virtually) all the possible offerings of that restaurant, all the types and combinations of a certain place, of a certain culture, of a certain time. The relationships within the paradigm axis change over time and space. Consider, for example, the segment of fats: olive oil, sunflower oil, seed oil, butter, margarine, lard, goose and whale blubber, fish oil, etc. They are not always mutually replaceable nor do they always present the same hierarchy of preferences. Culinary factors such as lightness and crunchiness, the syntactic agreement with certain dishes (think of a salad dressed with butter) and extra-culinary interventions, such as medical advice, religious interdictions, or even matters of availability and economic cost, intervene and make them more or less close, replaceable, valuable or tasty.

Conclusion

38We are now able to give a more detailed answer to the initial question. For semiotics, being interested in food does not just mean doing “cultural criticism” or even following the ups and downs of television entertainment genres. Food is a fascinating subject for those who study the effects of meaning because it is extremely complex, highly formalized and hierarchical, inserted in daily life but capable of producing values that fascinate all sections of the population. But above all, it is a very interesting example of a signifying system almost devoid of semantics, certainly the most developed and articulated case among those systems of communication (or rather of expression) that I have called “appearance”. Being able to consider it for its functioning, without wanting to force it back into a biplanar condition analogous to language or into a narrativity that does not correspond to it, is the challenge of the semiotics of food.