Semiotics: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Guest2625
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Study of signs and sign processes}}
{{Short description|Study of signs}}
{{Semiotics}}


'''Semiotics''' ({{IPAc-en|s|ɛ|m|i|ˈ|ɒ|t|ɪ|k|s}} {{respell|SEM|ee|OT|iks|}}) is the systematic study of [[semiosis|sign processes]] and the communication of [[Meaning (semiotics)|meaning]]. In semiotics, a [[Sign (semiotics)|sign]] is defined as anything that communicates intentional and unintentional meaning or feelings to the sign's interpreter.
'''Semiotics'''{{efn|Pronunciation: {{IPAc-en|s|ɛ|m|ɪ|ˈ|ɒ|t|ɪ|k|s}}, {{IPAc-en|s|iː|m|ɪ|ˈ|ɒ|t|ɪ|k|s}}{{sfnpm|OED staff|2025}}}} is the study of [[sign]]s. It is an interdisciplinary field that examines what signs are, how they form sign systems, and how individuals use them to communicate [[Meaning (philosophy)|meaning]]. Its main branches are syntactics, which addresses formal relations between signs, [[semantics]], which addresses the relation between signs and their meanings, and [[pragmatics]], which addresses the relation between signs and their users. Semiotics is related to [[linguistics]] but has a broader scope that includes nonlinguistic signs, such as maps and clothing.  


Semiosis is any activity, conduct, or process that involves signs. Signs often are communicated by verbal language, but also by gestures, or by other forms of language, e.g. artistic ones (music, painting, sculpture, etc.). Contemporary semiotics is a branch of science that generally studies meaning-making (whether communicated or not) and various types of knowledge.<ref>Campbell, C., Olteanu, A., & Kull, K. (2019). [https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/sss/article/view/SSS.2019.47.3-4.01 Learning and knowing as semiosis: Extending the conceptual apparatus of semiotics]. ''Sign Systems Studies'' 47(3/4), 352–381.</ref>
Signs are entities that stand for something else, like the word ''cat'', which stands for a carnivorous mammal. They can take many forms, such as sounds, images, written marks, and gestures. Iconic signs operate through similarity. For them, the sign vehicle resembles the referent, such as a portrait of a person. Indexical signs are based on a direct physical link, such as smoke as a sign of fire. For [[symbol]]ic signs, the relation between sign vehicle and referent is [[conventional]] or arbitrary, which applies to most [[Language|linguistic signs]]. Models of signs analyze the basic components of signs. [[Ferdinand de Saussure]]'s dyadic model identifies a perceptible image and a concept as the core elements, whereas [[Charles Sanders Peirce]]'s triadic model distinguishes a sign vehicle, a referent, and an effect in the interpreter's [[mind]].


Unlike [[linguistics]], semiotics also studies non-linguistic [[sign system]]s. Semiotics includes the study of indication, designation, likeness, [[analogy]], [[allegory]], [[metonymy]], [[metaphor]], [[symbol]]ism, signification, and communication.
Sign systems are structured networks of interrelated signs, such as the [[English language]]. Semioticians study how signs combine to form larger expressions, called texts. They explore how the message of a text depends on the meanings of the signs composing it and how [[context]]ual factors and [[Trope (literature)|tropes]] influence this process. They also investigate the [[code]]s employed to communicate meaning, including conventional codes, such as the color code of [[traffic signals]], and natural codes, such as [[DNA]] encoding hereditary information.


Semiotics is frequently seen as having important [[anthropology|anthropological]] and [[sociology|sociological]] dimensions. Some semioticians regard every cultural phenomenon as being able to be studied as communication.<ref name="caesar">{{cite book |last= Caesar |first= Michael |title= ''Umberto Eco: Philosophy, Semiotics, and the Work of Fiction'' |publisher= Wiley-Blackwell |year= 1999 |isbn= 978-0-7456-0850-1 |page= 55}}</ref> Semioticians also focus on the [[logic]]al dimensions of semiotics, examining [[Biology|biological]] questions such as how organisms make predictions about, and adapt to, their semiotic [[ecological niche|niche]] in the world.
Semiotics has diverse applications because of the pervasive nature of signs. Many semioticians study cultural products, such as [[literature]], [[art]], and media, investigating both the elements used to express meaning and the subtle [[Ideology|ideological]] messages they convey. The psychological activities associated with sign use are another research topic. [[Biosemiotics]] extends the scope of inquiry beyond human communication, examining sign processes within and between animals, plants, and other organisms. Semioticians typically adjust their research approach to their specific domain without a single [[methodology]] adopted by all subfields. Although the roots of semiotic research lie in [[Ancient history|antiquity]], it was not until the late 19th and early 20th centuries that semiotics emerged as an independent field of inquiry.


Fundamental semiotic theories take signs or sign systems as their object of study. Applied semiotics analyzes cultures and cultural artifacts according to the ways they construct meaning through their being signs. The communication of information in living organisms is covered in [[biosemiotics]] including [[zoosemiotics]] and [[phytosemiotics]].
== Definitions and related fields ==
{{multiple image
|perrow            = 2
|total_width      = 350
|image1            = Charles-Sanders-Peirce.jpg
|alt1              = Black-and-white photo of a bearded man
|image2            = Ferdinand de Saussure by Jullien Restored portrait crop.png
|alt2              = Black-and-white photo of a man with a moustache
|footer            = [[Charles Sanders Peirce]] and [[Ferdinand de Saussure]] helped establish semiotics as a distinct field of inquiry.{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1pp=2–3|Nöth|1990|2pp=13–14|Raposa|2003|3pp=801–802}}
}}
Semiotics is the study of [[sign (semiotics)|signs]] or of how [[Meaning (philosophy)|meaning]] is created and communicated through them. Also called ''semiology'',{{efn|It is controversial whether they are exact synonyms. For example, semiology is sometimes understood as a subfield of semiotics that focuses on linguistic signs. Less common synonyms include ''significs'' and ''signology''.{{sfnpm|Deely|1990|1pp=1–3|Daniel|2008|2loc=§ Nomenclature}}}} it examines the nature of signs, their organization into signs systems, like language, and the ways individuals interpret and use them. Semiotics has wide-reaching applications because of the pervasive nature of signs, affecting how individuals experience phenomena, communicate ideas, and interact with the world.{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1p=2–4|Danesi|2004|2pp=3–5|Cobley|2010|3pp=3–4}}


== History and terminology ==
These applications make it an interdisciplinary field, originating in [[philosophy]] and [[linguistics]] and closely related to disciplines like [[psychology]], [[anthropology]], [[aesthetics]], [[sociology]], and [[education sciences]].{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1p=4|Nöth|1990|2pp=3–5|Nöth|2023|3p=859}} Because most sciences rely on sign processes in some form, semiotics is sometimes characterized as a meta-discipline that provides a general approach for the analysis of signs across domains.{{sfnpm|Posner|2008|1pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=TBLe6YP0G98C&pg=PA2366 2366–2367]|Neuman|2015|2pp=125–126}} It is controversial whether semiotics is itself a [[science]] since there are no universally accepted theoretical assumptions or [[Methodology|methods]] on which semioticians agree.{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1p=3–4|Nöth|1990|2pp=3–5}} Semiotics has also been characterized as a theory, a doctrine, a movement, or a discipline.{{sfnpm|Eco|1979|1pp=7–8|Nöth|1990|2pp=3–4}} Apart from its interdisciplinary applications, pure semiotics is typically divided into three branches: [[semantics]], syntactics, and [[pragmatics]], studying how signs relate to objects, to each other, and to sign users, respectively.{{sfnpm|1a1=Sless|1a2=Shrensky|1y=2023|1p=8|Nöth|1990|2p=5}}
The importance of signs and signification has been recognized throughout much of the history of [[philosophy]] and [[psychology]]. The term derives {{etymology|grc|''σημειωτικός'' (sēmeiōtikós)|observant of signs}}<ref>Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. 1940. "σημειωτικός." ''[[A Greek-English Lexicon]]''. Revised and augmented by H. S. Jones and R. McKenzie. Oxford: [[Clarendon Press]]. Available via ''[https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dshmeiwtiko%2Fs Perseus Digital Library]''.</ref> ({{etymology||''σημεῖον'' (sēmeîon)|a sign, mark, token}}).<ref>[https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dshmei%3Don σημεῖον], Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, ''A Greek-English Lexicon'', on Perseus</ref> For the Greeks, 'signs' ({{Linktext|σημεῖον}} {{Lang|grc-latn|sēmeîon}}) occurred in the world of nature and 'symbols' ({{Linktext|σύμβολον}} {{Lang|grc-latn|sýmbolon}}) in the world of culture. As such, [[Plato]] and [[Aristotle]] explored the relationship between signs and the world.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/S4B/sem02.html|title=Semiotics for Beginners: Signs|website=visual-memory.co.uk|access-date=2017-03-26}}</ref>


It would not be until [[Augustine of Hippo]]<ref>[[John Deely|Deely, John]]. 2009. ''Augustine & Poinsot: The Protosemiotic Development.'' Scranton: [[University of Scranton Press]]. [provides full details of Augustine's originality on the notion of semiotics.]</ref> that the nature of the sign would be considered within a conventional system. Augustine introduced a thematic proposal for uniting the two under the notion of 'sign' ({{Lang|la|signum}}) as transcending the [[nature–culture divide]] and identifying symbols as no more than a species (or sub-species) of ''{{Lang|la|signum}}''.<ref>Romeo, Luigi. 1977. "The Derivation of 'Semiotics' through the History of the Discipline." ''Semiosis'' 6(2):37–49.</ref> A monograph study on this question was done by Manetti (1987).<ref>Manetti, Giovanni. 1993 [1987]. ''Theories of the Sign in Classical Antiquity'', translated by C. Richardson. Bloomington, IN: [[Indiana University Press]]. [Original: ''Le teorie del segno nell'antichità classica'' (1987)''.'' Milan: [[Bompiani]].]</ref><ref group="lower-alpha">See also [http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/3252 Andrew LaVelle's discussion of Romeo on Peirce]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181001220553/http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/3252|date=2018-10-01}}.</ref> These theories have had a lasting effect in [[Western philosophy]], especially through [[Scholasticism|scholastic]] philosophy.{{cn|date=February 2025}}
Semiotic inquiry overlaps in various ways with linguistics and [[communication theory]]. It shares with linguistics the interest in the analysis of sign systems, examining the meanings of words, how they are combined to form sentences, and how they convey messages in concrete contexts. A key difference is that linguistics focuses on language, while semiotics also studies non-linguistic signs, such as images, [[gestures]], [[traffic signs]], and [[Animal communication|animal calls]].{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1p=2–8|Zhao|2025|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=G-hMEQAAQBAJ&pg=PA16 16]|Deely|1990|3p=2}} [[Communication]] theory studies how individuals encode, convey, and interpret both linguistic and non-linguistic messages. It typically focuses on technical aspects of how messages are transmitted, usually between distinct organisms. Semiotics, by contrast, concentrates on the meaning of messages and the creation of meaning, including the role of non-communicative signs.{{sfnpm|Nöth|1990|1p=168–173|Danesi|2000|2p=59}}{{efn|The exact distinction between semiotics and communication theory is disputed. According to some proposals, they have the same scope, arguing that all semiotic activity is communicative.{{sfnpm|Nöth|1990|1p=168–171}}}} For example, semioticians also study naturally occurring biological signs, like [[Signs and symptoms|disease symptoms]], and signs based on inanimate relations, such as smoke as a sign of fire.{{sfnpm|Deely|1990|1pp=30–31, 33, 83–84|Chandler|2022|2pp=42–43|Sebeok|2001|3pp=46–47}}


The general study of signs that began in Latin with Augustine culminated with the 1632 {{Lang|la|Tractatus de Signis}} of [[John Poinsot]] and then began anew in late modernity with the attempt in 1867 by [[Charles Sanders Peirce]] to draw up a "new list of [[Categories (Peirce)|categories]]". More recently [[Umberto Eco]], in his ''Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language'', has argued that semiotic theories are implicit in the work of most, perhaps all, major thinkers.{{cn|date=February 2025}}
The term ''semiotics'' derives from the [[Ancient Greek|Greek]] word {{lang|grc|σημειωτική}} ({{Transliteration|grc|semeiotike}}), originally associated with the study of disease symptoms.{{sfnpm|Hoad|1996|1p=428|Staiano|2016|2p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=cUiHDwAAQBAJ&pg=PR11 xi]|MW staff|2025|Raposa|2003|4pp=801–802}} Proposing a new field of inquiry of signs, [[John Locke]] suggested the Greek term as its name.{{sfnpm|Jensen|2001|1loc=Lead section|Raposa|2003|2pp=801–802}} The first use of the English term ''semiotics'' dates to the 1670s.{{sfnpm|OED staff|2025}} Semiotics became a distinct field of inquiry following the works of the philosopher [[Charles Sanders Peirce]] and the linguist [[Ferdinand de Saussure]], the founders of the discipline.{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1pp=2–3|Nöth|1990|2pp=13–14|Raposa|2003|3pp=801–802}}


=== John Locke<!--Linked from 'John Locke'--> ===
== Signs ==
[[John Locke]] (1690), himself a man of [[medicine]], was familiar with this "semeiotics" as naming a specialized branch within medical science. In his personal library were two editions of Scapula's 1579 abridgement of [[Henri Estienne|Henricus Stephanus]]' {{Lang|la|Thesaurus Graecae Linguae}}, which listed {{Lang|grc|σημειωτική}} as the name for {{Gloss|diagnostics}},<ref>"Semiotics." ''Oxford English Dictionary'' (1989). ["The branch of medical science relating to the interpretation of symptoms."]</ref> the branch of medicine concerned with interpreting symptoms of disease ("[[symptomatology]]"). Physician and scholar [[Henry Stubbe]] (1670) had transliterated this term of specialized science into English precisely as "''semeiotics''", marking the first use of the term in English:<ref>[[Henry Stubbe|Stubbes, Henry]]. 1670. ''The Plus Ultra reduced to a Non Plus.'' London. p. 75.</ref>{{blockquote|text="...nor is there any thing to be relied upon in Physick, but an exact knowledge of medicinal phisiology (founded on observation, not principles), semeiotics, method of curing, and tried (not excogitated, not commanding) medicines...."}}Locke would use the term ''sem(e)iotike'' in ''[[An Essay Concerning Human Understanding]]'' (book IV, chap. 21),<ref>Encyclopedia Britannica. 2020 [1998]. "[https://www.britannica.com/science/semiotics Semiotics: Study of Signs]." ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica|Encyclopedia Britannica]]''. Accessed 8 April 2020 Web.</ref><ref group="lower-alpha">Locke (1700) uses the Greek word {{sic|"σημιωτική"|expected=ει, not ι|nolink=}} in the [https://books.google.com/books?id=hGeKsjjtu6EC 4th edition] of his ''Essay concerning Human Understanding'' (p. 437). He notably writes both (a) "σημιωτικὴ"<!--non-capitalized first letter and featuring a grave-accented last vowel; see p. 437 (main text)--> and (b) "Σημιωτική"<!--capitalized first letter and featuring an acute-accented last vowel; see p. 437 (margins)-->: when term (a) is followed by any kind of punctuation mark, it takes the form (b). In Chapter XX, titled "Division of the Sciences," which concludes the 1st edition of Locke's ''Essay'' (1689/1690), Locke introduces "σημιωτική"  in §&nbsp;4 as his proposed name synonymous with "''the Doctrine of Signs''" for the development of the future study of the ubiquitous role of signs within human awareness. In the 4th edition of Locke's ''Essay'' (1700), a new Chapter XIX, titled "Of Enthusiasm," is inserted into Book IV. As result, Chapter XX of the 1st edition becomes Chapter XXI for all subsequent editions. It is an important fact that Locke's proposal for the development of semiotics, with three passing exceptions as "asides" in the writings of [[George Berkeley|Berkeley]], [[Leibniz]], and [[Étienne Bonnot de Condillac|Condillac]], "is met with a resounding silence that lasts as long as modernity itself. Even Locke's devoted late modern editor, [[Alexander Campbell Fraser]], dismisses out of hand 'this crude and superficial scheme of Locke'" Deely adds "Locke's modest proposal subversive of the way of ideas, its reception, and its bearing on the resolution of an ancient and a modern controversy in logic." In the Oxford University Press critical edition (1975), prepared and introduced by Peter Harold Nidditch, Nidditch tells us, in his "Foreword," that he presents us with "a complete, critically established, and unmodernized text that aims at being historically faithful to Locke's final intentions";{{Rp|vii}} that "the present text is based on the original fourth edition of the ''Essay'';{{Rp|xxv}} and that "readings in the other early authorized editions are adopted, in appropriate form, where necessary, and recorded otherwise in the textual notes."{{Rp|xxv}} The term "σημιωτική" appears in that 4th edition (1700), the last published (but not the last prepared) within Locke's lifetime, with exactly the spelling and final accent found in the 1st edition. Yet if we turn to (the final) chapter XXI of the Oxford edition (1975, p. 720), we find not "σημιωτικὴ" but rather do we find substituted the "σημειωτικὴ" spelling (and with final accent reversed). '''Note''' that in [[Greek orthography|Modern Greek]] and in [[Pronunciation of Ancient Greek in teaching|some systems for pronouncing classical Greek]], "σημ'''ι'''ωτική" and "σημ'''ει'''ωτική" are pronounced the same.</ref> in which he explains how science may be divided into three parts:<ref name=":12">[[John Locke|Locke, John]]. 1963 [1823]. ''[[An Essay Concerning Human Understanding]].''</ref>{{Rp|174}}
{{main|Sign (semiotics)}}
A sign is an entity that stands for something else. For example, the word ''cat'' is a sign that stands for a small domesticated carnivorous mammal. Signs direct the attention of interpreters away from themselves and toward the entities they represent. They can take many forms, such as words, images, sounds, and odours. Similarly, they can refer to many types of entities, including physical objects, events, or places, psychological feelings, and abstract ideas. They help people recognize patterns, predict outcomes, make plans, communicate ideas, and understand the world.{{sfnpm|Danesi|2000|1p=209|Sebeok|2001|2pp=3|Chandler|2022|3pp=11–12}}


{{blockquote|All that can fall within the compass of human understanding, being either, first, the nature of things, as they are in themselves, their relations, and their manner of operation: or, secondly, that which man himself ought to do, as a rational and voluntary agent, for the attainment of any end, especially happiness: or, thirdly, the ways and means whereby the knowledge of both the one and the other of these is attained and communicated; I think science may be divided properly into these three sorts.||title=|source=}}
Semioticians distinguish different elements of signs. The sign vehicle is the physical form of the sign, such as sound waves or printed letters on a page, whereas the [[referent]] is the object it stands for. The precise number and nature of these elements is disputed and different models of signs propose distinct analyses.{{sfnpm|Nöth|1990|1pp=79–81|Danesi|2020|2pp=29–33}} The referent of a sign can itself be a sign, leading to a chain of signification. For instance, the expression "red rose" is a sign for a particular type of flower, which can itself act as a sign of love.{{sfnpm|Danesi|2004|1pp=118–119}}


Locke then elaborates on the nature of this third category, naming it {{Lang|grc|Σημειωτική}} ({{Lang|grc-latn|Semeiotike}}), and explaining it as "the doctrine of signs" in the following terms:<ref name=":12" />{{Rp|175}}
[[Semiosis]] is the capacity or activity of comprehending and producing signs. Also characterized as the action of signs, it involves the interplay between sign vehicle and referent as organisms interpret meaning within a given context.{{sfnpm|Danesi|2000|1p=204|Chandler|2022|2pp=33, 312|Cobley|2010|3pp=318–319}} Different types of semiosis are distinguished by the type of organisms engaging in the sign activity, such as the contrast between anthroposemiosis involving humans, zoösemiosis involving other animals, and phytosemiosis involving plants.{{sfnpm|Deely|1990|1pp=29–32|Cobley|2010|2pp=318–319}}


{{blockquote|Thirdly, the third branch [of sciences] may be termed {{lang|grc|σημειωτικὴ}}, or the doctrine of signs, the most usual whereof being words, it is aptly enough termed also {{lang|grc|Λογικὴ}}, logic; the business whereof is to consider the nature of signs the mind makes use of for the understanding of things, or conveying its knowledge to others.||title=|source=}}
=== Meaning, sense, and reference ===
The [[Meaning (philosophy)|meaning]] of a sign is what is generated in the process of semiosis. Meaning is typically analyzed into two aspects: [[sense and reference]].{{efn|Narrow definitions of meaning identify it with sense and contrasted it with reference.{{sfnpm|Nöth|1990|1pp=92–93}}}} This distinction is also known by the terms ''[[Connotation|connotation]]'' and ''[[Denotation|denotation]]'' as well as ''[[intension]]'' and  ''[[Extension (semantics)|extension]]''. The reference of a sign is the object for which it stands. For example, the reference of the term ''morning star'' is the [[planet Venus]]. The sense of a sign is the way it stands for the object or the mode in which the object is presented. For instance, the terms ''morning star'' and ''evening star'' have the same reference since they point to the same object. However, their meanings are not identical since they differ on the level of sense by presenting this object from distinct perspectives.{{sfnpm|Cobley|2010|1pp=263–264, 318–319|Nöth|1990|2pp=92–94|Danesi|2000|3p=207}}


[[Juri Lotman]] introduced Eastern Europe to semiotics and adopted Locke's coinage ({{Lang|grc|Σημειωτική}}) as the name to subtitle his founding at the [[University of Tartu]] in Estonia in 1964 of the first semiotics journal, ''[[Sign Systems Studies]]''.
Various theories of meaning have been proposed to explain its nature and identify the conditions that determine the meanings of signs. Referential or extensional theories define meaning in terms of reference, for example, as the signified object or as a context-dependent function that points to objects.{{sfnpm|Nöth|1990|1pp=95–98|Speaks|2024|2loc=§ 2.1 Classical Semantic Theories|Davis|2005|3pp=209–210}} Ideational or mentalist theories interpret the meaning of a sign in relation to the mental states of language users, for example, as the ideas it evokes.{{sfnpm|Nöth|1990|1p=99|Speaks|2024|2loc=§ 3.3 Mental Representation-based Theories|3a1=Chapman|3a2=Routledge|3y=2009}} [[Pragmatism|Pragmatic]] theories describe meaning based on behavioral responses and [[Philosophical Investigations#Meaning as use|use conditions]].{{sfnpm|Nöth|1990|1pp=100–101|Speaks|2024|2loc=§ 3.7 Rules of Use}}


=== Ferdinand de Saussure ===
=== Types and sign relations ===
[[Ferdinand de Saussure]] founded his semiotics, which he called [[Ferdinand de Saussure#Language as semiology|semiology]], in the social sciences:<ref>Cited in [[Daniel Chandler|Chandler, Daniel]]. ''Semiotics for Beginners''. "Introduction."</ref>
[[File:Vincent van Gogh - Self-Portrait - Google Art Project (454045).jpg|thumb|alt=Oil painting of a bearded man wearing a coat|Icons represent through similarity, such as a portrait referring to [[Vincent van Gogh]] by resembling him.{{sfnpm|Sebeok|2001|1pp=50–53}}]]
[[File:Huella de perro..JPG|thumb|alt=Photo of a footprint of a dog in the sand|Indexical signs represent through a direct physical link, such as a footprint of a dog referring to the dog.{{sfnpm|Sebeok|2001|1pp=53–55}}]]
[[File:Referential theory of meaning.svg|thumb|alt=Diagram with the word "apple", and an arrow, and an apple image|Symbols are signs with an arbitrary relation between sign vehicle and referent, such as the link between the word "apple" and the fruit.{{sfnpm|Fiske|1990|1pp=46–48}}]]


{{blockquote|It is...possible to conceive of a science which studies the role of signs as part of social life. It would form part of social psychology, and hence of general psychology. We shall call it semiology (from the Greek ''semeîon'', 'sign'). It would investigate the nature of signs and the laws governing them. Since it does not yet exist, one cannot say for certain that it will exist. But it has a right to exist, a place ready for it in advance. Linguistics is only one branch of this general science. The laws which semiology will discover will be laws applicable in linguistics, and linguistics will thus be assigned to a clearly defined place in the field of human knowledge. ||title=|source=}}
Semioticians distinguish various types of signs, often based on the sign relation or how the sign vehicle is connected to the referent.{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1pp=42–43|Nöth|1990|2pp=107–109}} A type is a general pattern or universal class, corresponding to shared features of individual signs. [[Type–token distinction|Types contrast with tokens]], which are individual instances of a type. For example, the word ''banana'' encompasses six letter tokens (''b'', ''a'', ''n'', ''a'', ''n'', and ''a''), which belong to three distinct types (''b'', ''a'', and ''n'').{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1pp=59–60|Nöth|1990|2pp=81, 136}}


[[Thomas Sebeok]]<ref group="lower-alpha">The whole anthology, ''Frontiers in Semiotics'', was devoted to the documentation of this ''pars pro toto'' move of Sebeok.</ref> would assimilate ''semiology'' to ''semiotics'' as a part to a whole, and was involved in choosing the name ''[[Semiotica]]'' for the first international journal devoted to the study of signs. Saussurean semiotics have exercised a great deal of influence on the schools of structuralism and post-structuralism. [[Jacques Derrida]], for example, takes as his object the Saussurean relationship of signifier and signified, asserting that signifier and signified are not fixed, coining the expression {{Lang|fr|différance}}, relating to the endless deferral of meaning, and to the absence of a "transcendent signified".
A historically influential classification of sign types relies on the contrast between [[Convention (norm)|conventional]] and natural signs. Conventional signs depend on culturally established norms and intentionality to establish the link between sign vehicle and referent. For example, the meaning of the term ''tree'' is fixed by social conventions associated with the English language rather than a natural connection between the term and actual trees. Natural signs, by contrast, are based on a substantial link other than conventions. For instance, the footprint of a bear signifies the presence of a bear as a result of the bear's movement rather than a matter of convention. In modern semiotics, the distinction between natural and conventional signs has been replaced by the threefold classification into [[Semiotic theory of Charles Sanders Peirce#II. Icon, index, symbol|icons, indices, and symbols]], initially proposed by Peirce.{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1pp=42–43|Nöth|1990|2pp=107–109}}


=== Charles Sanders Peirce ===
Icons are signs that operate through [[Similarity (philosophy)|similarity]]: sign vehicles resemble or imitate the referents to which they are linked. They include direct physical similarity, such as a life-like portrait depicting a person, but also encompass more abstract resemblance, such as [[metaphors]] and [[diagrams]].{{sfnpm|Sebeok|2001|1pp=50–53|Chandler|2022|2pp=42–43|Fiske|1990|3pp=46–48}} Icons are also used in [[animal communication]]. For instance, ants of the species ''[[Pogonomyrmex badius]]'' use a smell-based warning signal that resembles the type of danger with a correspondence between intensity and duration of signal and danger.{{sfnpm|Sebeok|2001|1p=52}}
In the nineteenth century, [[Charles Sanders Peirce]] defined what he termed "semiotic" (which he would sometimes spell as "semeiotic") as the "quasi-necessary, or formal doctrine of signs," which abstracts "what must be the characters of all signs used by...an intelligence capable of learning by experience,"<ref>[[Charles Sanders Peirce|Peirce, Charles Sanders]]. ''Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce'', vol. 2: para. 227.</ref> and which is philosophical logic pursued in terms of signs and sign processes.<ref>[[Charles Sanders Peirce|Peirce, Charles Sanders.]] 1998 [1902]. "[http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/bycsp/l75/l75.htm Logic, Regarded As Semeiotic]," [manuscript L75] ''Arisbe: The Peirce Gateway'', edited by J. Ransdell.</ref><ref>[[Charles Sanders Peirce|Peirce, Charles Sanders.]] 1998 [1902]. "[http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/bycsp/l75/ver1/l75v1-05.htm#m12 On the Definition of Logic]." [memoir 12]. ''Arisbe: The Peirce Gateway'', edited by J. Ransdell.</ref>


Peirce's perspective is considered as philosophical logic studied in terms of signs that are not always linguistic or artificial, and sign processes, modes of inference, and the inquiry process in general. The Peircean semiotic addresses not only the external communication mechanism, as per Saussure, but the internal representation machine, investigating sign processes, and modes of inference, as well as the whole inquiry process in general.{{cn|date=February 2025}}
Indices are signs that operate through a direct physical link. Typically, the referent is the [[Causality|cause]] of the sign vehicle. For example, smoke indicates the presence of fire because it is a physical effect produced by the fire itself. Similarly, disease symptoms are signs of the disease causing them and a [[thermometer]]'s gauge reading indicates the temperature responsible. Other material links besides a direct cause-effect relation are also possible such as a directional signpost physically pointing the path to a nearby campsite.{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1pp=42–43|Fiske|1990|2pp=46–48|Sebeok|2001|3pp=53–55}}


Peircean semiotic is triadic, including sign, object, interpretant, as opposed to the dyadic [[Ferdinand de Saussure|Saussurian]] tradition (signifier, signified). Peircean semiotics further subdivides each of the three triadic elements into three sub-types, positing the existence of signs that are symbols; semblances ("icons"); and "indices," i.e., signs that are such through a factual connection to their objects.<ref>{{Citation |last=Atkin |first=Albert |title=Peirce's Theory of Signs |date=2023 |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/peirce-semiotics/ |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |access-date=2023-03-21 |edition=Spring 2023 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |editor2-last=Nodelman |editor2-first=Uri}}</ref>
Symbols are signs that operate through convention-based associations. For them, the relation between sign vehicle and referent is [[arbitrary]]. It arises from social agreements, which an individual needs to learn in order to decode the meaning. Examples are the numeral "2", the colors on [[traffic lights]], and [[national flags]].{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1pp=42–43|Fiske|1990|2pp=46–48}}


Peircean scholar and editor Max H. Fisch (1978)<ref group="lower-alpha">Max Fisch has compiled Peirce-related bibliographical supplements in 1952, 1964, 1966, 1974; was consulting editor on the 1977 microfilm of Peirce's published works and on the ''Comprehensive Bibliography'' associated with it; was among the main editors of the first five volumes of ''Writings of Charles S. Peirce'' (1981–1993); and wrote a number of published articles on Peirce, many collected in 1986 in ''Peirce, Semeiotic, and Pragmatism.'' See also [[Charles Sanders Peirce bibliography]].</ref> would claim that "semeiotic" was Peirce's own preferred rendering of Locke's σημιωτική.<ref>Fisch, Max H. (1978), "Peirce's General Theory of Signs" in ''Sight, Sound, and Sense'', ed. T. A. Sebeok. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 31–70.</ref> [[Charles W. Morris]] followed Peirce in using the term "semiotic" and in extending the discipline beyond human communication to animal learning and use of signals.
The categories of icon, index, and symbol are not exclusive, and the same sign may belong to more than one. For example, some road warning signs combine iconic elements, like an image of falling rocks to indicate [[rockslide]], with symbolic elements, such as a red triangle to signal danger.{{sfnpm|Fiske|1990|1p=48|Chandler|2022|2p=57}} Various other categories are discussed in the academic literature. [[Thomas Sebeok]] expands the icon-index-symbol classification by adding three more categories: signals are signs that typically trigger behavioral responses in the receiver; symptoms are automatic, non-arbitrary signs; [[names]] are extensional signs that identify one specific individual.{{sfnpm|Nöth|1990|1p=108|Sebeok|2001|2pp=8–9, 44–50, 59–60}} Other categorizations of signs are based on the [[Communication channel|channel of transmission]], the intentions of the communicators, vagueness, ambiguity, reliability, complexity, and type of referent.{{sfnpm|Nöth|1990|1pp=44–45, 108–110|Danesi|2020|2pp=20}}


While the Saussurean semiotic is dyadic (sign/syntax, signal/semantics), the Peircean semiotic is triadic (sign, object, interpretant), being conceived as philosophical logic studied in terms of signs that are not always linguistic or artificial.
=== Models ===
Models of signs seek to identify the essential components of signs. Many models have been proposed and most introduce a unique terminology for the different components although they often share substantial conceptual overlap. A common classification distinguishes between dyadic and triadic models.{{sfnpm|Iskanderova|2024|1pp=8, 11–12|Danesi|2020|2pp=18–20|Nöth|1990|3pp=59–60, 90, 94}}


==== Peirce's list of categories ====
[[File:Saussure's dyadic model of signs.svg|thumb|alt=Diagram of a circle with the words "signified" and "signifier" inside|According to Saussure's dyadic model, signs are composed of a sensible image (signifier) and a concept (signified).{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1p=16}}]]
Peirce would aim to base his new list directly upon experience precisely as constituted by action of signs, in contrast with the list of Aristotle's categories which aimed to articulate within experience the dimension of being that is independent of experience and knowable as such, through human understanding.{{cn|date=February 2025}}


The estimative powers of animals interpret the environment as sensed to form a "meaningful world" of objects, but the objects of this world (or ''[[Umwelt]]'', in [[Jakob von Uexküll]]'s term)<ref>2001. "''Umwelt''". ''[[Semiotica]]'' 134(1). Pp. 125–135. [special issue on "Jakob von Uexküll: A paradigm for biology and semiotics," guest-edited by [[Kalevi Kull|K. Kull]].]</ref> consist exclusively of objects related to the animal as desirable (+), undesirable (–), or "safe to ignore" (0).
Dyadic models assert that signs have essentially two components, a sign vehicle and its meaning. An influential dyadic model was proposed by Saussure, who names the components [[Signified and signifier|''signifier'' and ''signified'']]. The signifier is a sensible image, whereas the signified is a concept or an idea associated with this form. For Saussure, the sign is a relation that connects signifier and signified, functioning as a bridge from a sensory form to a concept. He understands both signifier and signified as psychological elements that exist in the [[mind]]. As a result, the meaning of signs is limited to the realm of ideas and does not directly concern the external objects to which signs refer. Focusing on language as a general model of signs, Saussure argued that the relation between signifier and signified is arbitrary, meaning that any sensible image could in principle be paired with any concept. He held that individual signs need to be understood in the context of sign systems, which organize and regulate the arbitrary connections.{{sfnpm|Iskanderova|2024|1pp=12–16|Danesi|2020|2pp=18–19|Nöth|1990|3pp=59–61|Chandler|2022|4pp=15–26}}


In contrast to this, human understanding adds to the animal ''Umwelt'' a relation of self-identity within objects which transforms objects experienced into 'things' as well as +, –, 0 objects.<ref name=":2">[[Martin Heidegger|Heidegger, Martin.]] 1962 [1927]. ''[[Being and Time]]'', translated by J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson. New York: [[Harper (publisher)|Harper & Row]]. p. 487.</ref><ref group="lower-alpha">"The distinction between the being of existing ''Dasein'' and the Being of entities, such as Reality, which do not have the character of ''Dasein''...is nothing with which philosophy may tranquilize itself. It has long been known that ancient ontology works with 'Thing-concepts' and that there is a danger of 'reifying consciousness'. But what does this 'reifying' signify? Where does it arise? Why does Being get 'conceived' 'proximally' in terms of the present-at-hand and not in terms of the ready-to-hand, which indeed lies ''closer'' to us? Why does reifying always keep coming back to exercise its dominion? This is the question that the ''Umwelt/Lebenswelt'' distinction as here drawn answers to." [[Martin Heidegger]] 1962/1927:486</ref> Thus, the generically animal objective world as ''Umwelt'', becomes a species-specifically human objective world or {{Lang|de|Lebenswelt}} ({{Gloss|life-world}}), wherein linguistic communication, rooted in the biologically underdetermined {{Lang|de|Innenwelt}} ({{Gloss|inner-world}}) of humans, makes possible the further dimension of cultural organization within the otherwise merely social organization of non-human animals whose powers of observation may deal only with directly sensible instances of objectivity.{{cn|date=February 2025}}
Various interpreters of Saussure's model, such as [[Louis Hjelmslev]]{{efn|Inspired by Saussure, Hjelmslev proposed a sign model based on four categories. He argued that a sign consist of an expression and a content{{em dash}}corresponding to Saussure's signifier and signified{{em dash}}and added that expression and content each have two aspects: substance and form.{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1pp=65–66}}}} and [[Roman Jakobson]], rejected the purely psychological interpretation of signs. For them, signifiers are material forms that can be seen or heard, not mental images of material forms. Similarly, critics have objected to the idea that the relation between signs and signifiers are always arbitrary, pointing to iconic and indexical signs as counterexamples.{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1pp=17, 20–22, 39–40|Iskanderova|2024|2pp=14–15|Fadda|2025|3pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=3rFmEQAAQBAJ&pg=PA306 306]}}{{efn|It is controversial whether this criticism is successful since iconic and indexical signs concern relations to external referents, whereas Saussure's model deals with relations between ideas.{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1pp=20–22}}}}


This further point, that human culture depends upon language understood first of all not as communication, but as the biologically underdetermined aspect or feature of the human animal's ''{{Lang|de|Innenwelt}}'', was originally clearly identified by [[Thomas Sebeok|Thomas A. Sebeok]].<ref>[[Thomas Sebeok|Sebeok, Thomas A.]] 1986. "Communication, Language, and Speech. Evolutionary Considerations." Pp. 10–16 in ''I Think I Am A Verb. More Contributions to the Doctrine of Signs''. New York: [[Plenum Press]]. Published lecture.
[[File:Peirce's triadic model of signs.svg|thumb|alt=Diagram of a triangle with the words "sign", "representamen", "interpretant", and "object"|According to Peirce's triadic model, signs are composed of a sign vehicle (representamen), a referent (object), and an effect in the interpreter's mind (interpretant).{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1p=32}}]]


Original lecture title "The Evolution of Communication and the Origin of Language," in ''International Summer Institute for Semiotic and Structural Studies'' ''Colloquium on 'Phylogeny and Ontogeny of Communication Systems''' (June 1–3, 1984).</ref><ref>[[Thomas Sebeok|Sebeok, Thomas A]]. 2012. "[http://www.augustoponzio.com/files/12._Deely.pdf Afterword]." Pp. 365–83 in ''Semiotic Prologues'', edited by [[John Deely|J. Deely]] and [[Marcel Danesi|M. Danesi]]. Ottawa: Legas.</ref> Sebeok also played the central role in bringing Peirce's work to the center of the semiotic stage in the twentieth century,<ref group="lower-alpha">Detailed demonstration of Sebeok's role of the global emergence of semiotics is recorded in at least three recent volumes:
Triadic models assert that signs have three components. An influential triadic model proposed by Peirce argues that the third component is required to account for the individual that interprets signs, implying that there is no meaning without interpretation. According to Peirce, a sign is a relation between representamen, object, and [[interpretant]]. The representamen is a perceptible entity, the object is the referent for which the representamen stands, and the interpretant is the effect produced in the mind of the interpreter.{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1pp=13–15, 30–35|Danesi|2020|2pp=19–20|Nöth|1990|3pp=42–43}}
# ''Semiotics Seen Synchronically. The View from 2010'' (Ottawa: Legas, 2010).
# ''Semiotics Continues To Astonish. Thomas A. Sebeok and the Doctrine of Signs'' (Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 2011)—a 526-page assemblage of essays, vignettes, letters, pictures attesting to the depth and extent of Sebeok's promotion of semiotic understanding around the world, including his involvement with Juri Lotman and the Tartu University graduate program in semiotics (currently directed by P. Torop, M. Lotman and K. Kull).
# Sebeok's ''Semiotic Prologues'' (Ottawa: Legas, 2012)—a volume which gathers together in Part I all the "prologues" (i.e., introductions, prefaces, forewords, etc.) that Sebeok wrote for other peoples' books, then in Part 2 all the "prologues" that other people wrote for Sebeok.</ref> first with his expansion of the human use of signs (''anthroposemiosis'') to include also the generically animal sign-usage (''zoösemiosis''),<ref group="lower-alpha">See [[Thomas Sebeok|Sebeok, Thomas A]]. "Communication in Animals and Men." A review article that covers three books: Martin Lindauer, ''Communication among Social Bees'' (Harvard Books in Biology, No. 2; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961, pp. ix + 143);  Winthrop N. Kellogg, Porpoises and Sonar (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1961, pp. xiv + 177); and John C. Lilly, ''Man and Dolphin'' (Garden City, New York: Doubleday), in ''Language'' 39 (1963), 448–466.</ref> then with his further expansion of semiosis to include the vegetative world (''phytosemiosis''). Such would initially be based on the work of [[Martin Krampen]],<ref>[[Martin Krampen|Krampen, Martin]]. 1981. "Phytosemiotics." ''[[Semiotica]]'' 36(3):187–209.</ref> but takes advantage of Peirce's point that an interpretant, as the third item within a sign relation, "need not be mental".<ref>[[Charles Sanders Peirce|Peirce, Charles Sanders]]. 1934 [1907] "A Survey of Pragmaticism." P. 473. in ''The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce'' 5, edited by [[Charles Hartshorne|C. Hartshorne]] and P. Weiss. Cambridge, MA: [[Harvard University Press]]. [originally titled "Excerpt from "Pragmatism (Editor [3])"]</ref><ref>[[Charles Sanders Peirce|Peirce, Charles Sanders]]. 1977 [1908]. "letter to Lady Welby 23 December 1908" [letter]. Pp. 73–86 in ''Semiotic and Significs: The Correspondence between C.&nbsp;S. Peirce and Victoria Lady Welby'', edited by C. S. Hardwick and J. Cook. Bloomington, IN: [[Indiana University Press]].</ref><ref>[[Charles Sanders Peirce|Peirce, Charles Sanders]]. 2009. "Semiosis: The Subject Matter of Semiotic Inquiry." Pp. 26–50 in ''Basics of Semiotics'' (5th ed.), edited by [[John Deely|J. Deely]]. Tartu, Estonia: [[Tartu University Press]]. See especially pp. 31,38– 41.</ref>


Peirce distinguished between the interpretant and the interpreter. The interpretant is the internal, mental representation that mediates between the object and its sign. The interpreter is the human who is creating the interpretant.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://courses.logos.it/EN/2_18.html|title=LOGOS – Multilingual Translation Portal |website=courses.logos.it |access-date=2017-03-26}}</ref> Peirce's "interpretant" notion opened the way to understanding an action of signs beyond the realm of animal life (study of phytosemiosis + zoösemiosis + anthroposemiosis = ''biosemiotics''), which was his first advance beyond Latin Age semiotics.<ref group="lower-alpha">For a summary of Peirce's contributions to semiotics, see Liszka (1996) or Atkin (2006).</ref>
Peirce distinguishes various aspects of these components. The immediate object is the object as the sign presents it{{em dash}}a [[mental representation]]. The dynamic object, by contrast, is the actual entity as it really is, which anchors the meaning of the sign. The immediate interpretant is the sign's potential meaning, whereas the dynamic interpretant is the sign's actual effect or the understanding it produces. The final interpretant is the ideal meaning that would be reached after an exhaustive inquiry.{{sfnpm|Nöth|1990|1pp=42–434|Atkin|2023|2loc=§ 4.1 Dividing The Object, § 4.2 Dividing the Interpretant}} Peirce emphasizes that semiosis or meaning-making is a continuously evolving process. Analyzing Peirce's model, [[Umberto Eco]] talks of an "unlimited semiosis" in which the interpretation of one sign leads to more signs, resulting in an endless chain of signification.{{sfnpm|Nöth|1990|1pp=42–43|Chandler|2022|2pp=30–34}}


Other early theorists in the field of semiotics include [[Charles W. Morris]].<ref>1971, orig. 1938, ''Writings on the general theory of signs'', Mouton, The Hague, The Netherlands</ref> Writing in 1951, [[Jozef Maria Bochenski]] surveyed the field in this way: "Closely related to mathematical logic is the so-called semiotics (Charles Morris) which is now commonly employed by mathematical logicians. Semiotics is the theory of symbols and falls in three parts;
Another triadic model, proposed by [[Charles Kay Ogden]] and [[I. A. Richards]], distinguishes between symbol, thought, and referent. Known as the [[semiotic triangle]], it asserts that the connection between symbol and referent is not direct but requires the mediation of thought to establish the link.{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1pp=14, 41|Nöth|1990|2pp=59–60, 90, 94|3a1=Dirven|3a2=Verspoor|3y=2004|3p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=OM58J4nQJaYC&pg=PA28 28]}}
# logical [[syntax]], the theory of the mutual relations of symbols,
# logical [[semantics]], the theory of the relations between the symbol and what the symbol stands for, and
# logical [[pragmatics]], the relations between symbols, their meanings and the users of the symbols."<ref>Jozef Maria Bochenski (1956) ''Contemporary European Philosophy'', trans. Donald Nichols and Karl Ashenbrenner from 1951 edition, Berkeley, CA: University of California, Section 25, "Mathematical Logic," Subsection F, "Semiotics," p. 259.</ref>
[[Max Black]] argued that the work of [[Bertrand Russell]] was seminal in the field.<ref>Black, Max. 1944. ''The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell'' 5. [[Library of Living Philosophers]].</ref>


== Formulations and subfields ==
== Sign systems ==
[[File:Kstovo-BusStation-Sinks-1444.JPG|thumb|[[Color code|Color-coding]] hot- and cold-water faucets (taps) is common in many cultures but, as this example shows, the coding may be rendered meaningless because of context. The two faucets (taps) probably were sold as a coded set, but the code is unusable (and ignored), as there is a single water supply.]]
{{main|Sign system}}
Semioticians classify signs or sign systems in relation to the way they are [[modality (semiotics)|transmitted]]. This process of carrying meaning depends on the use of [[code (semiotics)|codes]] that may be the individual sounds or letters that humans use to form words, the body movements they make to show attitude or emotion, or even something as general as the clothes they wear. To [[neologism|coin]] a word to refer to a ''[[lexical (semiotics)|thing]]'', the [[community]] must agree on a simple meaning (a [[denotation (semiotics)|denotative]] meaning) within their language, but that word can transmit that meaning only within the language's [[syntax|grammatical structures]] and [[semantics|codes]]. Codes also represent the [[value (semiotics)|values]] of the [[culture]], and are able to add new shades of [[connotation (semiotics)|connotation]] to every aspect of life.{{cn|date=February 2025}}
A sign system is a complex of relations governing how signs are formed, combined, and interpreted, such as a specific language. Signs usually occur in the context of a sign system, and some semiotic theories assert that isolated signs have little meaning apart from their systemic relations to other signs.{{sfnpm|Danesi|2020|1pp=53–55|Chandler|2022|2pp=15–16, 129|Tanaka-Ishii|2010|3p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=irizHa1MXJoC&pg=PA47 47]}}


To explain the relationship between semiotics and [[communication studies]], [[communication]] is defined as the process of transferring data and-or meaning from a source to a receiver. Hence, communication theorists construct models based on codes, media, and [[context (language use)|contexts]] to explain the [[biology]], [[psychology]], and [[mechanics]] involved. Both disciplines recognize that the technical process cannot be separated from the fact that the receiver must [[decode (semiotics)|decode]] the data, i.e., be able to distinguish the data as [[Salience (semiotics)|salient]], and make meaning out of it. This implies that there is a necessary overlap between semiotics and communication. Indeed, many of the concepts are shared, although in each field the emphasis is different. In ''Messages and Meanings: An Introduction to Semiotics'', [[Marcel Danesi]] (1994) suggested that semioticians' priorities were to study [[Sign (semiotics)|signification]] first, and communication second. A more extreme view is offered by [[Jean-Jacques Nattiez]] who, as a [[musicology|musicologist]], considered the theoretical study of communication irrelevant to his application of semiotics.<ref name=Nattiez>{{cite book |author-link=Jean-Jacques Nattiez |author-last=Nattiez |author-first=Jean-Jacques |year=1990 |title=Music and Discourse: Toward a Semiology of Music |translator-link=Carolyn Abbate |translator=Carolyn Abbate |location=Princeton |publisher=Princeton University Press}}</ref>{{rp|16}}
=== Sign elements and texts ===
Sign systems often rely on basic constituents or sign elements to compose signs. For example, [[alphabetic writing systems]] use letters as sign elements to construct words, while [[Morse code]] uses dots and dashes. Letters are essential for differentiating word meanings, like the contrast between the words ''cat'', ''rat'', and ''hat'' based on their initial letter. The basic sign elements usually do not have a meaning of their own unless combined in systematic ways.{{sfnpm|Danesi|2020|1pp=53–55|Nöth|1990|2pp=80, 208}}


=== Syntactics<!--'Syntactics' redirects here--> ===
A text is a large sign composed of several smaller signs according to a specific code.{{sfnpm|Sebeok|2001|1pp=7–8}} Unlike basic sign elements, the units composing a text are themselves meaningful. The meaning of a text, called its ''message'', depends on its components. However, it is usually not a mere aggregate of their isolated meanings, but shaped by their interaction and organization. In addition to linguistic texts, such as a novel or a mathematical formula, there are also non-linguistic texts, such as a diagram, a poster, or a musical composition consisting of several movements.{{sfnpm|1a1=Danesi|1y=2020|1pp=96–98|2a1=Johansen|2a2=Larsen|2y=2002|2pp=110–112}} The capacity to create and understand texts, known as ''[[textuality]]'', is also present in some non-human animals. For example, [[honey bees]] perform [[Waggle dance|a complex dance]] combining diverse features to communicate information about their environment to other bees.{{sfnpm|Danesi|2020|1pp=96–98}}
{{anchor|Syntactics|syntactics}}
Semiotics differs from [[linguistics]] in that it generalizes the definition of a sign to encompass signs in any medium or sensory modality. Thus it broadens the range of sign systems and sign relations, and extends the definition of language in what amounts to its widest analogical or metaphorical sense. The branch of semiotics that deals with such formal relations between signs or expressions in abstraction from their signification and their interpreters,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/syntactics |title=Definition of Syntactics by Merriam-Webster|publisher=Merriam-Webster Inc. |access-date=May 29, 2019}}</ref> or—more generally—with formal properties of symbol systems<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/syntactics |title=Syntactics definition and meaning|publisher=HarperCollins Publishers |access-date=May 29, 2019}}</ref> (specifically, with reference to linguistic signs, [[syntax]])<ref>{{Cite encyclopedia |url=http://www.lexico.com/definition/Syntactics |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200807022533/https://www.lexico.com/definition/syntactics |url-status=dead |archive-date=August 7, 2020 |title=Syntactics |dictionary=[[Lexico]] UK English Dictionary |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]}}</ref> is referred to as '''syntactics'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA-->.


Peirce's definition of the term ''semiotic'' as the study of necessary features of signs also has the effect of distinguishing the discipline from linguistics as the study of contingent features that the world's languages happen to have acquired in the course of their evolutions. From a subjective standpoint, perhaps more difficult is the distinction between semiotics and the [[philosophy of language]]. In a sense, the difference lies between separate traditions rather than subjects. Different authors have called themselves "philosopher of language" or "semiotician." This difference does ''not'' match the separation between [[analytic philosophy|analytic]] and [[continental philosophy]]. On a closer look, there may be found some differences regarding subjects. Philosophy of language pays more attention to [[natural language]]s or to languages in general, while semiotics is deeply concerned with non-linguistic signification. Philosophy of language also bears connections to linguistics, while semiotics might appear closer to some of the [[humanities]] (including [[literary theory]]) and to [[cultural anthropology]].
The meaning of a text can depend on and refer to other texts{{em dash}}a feature called ''[[intertextuality]]''.{{sfnpm|1a1=Zhao|1y=2025|1pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=G-hMEQAAQBAJ&pg=PA54 54–55]|2a1=Johansen|2a2=Larsen|2y=2002|2pp=126–127}} Semioticians distinguish several aspects of texts. [[Paratext]] encompasses elements that frame or surround a text, such as titles, headings, acknowledgments, footnotes, and illustrations. Architext refers to the general categories to which a text belongs, such as its [[genre]], style, medium, and [[authorship]]. A [[metatext]] is a text that comments on another text. A [[hypotext]] is a text that serves as the basis of another text, such as a novel that has a sequel or is parodied in another work. In such cases, the derivative text that refers to the earlier work is the [[Hypertext (semiotics)|hypertext]].{{sfnpm|Zhao|2025|1pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=G-hMEQAAQBAJ&pg=PA54 54–55]|Danesi|2020|2pp=101|Martin|2006|3p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=ANBLPmfvSusC&pg=PA140 140]}}{{efn|The meaning of this term in semiotics differs from its usage in computing, where a [[hypertext]] is a digital document that links to other documents.{{sfnpm|AHD staff|2022}}}}


=== Cognitive semiotics ===
=== Structural relations between signs ===
Semiosis or ''semeiosis'' is the process that forms meaning from any organism's apprehension of the world through signs. Scholars who have talked about semiosis in their subtheories of semiotics include [[Charles Sanders Peirce|C.&nbsp;S. Peirce]], [[John Deely]], and [[Umberto Eco]]. Cognitive semiotics is combining methods and theories developed in the disciplines of semiotics and the humanities, with providing new information into human signification and its manifestation in cultural practices. The research on cognitive semiotics brings together semiotics from linguistics, cognitive science, and related disciplines on a common meta-theoretical platform of concepts, methods, and shared data.
[[File:Syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations.svg|thumb|alt=Diagram showing syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations for the sentence "The man sleeps."|Diagram showing syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations for the sentence "The man sleeps."{{sfnpm|Danesi|2020|1pp=57}}]]


[[Cognitive semiotics]] may also be seen as the study of [[meaning-making]] by employing and integrating methods and theories developed in the cognitive sciences. This involves conceptual and textual analysis as well as experimental investigations. Cognitive semiotics initially was developed at the Center for Semiotics at [[Aarhus University]] ([[Denmark]]), with an important connection with the Center of Functionally Integrated Neuroscience (CFIN) at Aarhus Hospital. Amongst the prominent cognitive semioticians are [[Per Aage Brandt]], Svend Østergaard, Peer Bundgård, [[Frederik Stjernfelt]], Mikkel Wallentin, Kristian Tylén, Riccardo Fusaroli, and Jordan Zlatev. Zlatev later in co-operation with Göran Sonesson established CCS (Center for Cognitive Semiotics) at [[Lund University]], Sweden.
The signs in a sign system are connected through several structural relations, like the contrast between [[Syntagmatic analysis|syntagmatic]] and [[Paradigmatic analysis|paradigmatic]] relations. Syntagmatic relations govern how individual signs or sign elements can be combined to form larger expressions. For example, sentences are linear arrangements of words, and syntagmatic relations govern which words can be combined to produce grammatically correct sentences. Similarly, a dinner menu is a sequence of courses with syntagmatic relations governing their arrangement, like beginning with a starter, followed by a [[main course]] and a [[dessert]]. Some sign systems use non-linear arrangements, such as traffic signs combining the shape of a sign with the symbol it shows.{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1pp=97–100|Fiske|1990|2pp=56–58|Danesi|2020|3pp=54–57}}


=== Finite semiotics<!--'Finite semiotics' redirects here--> ===
Paradigmatic relations are links between signs that belong to the same structural category. They specify which elements can occupy a particular position and can substitute for each other without breaking the system's rules. For example, in the sentence "The man sleeps.", the word ''man'' stands in paradigmatic relations to words like ''woman'', ''child'', and ''person'' because substituting them also results in a correct sentence. For the dinner menu, the same holds for the different options for the dessert, such as cake, ice cream, and fruit salad. In the case of traffic signs, there are paradigmatic relations between the shape options, such as triangle and circle. The meaning of the chosen paradigmatic option is influenced by the absent options, which form a background of meaningful alternatives. In [[natural language]], these alternatives are typically related to specific word classes. For instance, when a particular word position in a sentence calls for a [[verb]] then the paradigmatic options consist of verbs.{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1pp=97–102|Fiske|1990|2pp=56–57|Danesi|2020|3pp=54–57}}
'''Finite semiotics'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA-->, developed by Cameron Shackell (2018, 2019),<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Shackell|first=Cameron|date=2019-03-05|title=Finite semiotics: Recovery functions, semioformation, and the hyperreal|url=https://eprints.qut.edu.au/101207/1/Finite%20semiotics%20-%20recovery%2C%20semioformation%20and%20hyperreality%20-%20Cameron%20Shackell.docx|journal=[[Semiotica]]|volume=2019|issue=227|pages=211–26|doi=10.1515/sem-2016-0153|s2cid=149185917|issn=0037-1998}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Shackell|first=Cameron|date=2018-04-25|title=Finite cognition and finite semiosis: A new perspective on semiotics for the information age|url=https://eprints.qut.edu.au/84630/1/Finite%20Semiotics%20-%20Cameron%20Shackell.docx|journal=[[Semiotica]]|volume=2018|issue=222|pages=225–40|doi=10.1515/sem-2018-0020|s2cid=149817752|issn=0037-1998}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Shackell|first=Cameron|date=2019-07-26|title=Finite semiotics: Cognitive sets, semiotic vectors, and semiosic oscillation|url=https://eprints.qut.edu.au/115293/1/Finite%20semiotics%20-%20cognitive%20sets%20semiotic%20vectors%20and%20semiosic%20oscillation.docx|journal=[[Semiotica]]|volume=2019|issue=229|pages=211–35|doi=10.1515/sem-2017-0127|s2cid=67111370|issn=1613-3692}}</ref><ref>Shackell, Cameron. 2018. "[https://www.ebooks.ktu.lt/eb/1461/cross-inter-multi-trans-proceedings-of-the-13th-world-congress-of-the-international-association-for-semiotic-studies-iass/ais/ Finite semiotics: A new theoretical basis for the information age] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200125042330/https://www.ebooks.ktu.lt/eb/1461/cross-inter-multi-trans-proceedings-of-the-13th-world-congress-of-the-international-association-for-semiotic-studies-iass/ais/ |date=2020-01-25 }}." ''Cross-Inter-Multi-Trans: Proceedings of the 13th World Congress of the International Association for Semiotic Studies (IASS/AIS)''. [[International Association for Semiotic Studies|IASS Publications & International Semiotics Institute]]. Retrieved 2020-01-25.</ref> aims to unify existing theories of semiotics for application to the post-[[Jean Baudrillard|Baudrillardian]] world of ubiquitous technology. Its central move is to place the finiteness of thought at the root of semiotics and the sign as a secondary but fundamental analytical construct. The theory contends that the levels of reproduction that technology is bringing to human environments demands this reprioritisation if semiotics is to remain relevant in the face of effectively infinite signs. The shift in emphasis allows practical definitions of many core constructs in semiotics which Shackell has applied to areas such as [[Human–computer interaction|human computer interaction]],<ref>Shackell, Cameron, and Laurianne Sitbon. 2018. "Cognitive Externalities and HCI: Towards the Recognition and Protection of Cognitive Rights." Pp. 1–10 in ''Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – CHI '18''. Montreal: [[ACM Press]]. {{doi|10.1145/3170427.3188405}}. {{ISBN|978-1-4503-5621-3}}.</ref> [[creativity]] theory,<ref>Shackell, Cameron, and Peter Bruza. 2019. "[https://cognitivesciencesociety.org/past-conferences/ Introducing Quantitative Cognitive Analysis: Ubiquitous reproduction, Cognitive Diversity and Creativity]." Pp.&nbsp;2783–9 in ''Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2019)'', edited by C. Freksa. [[Cognitive Science Society]]. {{ISBN|978-1-5108-9155-5}}.&nbsp;Retrieved 2020-01-25.</ref> and a [[computational semiotics]] method for generating [[semiotic square]]s from digital texts.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Shackell|first1=Cameron|last2=Sitbon|first2=Laurianne|date=2019-09-12|title=Computational opposition analysis using word embeddings: A method for strategising resonant informal argument|journal=Argument & Computation|volume=10|issue=3|pages=301–317|doi=10.3233/AAC-190467|doi-access=free}}</ref>


=== Pictorial semiotics<!--'Pictorial semiotics' redirects here--> ===
[[File:Semiotic square2.svg|thumb|alt=Diagram of a square with contrasting terms in each corner|The semiotic square is a tool to analyze the meanings of contrasting terms, such as rich/poor.{{sfnpm|Danesi|2020|1pp=55–56|Nöth|1990|2pp=318–319}}]]
'''Pictorial semiotics'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA--><ref>{{Cite journal|title=Pictorial Semiotics|url=http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100326357|publisher=Oxford University Press, n.d. Web.|website=Oxford Index|access-date=2014-10-31|archive-date=2018-09-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180920124019/http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100326357|url-status=dead}}</ref> is intimately connected to art history and theory. It goes beyond them both in at least one fundamental way, however. While [[art history]] has limited its visual analysis to a small number of pictures that qualify as "works of art", pictorial semiotics focuses on the properties of pictures in a general sense, and on how the artistic conventions of images can be interpreted through pictorial codes. Pictorial codes are the way in which viewers of pictorial representations seem automatically to decipher the artistic conventions of images by being unconsciously familiar with them.<ref>{{Cite journal|title=Pictorial Codes|url=http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100326343?rskey=TyYRDS&result=6|publisher=Oxford University Press, n.d. Web|website=Oxford Index|access-date=2014-10-31|archive-date=2014-10-31|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141031201421/http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100326343?rskey=TyYRDS&result=6|url-status=dead}}</ref>


According to Göran Sonesson, a Swedish semiotician, pictures can be analyzed by three models:  the narrative model, which concentrates on the relationship between pictures and time in a chronological manner as in a comic strip;  the rhetoric model, which compares pictures with different devices as in a metaphor; and  the Laokoon model, which considers the limits and constraints of pictorial expressions by comparing textual mediums that utilize time with visual mediums that utilize space.<ref>{{citation |last1=Sonesson|first1=Göran|date=1988|title=Methods and Models in Pictorial Semiotics|pages=2–98}}</ref>
Another form of semiotic analysis examines sign pairs consisting of [[opposites]] where two signs denote contrasting features and exclude each other, like the pairs good/bad, hot/cold, and new/old. Some contrasts involve a continuous scale with intermediate levels, like fast/slow, whereas others are polar oppositions without degrees in between, such as alive/dead.{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1pp=104–105}} Early [[Structuralism|structuralist]] philosophy is associated with the idea that meaning arises primarily from [[binary oppositions]].{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1p=105}} The [[semiotic square]], proposed by [[Algirdas Greimas]], offers a more fine-grained differentiation. It relates a sign, such as ''rich'', to three contrasting terms: its contradictory (''not rich''), its contrary (''poor''), and the contradictory of its contrary (''not poor'').{{sfnpm|Danesi|2020|1pp=55–56}}


The break from traditional art history and theory—as well as from other major streams of semiotic analysis—leaves open a wide variety of possibilities for pictorial semiotics. Some influences have been drawn from phenomenological analysis, cognitive psychology, structuralist, and cognitivist linguistics, and visual anthropology and sociology.
Another structural feature is asymmetric sign pairs where one item is unmarked and the other [[Markedness|marked]]. The unmarked sign is the generic and neutral expression often taken for granted, whereas the marked sign is specialized and denotes additional features. The unmarked term is more commonly used and is typically privileged as the default or norm. Examples are the pairs dog/bitch, day/night, he/she, and right/left. This asymmetry is of particular interest to the semiotic study of culture as a guide to implicit background assumptions and power relations.{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1pp=109–118|Danesi|2020|2pp=78–83}} For example, [[patriarchal]] societies tend to use unmarked forms for masculine terms, while unmarked forms for feminine terms are more common in [[matriarchal]] societies.{{sfnpm|Danesi|2020|1pp=81}}


=== Globalization ===
=== Tropes ===
Studies have shown that semiotics may be used to make or break a [[brand]]. [[Culture code]]s strongly influence whether a population likes or dislikes a brand's marketing, especially internationally. If the company is unaware of a culture's codes, it runs the risk of failing in its marketing. [[Globalization]] has caused the development of a global consumer culture where products have similar associations, whether positive or negative, across numerous markets.<ref name="Alden">{{cite journal|last1=Alden|first1=Dana L|last2=Steenkamp|first2=Jan-Benedict E. M|last3=Batra|first3=Rajeev|year=1999|title=Brand Positioning Through Advertising in Asia, North America, and Europe: The Role of Global Consumer Culture|journal=Journal of Marketing|volume=63|issue=1|pages=75–87|doi=10.2307/1252002|jstor=1252002}}</ref>
Semioticians study associative mechanisms through which a sign acquires alternative meanings by interacting with other signs. This change in meaning can occur in cases where the literal meaning of a sign is inadequate or absurd, leading to a shift toward a figurative meaning. For example, the term ''snake'' literally refers to a limbless reptile but has a different meaning in the sentence "The professor is a snake."{{sfnpm|Danesi|2020|1pp=58–59|Chandler|2022|2pp=195–199}}


Mistranslations may lead to instances of "[[Engrish]]" or "[[Chinglish]]" terms for unintentionally humorous cross-cultural slogans intended to be understood in English. When [[Translation#Survey translation|translating surveys]], the same symbol may mean different things in the source and target language thus leading to potential errors. For example, the symbol of "x" is used to mark a response in English language surveys but "x" usually means {{Gloss|no}} in the Chinese convention.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Pan |first1=Yuling |url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780429294914/sociolinguistics-survey-translation-yuling-pan-mandy-sha-hyunjoo-park |title=The Sociolinguistics of Survey Translation |last2=Sha |first2=Mandy |date=2019-07-09 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-429-29491-4 |location=London |pages=72–75 |doi=10.4324/9780429294914 |s2cid=198632812}}</ref> This may be caused by a sign that, in Peirce's terms, mistakenly indexes or symbolizes something in one culture, that it does not in another.<ref>Chandler, Daniel. 2007 [2001]. ''Semiotics: The Basics''. London: [[Routledge]].</ref> In other words, it creates a connotation that is culturally-bound, and that violates some culture code. Theorists who have studied humor (such as [[Schopenhauer]]) suggest that contradiction or incongruity creates absurdity and therefore, humor.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Spotts|first1=Harlan E|last2=Weinberger|first2=Marc G|last3=Parsons|first3=Amy L|year=1997|title=Assessing the Use and Impact of Humor on Advertising Effectiveness: A Contingency Approach|journal=Journal of Advertising|volume=26|issue=3|pages=17|doi=10.1080/00913367.1997.10673526}}</ref> Violating a culture code creates this construct of ridiculousness for the culture that owns the code. Intentional humor also may fail cross-culturally because jokes are not on code for the receiving culture.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Beeman|first1=William O|year=1981|title=Why Do They Laugh? An Interactional Approach to Humor in Traditional Iranian Improvisatory Theater: Performance and Its Effects|journal=The Journal of American Folklore|volume=94|issue=374|pages=506–526|doi=10.2307/540503|jstor=540503}}</ref>
The mechanisms through which this shift in meaning happens are called ''[[Trope (literature)|tropes]]''. Discussions of tropes sometimes focus on four master tropes{{efn|The precise definitions of most tropes is disputed, affecting the number of basic tropes proposed to explain more specific tropes.{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1pp=199–210}}}} as the basis of most others: [[metaphor]], [[metonymy]], [[synecdoche]], and [[irony]].{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1pp=209–210}} A metaphor is an [[analogy]] in which attributes from one entity are carried over to another, such as associating the snake-like attributes of being sneaky and cold-blooded with a professor.{{sfnpm|Danesi|2020|1pp=59–60|Fiske|1990|2pp=92–93|Chandler|2022|3pp=199–202}} A metonymy is a way of referring to one object by naming another closely related thing, like speaking of a king as ''the crown''.{{sfnpm|Danesi|2020|1pp=64–65|Chandler|2022|2pp=204–205}} Similarly, a synecdoche is a way of referring to one object by naming one of its parts, like speaking of one's car as ''my wheels''.{{sfnpm|Danesi|2020|1pp=64–65|Fiske|1990|2pp=95–96|Chandler|2022|3pp=206–207}} The trope of irony works through dissimilarity, literally expressing the opposite of what is meant, such as remarking "Great job!" after a horrible failure.{{sfnpm|Danesi|2020|1p=65|Chandler|2022|2pp=207–208}}


A good example of branding according to cultural code is [[Disney]]'s international [[theme park]] business. Disney fits well with [[Japan]]'s cultural code because the Japanese value "[[Cuteness in Japan|cuteness]]", politeness, and gift-giving as part of their culture code; [[Tokyo Disneyland]] sells the most souvenirs of any Disney theme park. In contrast, [[Disneyland Paris]] failed when it launched as [[Euro Disney S.C.A.|Euro Disney]] because the company did not research the codes underlying European culture. Its storybook retelling of European folktales was taken as [[Elitism|elitist]] and insulting, and the strict appearance standards that it had for employees resulted in discrimination lawsuits in France. Disney souvenirs were perceived as cheap trinkets. The park was a financial failure because its code violated the expectations of European culture in ways that were offensive.<ref name="Brannen">{{cite journal|last1=Brannen|first1=Mary Yoko|year=2004|title=When Mickey Loses Face: Recontextualization, Semantic Fit, and the Semiotics of Foreignness|journal=Academy of Management Review|volume=29|issue=4|pages=593–616|doi=10.5465/amr.2004.14497613|jstor=20159073}}</ref>
Semiotic tropes are primarily discussed in relation to linguistic sign systems, where they are also known as ''[[figures of speech]]''. However, their underlying mechanisms also affect non-linguistic sign systems.{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1pp=197, 201–202}} For example, an advertisement for an airline may juxtapose the landing of a plane with the tranquil touchdown of a swan as a pictorial metaphor for grace and reliability.{{sfnpm|Forceville|2002|1p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=_R6EAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA203 203]}} Comics often rely on pictorial metonymies to express emotions, like a raised fist to stand for anger.{{sfnpm|1a1=Shinohara|1a2=Matsunaka|1y=2009|1pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=TTv1Fu0MsbcC&pg=PA275 275–276]}} In photography, [[close-ups]] can function as synecdoches by presenting the whole through a part.{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1pp=206–207}} In film, one type of audiovisual irony presents a horrific visual scene accompanied by incongruously cheerful music.{{sfnpm|Cherlin|2017|1p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=o74pDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA50 50]}}


However, some researchers have suggested that it is possible to successfully pass a sign perceived as a cultural icon, such as the [[logo]]s for [[Coca-Cola]] or [[McDonald's]], from one culture to another. This may be accomplished if the sign is migrated from a more economically developed to a less developed culture.<ref name="Brannen" /> The intentional association of a product with another culture has been called "foreign consumer culture positioning" (FCCP). Products also may be marketed using global trends or culture codes, for example, saving time in a busy world; but even these may be fine-tuned for specific cultures.<ref name="Alden" />
=== Codes ===
{{main|Code}}
A code is a sign system used to communicate. It includes a set of signs, the meaning relations among them, and the rules for combining them to create and interpret messages.{{sfnpm|1a1=Johansen|1a2=Larsen|1y=2002|1pp=7–8|2a1=Sebeok|2y=2001|2pp=7–8|3a1=Cobley|3y=2010|3pp=188–190|4a1=Nöth|4y=1990|4pp=209–210}}{{efn|The exact definition of ''code'' is disputed, for example, whether it encompasses a whole system of signs or a rule of correlation that links items belonging to different systems.{{sfnpm|Eco|1979|1pp=36–37|Nöth|1990|2pp=206–209}}}} Digital codes rely on clear and precise distinctions of how signs are formed and combined, as in written language. They contrast with analog codes, which use continuous variations to convey meaning, such as seamless gradations of color in painting.{{sfnpm|1a1=Johansen|1a2=Larsen|1y=2002|1pp=7–9|2a1=Nöth|2y=1990|2pp=208–209}} Simple codes include only few basic elements and relations, as in the color code of [[traffic signals]]. Complex codes, like the English language, can encompass countless elements as well as syntactic and sociocultural norms involved in meaning-making. Conventional codes are human-made constructs, including aesthetic codes used in the creation of artworks, like music and painting. They contrast with natural codes,{{efn|According to some definitions, all codes are conventional.{{sfnpm|Nöth|1990|1pp=211}}}} like [[DNA]], which functions as a biochemical information system encoding [[hereditary]] information through [[nucleotide]] sequences.{{sfnpm|Danesi|2020|1pp=75–76|Chandler|2022|2pp=149–150|Elam|2003|3pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=mAOCAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA44 44–46]}}


Research also found that, as airline industry brandings grow and become more international their logos become more symbolic and less iconic. The iconicity and [[Symbolism (arts)|symbolism]] of a sign depends on the cultural convention and are, on that ground, in relation with each other. If the cultural convention has greater influence on the sign, the signs get more symbolic value.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Thurlow|first1=Crispin|last2=Aiello|first2=Giorgia|year=2016|title=National pride, global capital: A social semiotic analysis of transnational visual branding in the airline industry|journal=Visual Communication|volume=6|issue=3|pages=305|doi=10.1177/1470357207081002|s2cid=145395587}}</ref>
Semioticians analyze codes along several dimensions, such as the domain and context they operate in, the [[Communication channel|sensory channel]] they rely on, and the function they perform. Some codes focus on the precise expression of knowledge, such as mathematical formulas, while others govern cultural and behavioral norms, including conventions of [[politeness]] and ceremonial practices.{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1pp=157–158|Danesi|2020|2pp=83–89|Nöth|1990|3pp=212–214}} A code can have domain-specific subcodes that refine its scope of meaning or regulate usage in particular settings. Codes and subcodes are not static frameworks but can evolve as new conventions or technologies emerge.{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1pp=149, 157, 190–191|Elam|2003|2pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=mAOCAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA48 48–49]}}


=== Semiotics of dreaming ===
[[File:Common components of models of communication.svg|thumb|upright=1.5|alt=Diagram showing the most common components of models of communication|[[Models of communication]] are representations of the main components of [[communication]], often including the processes of encoding and decoding.{{sfnpm|Ruben|2001|1pp=[https://www.encyclopedia.com/media/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/models-communication 607–608]}}]]
{{Only primary sources|section|date=November 2020}}
The flexibility of human semiotics is well demonstrated in dreams. [[Sigmund Freud]]<ref>Freud, Sigmund. 1900 [1899]. ''[[The Interpretation of Dreams]].'' London: [[Hogarth Press|Hogarth]]</ref> spelled out how meaning in dreams rests on a blend of images, [[Affect (psychology)|affects]], sounds, words, and kinesthetic sensations. In his chapter on "The Means of Representation," he showed how the most abstract sorts of meaning and logical relations can be represented by spatial relations. Two images in sequence may indicate "if this, then that" or "despite this, that." Freud thought the dream started with "dream thoughts" which were like logical, verbal sentences. He believed that the dream thought was in the nature of a taboo wish that would awaken the dreamer. In order to safeguard sleep, the midbrain converts and disguises the verbal dream thought into an imagistic form, through processes he called the "dream-work."


===Introversive and extroversive semiosis in music===
Code also plays a central role in [[models of communication]]{{em dash}}conceptual representations of the main components of [[communication]]. Many include the idea that a sender conveys a [[message]] through a channel to a [[Receiver (information theory)|receiver]], who interprets it and may respond with [[feedback]]. Encoding is the process of expressing meaning in the form of a message using the system of a specific code. Decoding is the reverse process of interpreting the message to understand its meaning. In some cases, different codes can be used to express the same message. Similarly, messages can sometimes be translated from one code into another, such as transcribing a written text into Morse code.{{sfnpm|1a1=Chandler|1y=2022|1pp=226–233, 243–244|2a1=Chandler|2a2=Munday|2y=2011|2loc=§ Code, § Communication Models, § Encoding, § Encoding–Decoding Model, § Transmission Models|3a1=Nöth|3y=1990|3pp=174–175, 206–207|4a1=Ruben|4y=2001|4pp=[https://www.encyclopedia.com/media/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/models-communication 607–608]}}
[[V. Kofi Agawu|Kofi Agawu]]<ref>Kofi Agawu, ''Playing with Signs. A Semiotic Interpretation of Classic Music'', Princeton University Press, 1991, p. 23.</ref> quotes the distinction made by [[Roman Jakobson]]<ref>Roman Jakobson, "Language in Relation to Other Semiotic Systems", ''Selected Writings'' II, ''Word and Language'', The Hague, Mouton, (pp. 697-708) p. 704.</ref> between "introversive semiosis, a language which signifies itself," and extoversive semiosis, the referential component of the semiosis. Jakobson writes that introversive semiosis "is indissolubly linked with the esthetic function of sign systems and dominates not only music but also glossolalic poetry and nonrepresentational painting and sculpture",<ref>Jakobson,"Language in Relation to Other Semiotic Systems", op. cit., pp. 704-705.</ref> but Agawu uses the distinction mainly in music, proposing [[Schenkerian analysis]] as a path to introversive semiosis and topic theory as an example of extroversive semiosis. [[Jean-Jacques Nattiez]] makes the same distinction: "Roman Jakobson sees in music a semiotic system in which the 'introversive semiosis' – that is, the reference of each sonic element to the other elements to come – predominates over the 'extroversive semiosis' – or the referential link with the exterior world."<ref>Jean-Jacques Nattiez, "The Contribution of Musical Semiotics to the Semiotic Discussion in General", ''A Perfusion of Signs'', Th. A. Sebeok ed., Indiana University Press, 1977, p. 125.</ref>


=== Musical topic theory ===
[[Discourse]] is the social use of language or other codes, taking place at a specific moment in a particular context. [[Discourse analysis]] examines how meaning arises in a discourse, considering the communicators and their respective roles, as well as the influences of context and institutional backgrounds.{{sfnpm|1a1=Johansen|1a2=Larsen|1y=2002|1pp=53–56, 206|2a1=Cobley|2y=2010|2pp=208–209|3a1=Chandler|3a2=Munday|3y=2011|3loc=§ Discourse, § Discourse Analysis}}
Semiotics can be directly linked to the ideals of musical topic theory, which traces patterns in musical figures throughout their prevalent context in order to assign some aspect of narrative, affect, or aesthetics to the gesture. Danuta Mirka's ''The Oxford Handbook of Topic Theory'' presents a holistic recognition and overview regarding the subject, offering insight into the development of the theory.<ref>Mirka, Danuta, ed. ''The Oxford handbook of topic theory''. Oxford Handbooks, 2014.</ref> In recognizing the indicative and symbolic elements of a musical line, gesture, or occurrence, one can gain a greater understanding of aspects regarding compositional intent and identity.


Philosopher Charles Pierce discusses the relationship of icons and indexes in relation to signification and semiotics. In doing so, he draws on the elements of various ideas, acts, or styles that can be translated into a different field. Whereas indexes consist of a contextual representation of a symbol, icons directly correlate with the object or gesture that is being referenced.
Semioticians are also interested in how codes reflect and shape human perception of the world.{{sfnpm|Danesi|2020|1pp=22, 89–91}} By influencing perception, codes can affect behavior by [[Affordance|making individuals aware of possible courses of action]].{{sfnpm|1a1=Sless|1a2=Shrensky|1y=2023|1pp=42–43|2a1=Johansen|2a2=Larsen|2y=2002|2p=200}} The controversial [[Whorfian hypothesis]] suggests that language shapes thought by providing fundamental categories of understanding, with the potential consequence that speakers of different languages think differently.{{sfnpm|1a1=Danesi|1y=2020|1pp=22, 89–91|2a1=Eysenck|2a2=Keane|2y=2015|2loc=§ Part III: Language, § Whorfian Hypothesis}}


In his 1980 book ''Classic Music: Expression, Form, and Style,'' Leonard Ratner amends the conversation surrounding musical tropes—or "topics"—in order to create a collection of musical figures that have historically been indicative of a given style.<ref>"Classical Music: Expression, Form, and Style." (1980).</ref> Robert Hatten continues this conversation in ''Beethoven, Markedness, Correlation, and Interpretation'' (1994), in which he states that "richly coded style types which carry certain features linked to affect, class, and social occasion such as church styles, learned styles, and dance styles. In complex forms these topics mingle, providing a basis for musical allusion."<ref>Hatten, Robert S. ''Musical meaning in Beethoven: Markedness, correlation, and interpretation''. Indiana University Press, 2004.</ref>
== Core branches ==
[[File:Branches of semiotics.svg|thumb|alt=Diagram with lines between the words "semiotics", "syntactics", "semantics", and "pragmatics"|upright=1.3|Semiotics is typically divided into three branches: syntactics, [[semantics]], and [[pragmatics]].{{sfnpm|1a1=Turbanti|1y=2023|1pp=31, 43–44|2a1=Iskanderova|2y=2024|2pp=42–44|3a1=Nöth|3y=1990|3pp=50–51|4a1=Sless|4a2=Shrensky|4y=2023|4pp=8–9}}]]
General semiotics studies the nature of signs and their operation within sign systems in the widest sense, independent of the domains to which they belong. It contrasts with applied semiotics, which examines signs in particular domains or from discipline-specific perspectives.{{sfnpm|Nöth|2023|1p=859|Hébert|2019|2pp=160, 273}} An influential categorization, proposed by Morris, divides general semiotics into three branches: syntactics, [[semantics]], and [[pragmatics]].{{sfnpm|1a1=Turbanti|1y=2023|1pp=31, 43–44|2a1=Iskanderova|2y=2024|2pp=42–44|3a1=Nöth|3y=1990|3pp=50–51|4a1=Sless|4a2=Shrensky|4y=2023|4pp=8–9}}


=== List of subfields <!--'Cybersemiotics' and 'Theatre semiotics' redirect here--> ===
Syntactics studies formal relations between signs. It investigates how signs combine to form compound signs and which rules govern this process. For example, the rules of [[grammar]] in [[natural languages]] specify how words may be arranged to form sentences and how different arrangements influence meaning. As a result of the syntactic rules of the English language, the expression "elephants are big" is grammatically correct, whereas "elephants big are" is not.{{sfnpm|Turbanti|2023|1pp=31, 43–44|Iskanderova|2024|2pp=42–44|Nöth|1990|3p=50}} Syntactics is not limited to language and includes the study of non-linguistic compound signs, such as the arrangement of visual elements in [[Map|geographic maps]].{{sfnpm|MacEachren|2004|1p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=xhAvN3B0CkUC&pg=PA242 242]|Nöth|1990|2pp=50–51}}
Subfields that have sprouted out of semiotics include, but are not limited to, the following:
* [[Biosemiotics]]: the study of semiotic processes at all levels of biology, or a semiotic study of living systems (e.g., [[Copenhagen–Tartu School]]). Annual meetings ("Gatherings in Biosemiotics") have been held since 2001.
* [[Semiotic anthropology]] and [[anthropological semantics]].
* [[Cognitive semiotics]]: the study of meaning-making by employing and integrating methods and theories developed in the cognitive sciences. This involves conceptual and textual analysis as well as experimental investigations. Cognitive semiotics initially was developed at the Center for Semiotics at [[Aarhus University]] (Denmark), with an important connection with the Center of Functionally Integrated Neuroscience (CFIN) at Aarhus Hospital. Amongst the prominent cognitive semioticians are [[Per Aage Brandt]], Svend Østergaard, Peer Bundgård, Frederik Stjernfelt, Mikkel Wallentin, Kristian Tylén, Riccardo Fusaroli, and Jordan Zlatev. Zlatev later in co-operation with Göran Sonesson established the Center for Cognitive Semiotics (CCS) at [[Lund University]], Sweden.
* [[Comics semiotics]]: the study of the various codes and signs of comics and how they are understood.
* [[Computational semiotics]]: attempts to engineer the process of semiosis, in the study of and design for [[human–computer interaction]] or to mimic aspects of human [[cognition]] through [[artificial intelligence]] and [[knowledge representation]].
* [[Cultural semiotics|Cultural]] and [[Semiotic literary criticism|literary semiotics]]: examines the literary world, the visual media, the mass media, and advertising in the work of writers such as [[Roland Barthes]], [[Marcel Danesi]], and [[Juri Lotman]] (e.g., [[Tartu–Moscow Semiotic School]]).
* [[Cybersemiotics]]: built on two already-generated interdisciplinary approaches: cybernetics and systems theory, including [[information theory]] and science; and Peircean semiotics, including phenomenology and pragmatic aspects of linguistics, attempts to make the two interdisciplinary paradigms—both going beyond mechanistic and pure constructivist ideas—complement each other in a common framework.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Brier|first1=Søren|title=Cybersemiotics: Why Information Is Not Enough!|publisher=University of Toronto Press|year=2008|isbn=978-0-8020-9220-5|location=Toronto}}</ref>
* [[Design semiotics]] or product semiotics: the study of the use of signs in the design of physical products; introduced by [[Martin Krampen]] and in a practitioner-oriented version by [[Rune Monö]] while teaching [[industrial design]] at the Institute of Design, [[Umeå University]], Sweden.
* [[Ethnosemiotics]]: a disciplinary perspective which links semiotics concepts to [[Ethnography|ethnographic methods]].
* [[Semiotics of fashion|Fashion semiotics]]
* [[Film semiotics]]: the study of the various codes and signs of film and how they are understood. Key figures include [[Christian Metz (critic)|Christian Metz]].
* [[#Finite semiotics|Finite semiotics]]: an approach to the semiotics of technology developed by [[Cameron Shackell]]. It is used to both trace the effects of technology on human thought and to develop computational methods for performing semiotic analysis.
* [[Semiology (Gregorian Chant)|Gregorian chant semiology]]: a current avenue of [[palaeography|palaeographical]] research in [[Gregorian chant]], which is revising the [[Solesmes Abbey|Solesmes]] school of interpretation.
* [[Hylosemiotics]]: an approach to semiotics that understands meaning as [[inference]], which is developed through exploratory interaction with the physical world. It expands the concept of communication beyond a human-centered paradigm to include other sentient beings, such as animals, plants, bacteria, fungi, etc.<ref>Storm, Jason Ānanda Josephson. "Hylosemiotics." ''Metamodernsim: The Future of Theory,'' The University of Chicago Press, 2021, p. 149-203.</ref>
* [[Law and semiotics]]: one of the more accomplished publications in this field is the ''International Journal for the Semiotics of Law'', published by [[International Association for the Semiotics of Law]].
* [[Marketing semiotics]] (or commercial semiotics): an application of semiotic methods and semiotic thinking to the analysis and development of advertising and brand communications in cultural context. Key figures include [[Virginia Valentine]], Malcolm Evans, Greg Rowland, Georgios Rossolatos. International annual conferences ([[Semiofest]]) have been held since 2012.
* [[Music semiology]]: the study of signs as they pertain to music on a variety of levels.
* [[Organisational semiotics]]: the study of semiotic processes in organizations (with strong ties to [[computational semiotics]] and human–computer interaction).
* [[#Pictorial semiotics|Pictorial semiotics]]: an application of semiotic methods and semiotic thinking to art history.
* [[Semiotics of music videos]]: semiotics in popular music.
* [[Social semiotics]]: expands the interpretable semiotic landscape to include all cultural codes, such as in [[slang]], fashion, tattoos, and advertising. Key figures include [[Roland Barthes]], [[Michael Halliday]], [[Bob Hodge (linguist)|Bob Hodge]], [[Chris William Martin (sociologist)|Chris William Martin]] and [[Christian Metz (critic)|Christian Metz]].
* [[Structuralism]] and [[post-structuralism]] in the work of [[Jacques Derrida]], [[Michel Foucault]], [[Louis Hjelmslev]], [[Roman Jakobson]], [[Jacques Lacan]], [[Claude Lévi-Strauss]], [[Roland Barthes]], etc. Post-structuralism and semiotics are closely related in their approaches to language, meaning, and interpretation; their relationships, and focuses are on how signs—whether linguistic, visual, or cultural—function to convey meaning, and how those meanings can shift depending on context and interpretation.
* [[Theatre semiotics]]: an application of semiotic methods and semiotic thinking to [[theatre studies]]. Key figures include Keir Elam.<ref>Keir Elam, ''The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama'', Routledge, 2003.</ref>
* [[Urban semiotics]]: the study of meaning in urban form as generated by signs, symbols, and their social connotations.
* [[Visual semiotics]]: analyses visual signs; prominent modern founders to this [[visual rhetoric|branch]] are [[Groupe μ]] and Göran Sonesson.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Sonesson|first=Göran|title=Pictorial concepts. Inquiries into the semiotic heritage and its relevance for the analysis of the visual world|publisher=Lund University Press|year=1989|location=Lund}}</ref>
* [[Semiotics of photography]]: is the observation of symbolism used within photography.
* [[Artificial intelligence semiotics]]: the observation of visual symbols and the symbols' recognition by machine learning systems. The phrase was coined by [[Daniel Hoeg]], founder of [[Semiotics Mobility]], due to Semiotics Mobility's design and learning process for autonomous recognition and perception of symbols by neural networks.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/marijabutkovic/2021/05/28/meet-the-female-founder-and-impact-investor-on-a-mission-to-expand-investment-opportunities-for-bipoc-and-female-venture-capital-managers/|title=Meet The Female Founder And Impact Investor On A Mission To Expand Investment Opportunities For BIPOC And Female Venture Capital Managers|first=Marija|last=Butkovic|website=Forbes|accessdate=7 April 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://semiotics.tech/|title=semiotics.tech|website=semiotics.tech|accessdate=7 April 2023|archive-date=1 April 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230401193522/http://semiotics.tech/|url-status=dead}}</ref> The phrase refers to machine learning and neural nets application of semiotic methods and semiotic machine learning to the analysis and development of robotics commands and instructions with subsystem communications in autonomous systems context.<ref>{{cite book | chapter-url=https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/713805 | doi=10.1109/ISIC.1998.713805 | chapter=Semiotic oriented autonomous intelligent systems engineering | title=Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Control (ISIC) held jointly with IEEE International Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation (CIRA) Intelligent Systems and Semiotics (ISAS) (Cat. No.98CH36262) | date=1998 | last1=Goncalves | first1=R. | last2=Gudwin | first2=R. | pages=700–705 | isbn=0-7803-4423-5 }}</ref>
* [[Semiotics of mathematics]]: the study of signs, symbols, sign systems and their structure, meaning and use in mathematics and mathematics education.


== Notable semioticians ==
Semantics studies the relation between signs and what they stand for, examining how signs refer to concrete things and abstract ideas. It typically focuses on the general meaning of a sign rather than its meaning in a particular context. Semantics addresses the meaning of both basic and compound signs. In the linguistic domain, it includes [[lexical semantics]], which explores [[word meaning]], and phrasal semantics, which studies sentence meaning.{{sfnpm|Cobley|2010|1p=317|Iskanderova|2024|2pp=42–44|Nöth|1990|3p=51|Riemer|2010|4pp=21–22}} Other areas include animal semantics, which investigates, for example, how [[Alarm signal|animal warning calls]] stand for [[predators]].{{sfnpm|1a1=Moore|1a2=Palazzolo|1y=2024|1loc=§ 2. Semantics}}
[[File:Exemple de signalement visuel du statut social chez un Cichlidé.jpg|thumb|Signaling and communication between the ''[[Astatotilapia burtoni]]'']]
[[Thomas Carlyle]] (1795–1881) ascribed great importance to symbols in a religious context, noting that all worship "must proceed by Symbols"; he propounded this theory in such works as "[[Critical and Miscellaneous Essays|Characteristics]]" (1831),<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Treadwell |first=James |date=1998-07-01 |title='Sartor Resartus' and the work of writing |url=https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=LitRC&sw=w&issn=00140856&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA21112577&sid=googleScholar&linkaccess=abs |journal=Essays in Criticism |language=English |volume=48 |issue=3 |pages=224–244|doi=10.1093/eic/48.3.224 |doi-broken-date=1 November 2024 |url-access=subscription }}</ref> ''[[Sartor Resartus]]'' (1833–4),<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Jackson |first=Leon |date=1999 |title=The Reader Retailored: Thomas Carlyle, His American Audiences, and the Politics of Evidence |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/30227300 |journal=Book History |volume=2 |pages=146–172 |jstor=30227300 |issn=1098-7371}}</ref> and ''[[On Heroes]]'' (1841),<ref>{{Cite web |title=Sincere Idolatry: Carlyle and Religious Symbols |url=https://victorianweb.org/authors/carlyle/heroes/rose10.html |access-date=2023-02-16 |website=victorianweb.org}}</ref> which have been retroactively recognized as containing semiotic theories.


[[Charles Sanders Peirce]] (1839–1914), a [[History of logic|noted logician]] who founded philosophical [[pragmatism]], defined ''semiosis'' as an irreducibly triadic process wherein something, as an object, logically determines or influences something as a sign to determine or influence something as an interpretation or ''interpretant'', itself a sign, thus leading to further interpretants.<ref>For Peirce's definitions of signs and semiosis, see under "[http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/sign.html Sign]" and "[http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/semiosis.html Semiosis, semeiosy]" in the ''[http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/dictionary.html Commens Dictionary of Peirce's Terms]''; and "[http://perso.numericable.fr/robert.marty/semiotique/access.htm 76 definitions of sign by C.&nbsp;S. Peirce]" collected by Robert Marty. Peirce's "[http://www.iupui.edu/~peirce/ep/ep2/ep2book/ch02/ep2ch2.htm What Is a Sign] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100528062034/http://www.iupui.edu/~peirce/ep/ep2/ep2book/ch02/ep2ch2.htm |date=2010-05-28 }}" (MS 404 of 1894, ''Essential Peirce'' v. 2, pp. 4–10) provides intuitive help.</ref> Semiosis is logically structured to perpetuate itself. The object may be quality, fact, rule, or even fictional ([[Prince Hamlet|Hamlet]]), and may be "immediate" to the sign, the object as represented in the sign, or "dynamic", the object as it really is, on which the immediate object is founded. The interpretant may be "immediate" to the sign, all that the sign immediately expresses, such as a word's usual meaning; or "dynamic", such as a state of agitation; or "final" or "normal", the ultimate ramifications of the sign about its object, to which inquiry taken far enough would be destined and with which any interpretant, at most, may coincide.<ref>See Peirce, excerpt from a letter to William James, March 14, 1909, ''Collected Papers'' v. 8, paragraph 314. Also see under relevant entries in the ''[http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/dictionary.html Commens Dictionary of Peirce's Terms]''. On coincidence of actual opinion with final opinion, see MS 218, [http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/bycsp/logic/ms218.htm transcription] at ''Arisbe'', and appearing in ''Writings of Charles S. Peirce'' v. 3, p.&nbsp;79.</ref> His ''semiotic''<ref>He spelt it "semiotic" and "semeiotic." See under "[http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/semeiotic.html Semeiotic] [etc.] in the ''Commens Dictionary of Peirce's Terms''.</ref> covered not only artificial, linguistic, and symbolic signs, but also semblances such as kindred sensible qualities, and indices such as reactions. He came c.&nbsp;1903<ref>Peirce, ''Collected Papers'' v. 2, paragraphs 243–263, written c.&nbsp;1903.</ref> to [[Semiotic elements and classes of signs (Peirce)|classify any sign]] by three interdependent trichotomies, intersecting to form ten (rather than 27) classes of sign.<ref>He worked on but did not perfect a finer-grained system of ten trichotomies, to be combined into 66 ([[Triangular number|''T''<sub>''n''+1</sub>]]) classes of sign. That raised for Peirce 59,049 classificatory questions (59,049 = 3<sup>10</sup>, or 3 to the 10th power). See p. 482 in "Excerpts from Letters to Lady Welby", ''Essential Peirce'' v. 2.</ref> Signs also enter into various kinds of meaningful combinations; Peirce covered both semantic and syntactical issues in his speculative grammar. He regarded formal semiotic as logic ''per se'' and part of philosophy; as also encompassing study of arguments ([[Abductive reasoning|hypothetical]], [[Deductive reasoning|deductive]], and [[Inductive reasoning|inductive]]) and inquiry's methods including pragmatism; and as allied to, but distinct from logic's pure mathematics. In addition to pragmatism, Peirce provided a definition of "sign" as a ''representamen'', in order to bring out the fact that a sign is something that "represents" something else in order to suggest it (that is, "re-present" it) in some way:<ref name="CREDO Reference">{{cite book|last=Ryan|first=Michael|url=http://www.credoreference.com/entry/wileylitcul/semiotics|title=The Encyclopedia of Literary and Cultural Theory|publisher=Wiley-Blackwell|year=2011|isbn=978-1-4051-8312-3|location=Hoboken, NJ}}</ref>{{Ref|NoteH|[H]}} {{blockquote|text=A sign, or representamen, is something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity. It addresses somebody, that is, creates in the mind of that person an equivalent sign. That sign which it creates I call the interpretant of the first sign. The sign stands for something, its object not in all respects, but in reference to a sort of idea.}}
Pragmatics studies the relation between signs and sign users. It examines how individuals produce and interpret signs in concrete contexts, applying syntactic insights into formal structures and semantic insights into general meaning to real-life situations. The pragmatic dimension of sign use in communication encompasses aspects such as social conventions and expectations, speaker intention, audience, and other contextual factors. For example, it depends on the concrete situation whether the expression "she found a mole" refers to the discovery of [[Mole (animal)|an animal]], [[Nevus|a skin mark]], or [[Mole (espionage)|a spy]].{{sfnpm|Iskanderova|2024|1pp=42–44|Cobley|2010|2p=297|Nöth|1990|3p=51}}


[[Ferdinand de Saussure]] (1857–1913), the "father" of modern [[linguistics]], proposed a dualistic notion of signs, relating the ''signifier'' as the form of the word or phrase uttered, to the ''signified'' as the mental concept. According to Saussure, the sign is completely [[Semiotic arbitrariness|arbitrary]]—i.e., there is no necessary connection between the sign and its meaning. This sets him apart from previous philosophers, such as [[Plato]] or the [[Scholasticism|scholastics]], who thought that there must be some connection between a signifier and the object it signifies. In his ''[[Course in General Linguistics]]'', Saussure credits the American linguist [[William Dwight Whitney]] (1827–1894) with insisting on the arbitrary nature of the sign. Saussure's insistence on the arbitrariness of the sign also has influenced later philosophers and theorists such as [[Jacques Derrida]], [[Roland Barthes]], and [[Jean Baudrillard]]. Ferdinand de Saussure coined the term {{Lang|fr|sémiologie}} while teaching his landmark "Course on General Linguistics" at the [[University of Geneva]] from 1906 to 1911. Saussure posited that no word is inherently meaningful. Rather a word is only a "signifier." i.e., the representation of something, and it must be combined in the brain with the "signified", or the thing itself, in order to form a meaning-imbued "sign." Saussure believed that dismantling signs was a real science, for in doing so we come to an empirical understanding of how humans synthesize physical stimuli into words and other abstract concepts.
Various academic discussions address the relation between the three branches, such as their relative importance or hierarchy. Historically, syntactics and semantics have received more attention than pragmatics, particularly in the study of linguistic sign systems. One reason for this preferential treatment is the idea that sign usage is largely determined by what signs mean and how they can be combined. As a result, pragmatics has often been regarded as a secondary discipline, reserved for diverse problems that could not be adequately addressed from the perspectives of the other two disciplines. However, this marginal treatment of pragmatics is questioned in the contemporary discourse. Some proposals reverse the priority and see pragmatics as the primary discipline. One reason is the idea that syntactics and semantics are abstractions that cannot be scientifically studied on their own without examining actual sign use.{{sfnpm|1a1=Sless|1a2=Shrensky|1y=2023|1pp=8–10, 20–21|2a1=Cobley|2y=2010|2p=297}}


[[Jakob von Uexküll]] (1864–1944) studied the [[sign process]]es in animals. He used the German word ''[[Umwelt]]'', {{Gloss|environment}}, to describe the individual's subjective world, and he invented the concept of functional circle ({{Lang|de|funktionskreis}}) as a general model of sign processes. In his ''Theory of Meaning'' ({{Lang|de|Bedeutungslehre}}, 1940), he described the semiotic approach to [[biology]], thus establishing the field that now is called [[biosemiotics]].
== Applications ==
=== Biology ===
{{main|Biosemiotics}}
[[File:20240504 20240504 yellow warbler pleasant valley PD203185.jpg|thumb|alt=Photo of a yellow bird|[[Biosemiotics]] includes the study of [[animal communication]], such as [[bird calls]].{{sfnpm|Danesi|2000|1pp=36–37}}]]
While traditional semiotics focuses on [[human communication]] and culture, biosemiotics integrates this perspective with [[biology]]. It studies how living beings produce and interpret signs through channels such as vision, sound, movement, and chemical cues like smell.{{sfnpm|Emmeche|2003|1pp=63–64|Danesi|2000|2pp=36–37|Brier|2006|3pp=31–32}} It does not restrict sign processes to conscious mental activities and explicitly includes nonintentional processes within its scope.{{sfnpm|Brier|2006|1pp=31–32|Barbieri|2008|2pp=577–578}} Biosemiotics has branches dedicated to different types of organisms, such as [[zoosemiotics]] (animals), [[phytosemiotics]] (plants), bacteriosemiotics ([[bacteria]]), mycosemiotics ([[fungi]]), and protistosemiotics ([[protists]]).{{sfnpm|Brier|2006|1pp=36|Cobley|2010|2p=7, 179–181}} [[Anthroposemiotics]], which addresses humans, is sometimes included in zoosemiotics or treated as a distinct branch.{{sfnpm|Brier|2006|1pp=36|Deely|1990|2pp=7, 19}}


[[Valentin Voloshinov]] (1895–1936) was a [[Soviet Union|Soviet]]-Russian linguist, whose work has been influential in the field of [[literary theory]] and [[Marxism|Marxist]] [[Ideology|theory of ideology]]. Written in the late 1920s in the USSR, Voloshinov's ''Marxism and the Philosophy of Language'' ({{Langx|ru|Marksizm i Filosofiya Yazyka}}) developed a counter-Saussurean linguistics, which situated language use in social process rather than in an entirely decontextualized Saussurean ''langue''.{{cn|date=February 2025}}
The scope of biosemiotics covers semiotic activities on different levels of organization, ranging from cellular information processes to communication between distinct individuals. At the microlevel, there are sign activities within individual organisms. For example, [[genes]] encode information about hereditary traits, and diverse biological processes decode and activate this information. Similarly, [[hormones]] function as signaling molecules that control physiological functions by conveying information over long distances in the body. Biosemioticians also study how [[nerve cells]] communicate with each other and how [[neurotransmitters]] regulate this process.{{sfnpm|Brier|2006|1pp=31–32, 36|Cobley|2010|2p=7, 179–181|Barbieri|2008|3pp=577–578}} This topic is more closely examined by [[neurosemiotics]], which investigates neural processes involved in sign interpretation and meaning-making.{{sfnpm|1a1=Kull|1a2=Favareau|1y=2023|1pp=13–14|2a1=Jorna|2y=2009}}


[[Louis Hjelmslev]] (1899–1965) developed a formalist approach to Saussure's structuralist theories. His best known work is ''Prolegomena to a Theory of Language'', which was expanded in ''Résumé of the Theory of Language'', a formal development of ''glossematics'', his scientific calculus of language.{{cn|date=February 2025}}
At the macrolevel, there are sign processes between distinct organisms. They happen primarily between individuals of the same [[species]] as forms of cooperation or coordination.{{sfnpm|Berea|2017|1p=56}} For example, birds use [[Bird calls|calls]] to attract mates, warn of predators, and maintain territorial boundaries.{{sfnpm|Danesi|2000|1pp=36–37}} Similar semiotic processes also happen in the plant kingdom, such as airborne chemicals released by [[maple trees]] as a warning signal of herbivore attacks.{{sfnpm|1a1=Segundo-Ortin|1a2=Calvo|1y=2022|1loc=§ 1. Introduction, § 2.1 Communication|2a1=Arimura|2a2=Pearse|2y=2017|2pp=4–5|3a1=Schenk|3a2=Seabloom|3y=2010|3p=1}} In some cases, [[Interspecies communication|communication happens between members of distinct species]].{{sfnpm|Danesi|2013|1pp=167–168|Berea|2017|2p=56}} For instance, flowers use symmetrical shapes and vivid colors as signs to guide insects to nectar.{{sfnpm|Karban|2015|1pp=110–112, 128|Ketcham|2020|2p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=IXznDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA100 100]}} Because of the pervasive nature of sign processes, biosemioticians typically argue that semiosis is not a rare phenomenon limited to specific biological niches but an intrinsic feature of life in general.{{sfnpm|Emmeche|2003|1pp=63–64|Barbieri|2008|2pp=577–578}}


[[Charles W. Morris]] (1901–1979): Unlike his mentor [[George Herbert Mead]], Morris was a behaviorist and sympathetic to the [[Vienna Circle]] [[positivism]] of his colleague, [[Rudolf Carnap]]. Morris was accused by [[John Dewey]] of misreading Peirce.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Dewey|first1=John|year=1946|title=Peirce's Theory of Linguistic Signs, Thought, and Meaning|journal=The Journal of Philosophy|volume=43|issue=4|pages=85–95|doi=10.2307/2019493|jstor=2019493}}</ref>
=== Culture ===
Several branches of applied semiotics study cultural phenomena, which encompass systems of beliefs, values, norms, and practices shared in society. The [[semiotics of culture]] analyzes sign systems used in cultural practices by examining the meanings and ideological assumptions they embody. It integrates findings from fields such as [[psychology]], [[anthropology]], [[archaeology]], [[linguistics]], and [[neuroscience]]. It addresses both the fundamental characteristics of [[culture]] in general and the distinctive features of specific cultural formations, such as [[myths]], [[aesthetics]], [[cuisine]], clothing, rituals, and [[Cultural artifact|artifacts]].{{sfnpm|1a1=Danesi|1a2=Perron|1y=1999|1pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=sNacmQ2yfGkC&pg=PA40 40, 55–57]|2a2=Lorusso|2y=2015|2pp=1–8|3a1=AHD staff|3y=2022a|4a1=Sedda|4y=2015|3pp=679–680}} On a more general level, the semiotics of culture explores how culture differs from nature and which processes are responsible for the emergence of cultural formations.{{sfnpm|1a1=Johansen|1a2=Larsen|1y=2002|1pp=150–154}} [[Social semiotics]], a related field, studies sign practices as social phenomena in cultural contexts.{{sfnpm|1a1=Chandler|1a2=Munday|1y=2011|1loc=§ Social semiotics|2a1=Randviir|2a2=Cobley|2y=2010|2pp=118–119}} It also investigates the [[social construction of reality]]. This includes semiotic practices that establish social meanings, categories, and norms shaping how people perceive the world and what they take for granted.{{sfnpm|Hodge|2017|1pp=145–153}} Related fields include [[semiotic anthropology]], which analyzes how sign systems reproduce, transmit, and change culture,{{sfnpm|Mertz|2007|1p=340}} and [[ethnosemiotics]], which examines and compares semiotic phenomena in specific ethnic groups.{{sfnpm|MacCannell|2019|1pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=y-cIEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA151 151, 153]|MacCannell|2002|2p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=Yp2KAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA145 145]}}


In his 1938 ''Foundations of the Theory of Signs'', he defined semiotics as grouped into three branches:
Semioticians have been particularly interested in cultural myths, which they understand as structures of meaning that codify ideologies. In this sense, myths are not only a specific genre of literature but encompass widely shared views about human nature or the world. For example, pervasive ideological myths in [[Western culture]] include the idea of [[progress]], which frames history as a linear series of improvements, and [[individualism]], which conceives individuals as [[autonomy|autonomous]] and self-reliant agents. Myths help people make sense of experience and guide behavior through common frameworks that conceptualize phenomena. Semiotic analysis sees myths as secondary sign systems that use other signs as vehicles to convey their ideas, often in the form of metaphors. For instance, the image of a child represents a child on the literal level. However, it can at the same time embody a myth of childhood associated with [[innocence]] and purity, motivating social arrangements associated with protection and parenting. Semioticians analyze this secondary level of signification across diverse media, such as literature, film, and advertising.{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1pp=219–222, 244, 253|Nöth|1990|2pp=374–376}}


# ''Syntactics''/''[[syntax]]'': deals with the formal properties and interrelation of signs and symbols, without regard to meaning.
In specific areas of culture, semiotics examines the codes and conventions they employ and the meanings they produce.{{sfnpm|1a1=Danesi|1y=2020|1pp=154–155|2a1=Johansen|2a2=Larsen|2y=2002|2pp=150–154}} The semiotics of clothing studies clothing as a nonverbal sign system. Clothes are often implicitly interpreted as signs of the [[personality]] and [[social status]] of the wearer, covering features such as [[gender]], age, and political beliefs. Different social occasions are associated with distinct [[dress codes]], such as [[uniforms]] for sport, the military, and religious rituals.{{sfnpm|Danesi|2020|1pp=154–155}} Similarly, the semiotics of food analyzes food items as bearers of cultural meanings. It explores how culinary practices reflect social organization and belief systems, like cooking methods, [[table etiquette]], taboos against eating certain items, the cultural roles of [[fasting]] and [[feasting]], and food symbolism.{{sfnpm|Danesi|2020|1pp=163–171}} Research topics in popular [[internet culture]] include the codes and conventions of [[emojis]] and [[internet memes]].{{sfnpm|Danesi|2020|1pp=142–146}}
# ''[[Semantics]]'': deals with the formal structures of signs, particularly the relation between signs and the objects to which they apply (i.e. signs to their designata, and the objects that they may or do denote).
# ''[[Pragmatics]]'': deals with the biotic aspects of semiosis, including all the psychological, biological, and sociological phenomena that occur in the functioning of signs. Pragmatics is concerned with the relation between the sign system and sign-using agents or interpreters (i.e., the human or animal users).


[[Thure von Uexküll]] (1908–2004), the "father" of modern [[psychosomatic medicine]], developed a diagnostic method based on semiotic and biosemiotic analyses.
=== Literature ===
Text semiotics studies the meanings of linguistic texts. It typically focuses on larger fragments of discourse, leaving the analysis of smaller units, like [[phonemes]], to [[linguistics]].{{sfnpm|Nöth|1990|1pp=329–331}} Text semiotics plays a central role in [[literary criticism]] by exploring the codes, conventions, and tropes employed in literary texts. It situates these insights within broader cultural and semiotic frameworks.{{sfnpm|Matthews|2017}}


[[Roland Barthes]] (1915–1980) was a French literary theorist and semiotician. He often would critique pieces of cultural material to expose how bourgeois society used them to impose its values upon others. For instance, the portrayal of wine drinking in French society as a robust and healthy habit would be a bourgeois ideal perception contradicted by certain realities (i.e. that wine can be unhealthy and inebriating). He found semiotics useful in conducting these critiques. Barthes explained that these bourgeois cultural myths were second-order signs, or connotations. A picture of a full, dark bottle is a sign, a signifier relating to a signified: a fermented, alcoholic beverage—wine. However, the bourgeois take this signified and apply their own emphasis to it, making "wine" a new signifier, this time relating to a new signified: the idea of healthy, robust, relaxing wine. Motivations for such manipulations vary from a desire to sell products to a simple desire to maintain the status quo. These insights brought Barthes very much in line with similar Marxist theory.
Central schools of thought in text semiotics include [[structuralism]] and [[poststructuralism]].{{sfnpm|Nöth|1990|1p=295–}} Structuralism assumes that structural relations within sign systems are the primary source of meaning and understanding. It examines how texts employ these patterns, such as [[binary oppositions]] between good and evil or nature and culture, often with the goal of identifying ideological biases.{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1pp=263–267|Danesi|2020|2pp=68–70|Nöth|1990|3p=295–297}} Post-structuralism argues that sign systems are self-referential and cannot provide a stable representation of reality. The post-structuralist method of [[deconstruction]] aims to reveal contradictions and ambiguities within texts, for example, by showing how a text unintentionally undermines a binary opposition on which it relies.{{sfnpm|1a1=Danesi|1y=2020|1pp=68–70|2a1=Chandler|2a2=Munday|2y=2011|2loc=§ Deconstruction, § Post-structuralism, § Structuralism}}


[[Algirdas Julien Greimas]] (1917–1992) developed a structural version of semiotics named, "generative semiotics", trying to shift the focus of discipline from signs to systems of signification. His theories develop the ideas of Saussure, Hjelmslev, [[Claude Lévi-Strauss]], and [[Maurice Merleau-Ponty]].
A historically influential tradition in text semiotics is [[hermeneutics]]{{em dash}}the study of [[Interpretation (philosophy)|interpretation]]. Hermeneutics originates in the examination of mythological and religious texts. It was used by medieval [[Christian philosopher]]s to decode the [[theological]] and [[moral]] doctrines of the [[Bible]], for instance, by distinguishing literal from spiritual meanings and analyzing symbolic structures associated with [[allegories]]. Modern hermeneutics extends these practices to [[secular]] texts. The [[hermeneutic circle]] is a central concept in this field. It is the idea that understanding involves a circular movement in which preconceptions guide interpretation and interpretation shapes preconceptions. It is sometimes explained as an interplay where understanding the text as a whole depends on understanding its parts and vice versa.{{sfnpm|Nöth|1990|1pp=334–336|George|2025|2loc=Lead section, § 1.3 The Hermeneutical Circle}} It is debated whether there is a single correct interpretation of every text or whether incompatible interpretations can be valid at the same time.{{sfnpm|Nöth|1990|1p=336|Currie|2005|2pp=292–293}}


[[Thomas A. Sebeok]] (1920–2001), a student of Charles W. Morris, was a prolific and wide-ranging American semiotician. Although he insisted that animals are not capable of language, he expanded the purview of semiotics to include non-human signaling and communication systems, thus raising some of the issues addressed by [[philosophy of mind]] and coining the term [[zoosemiotics]]. Sebeok insisted that all communication was made possible by the relationship between an organism and the environment in which it lives. He also posed the equation between ''semiosis'' (the activity of interpreting signs) and ''life''—a view that the [[Copenhagen-Tartu biosemiotic school]] has further developed.
[[Narratology]] is a branch of semiotics that studies narrative texts, such as tales and stories. It assumes that there is a universal narrative code of the different elements found in narratives, meaning that individual texts only express variations of the same underlying code. For example, according to [[Algirdas Julien Greimas]]'s [[actantial model]], these elements include a subject, such as the hero of the story, an entity that they desire, and an opponent or obstacle to their goal.{{sfnpm|Danesi|2020|1pp=10–11, 103–107|Hébert|2019|2pp=250–251}} Other research directions in text semiotics are [[stylistics]] and [[rhetorics]], which compare different styles and explore how texts [[persuade]].{{sfnpm|Nöth|1990|1p=338–344}}


[[Juri Lotman]] (1922–1993) was the founding member of the [[Tartu]] (or Tartu-Moscow) [[Tartu-Moscow Semiotic School|Semiotic School]]. He developed a semiotic approach to the study of culture—[[semiotics of culture]]—and established a communication model for the study of text semiotics. He also introduced the concept of the [[semiosphere]]. Among his Moscow colleagues were [[Vladimir Toporov]], [[Vyacheslav Ivanov (philologist)|Vyacheslav Ivanov]] and [[Boris Uspensky]].
=== Arts and media ===
[[File:1926 Coca-Cola Refresh yourself advertisement.png|thumb|alt=Coca Cola advertisement of a woman holding a glass|In the study of [[advertising]], semioticians examine the use of linguistic and non-linguistic codes to target consumers.{{sfnpm|Nöth|1990|1pp=476–479|Bignell|2002|2pp=28–31}}]]
Semiotics has diverse applications in the analysis of [[art]] and other media, ranging from [[film]] and [[music]] to [[advertising]] and [[video games]].{{sfnpm|1a1=Trifonas|1y=2015|1pp=2–8, 17–18|2a1=Bal|2a2=Bryson|2y=1991|2pp=174–715}} The field of media semiotics studies how meaning is produced, interpreted, and shared in media, such as newspapers, radio, television, and the internet. Understood in the widest sense, it encompasses all channels of everyday communication, including shop signs and posters.{{sfnpm|Bignell|2002|1pp=1–2|Danesi|2019|2pp=5–7}}


[[Christian Metz (critic)|Christian Metz]] (1931–1993) pioneered the application of Saussurean semiotics to [[film theory]], applying [[syntagmatic analysis]] to scenes of films and grounding [[film semiotics]] in greater context.
In the [[visual arts]], semioticians examine how meaning is created through aspects such as color, shape, texture, composition, and perspective. For example, colors can express different moods, emotions, and atmospheres, such as warm and soft colors in contrast to cold and harsh ones. Colors can also have culture-specific symbolic meanings, such as pink signifying [[femininity]].{{sfnpm|1a1=Danesi|1y=2020|1pp=108–109|2a1=Chandler|2a2=Munday|2y=2011|2loc=§ Colour Connotations, § Colour Symbolism}} Semioticians are further interested in the [[Representation (arts)|representational]] dimension of images, studying how they may act as icons that represent their motive through similarity. In [[photography]], images may additionally function as indexical signs because of the causal connection between the depicted object and the photograph.{{sfnpm|Sonesson|2015|1pp=417–418}}


[[Eliseo Verón]] (1935–2014) developed his "Social Discourse Theory" inspired in the Peircian conception of "Semiosis."
[[Musical semiotics]] studies music as a meaning-making process involving signifiers and signifieds.{{sfnpm|Cobley|2010|1pp=272–273|Nöth|1990|2pp=429–431}} There is substantial disagreement about the extent to which music is a semiotic activity. Some theoretical attempts treat sounds as individual signs and compositions as compound signs or messages, while others argue that sounds and compositions signify nothing beyond themselves.{{sfnpm|Nöth|1990|1pp=429–431}} Another research approach investigates the cultural significance of music, for example, how musical styles, like [[Heavy metal music|heavy metal]], [[reggae]], and [[classical music]], are associated with different subcultures and lifestyles.{{sfnpm|Dunbar-Hall|1991|1pp=127–131}}


[[Groupe μ]] (founded 1967) developed a structural version of [[rhetorics]], and the [[visual semiotics]].
[[Film semiotics]] analyzes films as sign activities, exploring how visual and auditory codes interact. Some theorists compare films to language, arguing that individual [[Shot (filmmaking)|shots]] act as words and that [[Montage (filmmaking)|montages]], which combine several shots, correspond to sentences. A key difference to many other forms of language is that film involves asymmetrical communication since there is usually no direct way for spectators to respond to messages.{{sfnpm|Nöth|1990|1pp=463–464, 466}} The semiotics of [[architecture]], another field, examines how buildings communicate meaning, including their practical functions, historical heritage, and social significance.{{sfnpm|Nöth|1990|1pp=435–436}}


[[Umberto Eco]] (1932–2016) was an Italian novelist, semiotician and academic. He made a wider audience aware of semiotics by various publications, most notably ''A Theory of Semiotics'' and his novel, ''[[The Name of the Rose]]'', which includes (second to its plot) applied semiotic operations. His most important contributions to the field bear on interpretation, encyclopedia, and model reader. He also criticized in several works (''A theory of semiotics'', ''La struttura assente'', ''Le signe'', ''La production de signes'') the "iconism" or "iconic signs" (taken from Peirce's most famous triadic relation, based on indexes, icons, and symbols), to which he proposed four modes of sign production: recognition, ostension, replica, and invention.
The semiotics of advertising studies how advertisements use and combine signs to influence consumers. Advertisements typically combine linguistic and non-linguistic codes. For instance, print ads typically use language for the [[brand name]] and verbal commentary, while visual elements convey non-verbal messages to the target audience. In many cases, the core message, related to the economic reality of selling a product, is not stated explicitly. Instead, an indirect message is used to make the product appealing.{{sfnpm|Nöth|1990|1pp=476–479|Bignell|2002|2pp=28–31}}


[[Julia Kristeva]] (born 1941), a student of [[Lucien Goldmann]] and [[Roland Barthes]], Bulgarian-French semiotician, [[literary critic]], [[Psychoanalysis|psychoanalyst]], [[French feminist|feminist]], and [[novelist]]. She uses psychoanalytical concepts together with the semiotics, distinguishing the two components in the signification, the symbolic and the semiotic''.'' Kristeva also studies the [[Gender in horror films|representation of women and women's bodies in popular culture, such as horror films]] and has had a remarkable influence on feminism and feminist literary studies.
Computer games integrate elements from many other media and combine them with an [[Interactivity|interactive]] dimension. They include diverse sign elements, for example, to explain how to interact with the [[virtual world]], set goals, provide feedback, and establish a narrative.{{sfnpm|Thibault|2018|Bignell|2002|1pp=216–219}}


[[Michael Silverstein]] (1945–2020), a theoretician of semiotics and linguistic anthropology. Over the course of his career he created an original synthesis of research on the semiotics of communication, the sociology of interaction, Russian formalist literary theory, linguistic pragmatics, sociolinguistics, early anthropological linguistics and structuralist grammatical theory, together with his own theoretical contributions, yielding a comprehensive account of the semiotics of human communication and its relation to culture. His main influence was [[Charles Sanders Peirce]], [[Ferdinand de Saussure]], and [[Roman Jakobson]].
=== Cognition ===
{{main|Cognitive semiotics}}
Cognitive semiotics is an interdisciplinary field that examines how mental processes contribute to meaning-making. It integrates insights of diverse disciplines, covering semiotics, [[cognitive science]], linguistics, anthropology, psychology, and philosophy.{{sfnpm|Zlatev|2015|1pp=1043–1044, 1057–1063|Brandt|2011|Paolucci|2021|2pp=9–10}} Cognitive semioticians study sign activity from complementary perspectives: the subjective first-person perspective, the intersubjective second-person perspective, and the objective third-person perspective. While acknowledging the validity of each perspective in its respective area, the field privileges first-person and second-person methods as offering more direct access to the mental dimension of meaning. For example, it relies on the [[Phenomenology (philosophy)|phenomenological]] description to analyze how sign processes shape experience.{{sfnpm|Zlatev|2015|1pp=1043–1044, 1057–1063}} By examining how meaning operates in the mind, it contrasts with certain aspects of biosemiotics that address sign processes without mental activity, like in genetics.{{sfnpm|Brandt|2011}}


== Current applications ==
Cognitive semioticians typically understand [[mind]] and [[cognition]] in terms of [[Enactivism|practical engagement with the world]] rather than theoretical attempts to model or depict it. They argue that meaning includes representation as one way of engaging with the world, but is not limited to it. Their primary focus is on non-representational forms of meaning, such as habits, values, and other ways how individuals attune to their environment. From this perspective, sign structures are understood as processes that shape habits and dispositions to act in different circumstances, emphasizing that meaning is a dynamic process rather than a static product.{{sfnpm|Paolucci|2021|1pp=9–10|Zlatev|2015|2pp=1043–1044, 1057–1063|Brandt|2011}} The theory of finite semiotics explains semiosis as an effect of the finite nature of the human mind that occurs as an individual passes from one cognitive state to another.{{sfnpm|Shackell|2019|1pp=211–213}}
Some applications of semiotics include:{{cn|date=February 2025}}
* Representation of a [[methodology]] for the analysis of "texts" regardless of [[modality (Semiotics)|the medium in which it is presented]]. For these purposes, "text" is any message preserved in a form whose existence is independent of both sender and receiver;
* By scholars and professional researchers as a method to interpret meanings behind symbols and how the meanings are created;
* Potential improvement of [[ergonomic]] design in situations where it is important to ensure that human beings are able to interact more effectively with their environments, whether it be on a large scale, as in [[architecture]], or on a small scale, such as the configuration of instrumentation for human use; and
* [[Marketing communications|Marketing]]: Epure, Eisenstat, and Dinu (2014) express that "semiotics allows for the practical distinction of persuasion from manipulation in marketing communication."<ref name=":0">{{cite journal|last1=Epure|first1=M.|last2=Eisenstat|first2=E.|last3=Dinu|first3=C.|year=2014|title=Semiotics And Persuasion In Marketing Communication|url=https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=30143|journal=Linguistic & Philosophical Investigations|volume=13|pages=592–605}}</ref>{{Rp|592}} Semiotics are used in marketing as a [[Marketing strategy|persuasive device]] to influence buyers to change their attitudes and behaviors in the market place. There are two ways that Epure, Eisenstat, and Dinu (2014), building on the works of [[Roland Barthes]], state in which semiotics are used in marketing: ''Surface'': signs are used to create personality for the product, creativity plays its foremost role at this level; ''Underlying'': the concealed meaning of the text, imagery, sounds, etc.<ref name=":0" />


In some countries, the role of semiotics is limited to [[literary criticism]] and an appreciation of audio and visual media. This narrow focus may inhibit a more general study of the social and political forces shaping how different media are used and their dynamic status within modern culture. Issues of technological [[determinism]] in the choice of media and the design of communication strategies assume new importance in this age of mass media.{{cn|date=February 2025}}
=== Others ===
In the field of [[non-verbal communication]], semioticians investigate the exchange of information without linguistic sign systems.{{sfnpm|1a1=Nöth|1y=1990|1pp=387–388|2a1=Chandler|2a2=Munday|2y=2011|2loc=§ Non-verbal Communication}} For example, [[body language]] includes signifying practices like raising a thumb and other [[gestures]], as well as [[facial expressions]] like laughing and frowning.{{sfnpm|1a1=Nöth|1y=1990|1pp=392–394, 402–403|2a1=Chandler|2a2=Munday|2y=2011|2loc=§ Body Language, § Gesture, § Facial Expression, § Non-verbal Communication}} Other types of non-verbal communication encompass [[Haptic communication|touching behavior]], like shaking hands or kissing, and the [[Proxemics|use of personal space]], such as the distance between speakers to express their degree of familiarity.{{sfnpm|1a1=Nöth|1y=1990|1pp=407, 410–411|2a1=Chandler|2a2=Munday|2y=2011|2loc=§ Proxemics, § Haptics, § Non-verbal Communication}} [[Paralanguage]] encompasses non-verbal elements of linguistic messages. For instance, pitch and loudness in a conversation can express emotion or emphasis without stating them explicitly.{{sfnpm|1a1=Nöth|1y=1990|1pp=247–249|2a1=Chandler|2a2=Munday|2y=2011|2loc=§ Paralanguage}}


=== Main institutions ===
Semiotics has various applications in [[psychoanalysis]]. [[Sigmund Freud]] proposed a theory of [[dream interpretation]] to understand and resolve psychological conflicts. He argued that dream elements act as symbols that stand for [[The unconscious|unconscious]] desires and fears. For example, dreams of losing a tooth can signify [[castration]] or fear of impotence.{{sfnpm|Nöth|1990|1pp=120|Cabestan|2014|2pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=zUaLBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA627 627]}} Semiotics also plays a central role in the psychoanalytic theory of [[Jacques Lacan]], who argued that the unconscious is structured like a language.{{sfnpm|Nöth|1990|1pp=302–303}}


A world organization of semioticians, the [[International Association for Semiotic Studies]], and its journal ''[[Semiotica]]'', was established in 1969. The larger research centers together with teaching program include the semiotics departments at the [[University of Tartu]], [[University of Limoges]], [[Aarhus University]], and [[Bologna University]].{{cn|date=February 2025}}
In the field of computing, semiotics has been used to describe [[programming languages]] and analyze [[human–computer interaction]]. There are also attempts to develop formal theories of semiotics, allowing computational processes to perform semiotic analyses.{{sfnpm|Tanaka-Ishii|2015|1pp=981–982, 989–991, 996–997}} Cybersemiotics, another approach, combines biosemiotics with [[cybernetics]] to provide a unified framework of semiotic processes across biological, social, and technological domains.{{sfnpm|Cobley|2010|1pp=199–200}}


=== Publications ===
[[Edusemiotics]] is a research movement that conceptualizes semiotic activity as the foundation of [[educational theory]]. For instance, it understands teaching and learning as sign processes.{{sfnpm|1a1=Olteanu|1a2=Campbell|1y=2018|1pp=245–246, 252–253, 256|2a1=Semetsky|2y=2017}} Semioethics is a critical approach that examines the [[ethical]] dimension of sign activities. It seeks to diagnose problems that arise in the context of [[global communication]].{{sfnpm|1a1=Petrilli|1a2=Ponzio|1y=2010|1pp=150–155}} Medical semiotics studies how disease symptoms, such as pain, dizziness, and fever, indicate [[medical conditions]].{{sfnpm|1a1=Andersen|1a2=Høybye|1a3=Risør|1y=2024|1pp=91–92}} Legal semiotics investigates sign activities in legal practice, including the interpretation of [[evidence]], [[testimony]], and legal texts.{{sfnpm|Tiefenbrun|2010|1pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=R51oAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA19 19–28]}}
Publication of research is both in dedicated journals such as ''[[Sign Systems Studies]]'', established by [[Juri Lotman]] and published by [[Tartu University Press]]; ''[[Semiotica]]'', founded by [[Thomas A. Sebeok]] and published by [[Mouton de Gruyter]]; ''Zeitschrift für Semiotik''; ''European Journal of Semiotics''; ''[[Versus (journal)|Versus]]'' (founded and directed by [[Umberto Eco]]), ''[[The American Journal of Semiotics]]'', et al.; and as articles accepted in periodicals of other disciplines, especially journals oriented toward philosophy and cultural criticism, communication theory, etc.{{cn|date=February 2025}}


The major semiotic book series ''Semiotics, Communication, Cognition'', published by [[De Gruyter Mouton]] (series editors Paul Cobley and [[Kalevi Kull]]) replaces the former "Approaches to Semiotics" (series editor [[Thomas A. Sebeok]], 127 volumes) and "Approaches to Applied Semiotics" (7 volumes). Since 1980 the [[Semiotic Society of America]] has produced an annual conference series: ''[[Semiotics: The Proceedings of the Semiotic Society of America]]''.{{cn|date=February 2025}}
== Methods ==
Semioticians use diverse [[Methodology|methods]] to analyze and compare signs and sign systems. Different domains of signs and perspectives of inquiry typically call for distinct techniques depending on the forms of representation and modes of meaning-making under study. As a result, there is no universally adopted methodology but only an interdisciplinary, loosely connected set of approaches.{{sfnpm|Danesi|2020|1pp=153–154|Chandler|2022|2pp=289–290}} Within a given domain, semioticians typically seek to determine what meaning is produced, why it emerges the way it does, and how it is encoded.{{sfnpm|Danesi|2020|1pp=153–154}}
 
Structural analysis examines the structural framework of texts and sign systems, exploring the [[Syntagmatic analysis|syntagmatic]] and [[Paradigmatic analysis|paradigmatic]] relations underlying signification. The [[commutation test]] is an influential tool for structural analysis. It explores how the meanings of linguistic and non-linguistic texts are shaped by their components and what roles specific signs play in this process. It proceeds by changing certain elements of a text, either actually or as a [[thought experiment]], and assesses whether or how this change affects the overall meaning. For example, in the analysis of an advertisement, a semiotician may probe whether the overall message changes if a woman is shown using the product instead of a man. If it does then gender is a signifying element. The way how the overall message changes provides insights into the semiotic role of the changed aspect. The commutation test can be applied to a wide range of elements or features, such as shape, size, color, [[camera angle]], [[typeface]], age, [[Social class|class]], and [[ethnicity]]. Instead of replacing one element with another, other versions of the commutation test add or remove elements to explore, for instance, what draws attention by its absence or what is taken for granted.{{sfnpm|1a1=Chandler|1y=2022|1pp=97–98, 102–104, 289–290|2a1=Fiske|2y=1990|2pp=109–110|3a1=Chandler|3a2=Munday|3y=2011|3loc=§ Structural Analysis, § Commutation Test}}{{efn|A similar intepretative strategy studies textual elements that deviate from norms, conventions, or expectations. Another related approach examines how the meaning of one element is anchored by the presence of another element, like when the meaning of an image is anchored by its caption.{{sfnpm|Fiske|1990|1pp=101–102, 110–111}}}}
 
In the study of cultural sign systems, semioticians often focus on hidden meanings and connotations, such as [[ideological]] messages and [[Power (social and political)|power dynamics]] that influence meaning-making without being immediately apparent to observers.{{sfnpm|Danesi|2019|1pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=wMB2DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA2 2–3]|Fiske|1990|2pp=105–107, 110}} This dimension can be studied in diverse ways, such as comparing [[Markedness|marked]] and unmarked terms to reveal how cultural norms privilege certain meanings and marginalize others.{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1pp=109–118|Danesi|2020|2pp=78–83}} [[Critical discourse analysis]] has a similar goal, seeking to understand how texts and social reality shape each other. It is particularly interested in how ideologies and power relations are reproduced in [[discourse]], for example, by analyzing how political actors depict [[immigrants]] as threats to promote restrictive immigration policies.{{sfnpm|1a1=Chandler|1a2=Munday|1y=2011|1loc=§ Critical Discourse Analysis|2a1=Bates|2y=2023|1pp=183–184|3a1=Chandler|3y=2022|3pp=289–290}}
 
Another approach to semiotics focuses on the historical dimension of sign systems and semiotic practices. It examines how they came into existence and evolved, studying how the relevant codes and media developed and how new conventions and genres emerged. The historical inquiry also considers the effects of technological developments, for instance, by tracing how the [[invention of the printing press]] and the internet have shaped the way people engage with written texts.{{sfnpm|Danesi|2020|1pp=153–154|Danesi|2019|2pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=wMB2DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA2 2–3, 6–7, 199–200]}}
 
Although [[Qualitative research|qualitative investigation]] is the dominant approach in semiotics, some researchers also use [[Quantitative research|quantitative methods]]. For example, many forms of [[content analysis]] examine objective patterns found in an individual document or an entire discourse and employ [[statistical analysis]] to discover systematic patterns in sign usage. Applied to the [[news coverage]] of a violent incident, a content analyst may gather statistical information about how often the perpetrators are described as ''rebels'' rather than ''terrorists''. Quantitative data on its own is usually not sufficient to explain complex semiotic processes, which is why content analysis is typically combined with other approaches.{{sfnpm|1a1=Rothenberger|1a2=Hase|1y=2023|1pp=137, 140|2a1=Chandler|2a2=Munday|2y=2011|2loc=§ Content Analysis|3a1=Chandler|3y=2022|3pp=289–290}}
 
In applied semiotics, researchers often tailor their approach to the specific area of signs under investigation.{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1p=289}} For instance, [[Biosemiotics|biosemioticians]] may adapt concepts intended for linguistic analysis to biological codes like DNA. In some cases, this requires conceptual modifications, for example, when terms like ''interpretation'' are applied to sign processes without a conscious subject.{{sfnpm|Zámečník|2023|1pp=11, 13, 16–17}}
 
== History ==
[[File:Engraving; bust of Hippocrates; by Paul Wellcome L0019959.jpg|thumb|alt=Engraving of a bust of bearded, bald man|[[Hippocrates]] pioneered the study of medical signs.{{sfnpm|Sebeok|2001|1pp=4–5|Cobley|2010|2pp=5–6|Raposa|2003|3pp=801–802|Nöth|1990|4p=13}}]]
The study of signs has its origin in [[Ancient period|antiquity]]. Early approaches examined concrete patterns that indicate underlying conditions or future outcomes, such as medical diagnosis and [[divination]]. Some [[Mesopotamian]] tablets from the 3rd millennium BCE document this practice, such as the interpretation of the moon's visibility as a sign of an impending [[drought]].{{sfnpm|Manetti|2010|1pp=13–14|Deely|2001|2p=17}} In [[ancient Greek]] thought, [[Hippocrates]] (460–377 BCE) and later [[Galen of Pergamum]] ({{circa|129–216 CE}}) investigated medical signs as indications of underlying diseases, establishing "semeiosis" or [[symptomatology]] as a branch of [[medicine]].{{sfnpm|Sebeok|2001|1pp=4–5|Cobley|2010|2pp=5–6|Raposa|2003|3pp=801–802|Nöth|1990|4p=13}} In philosophy, [[Plato]] (427–347 BCE) explored whether the relation between linguistic signs and their referents is natural or conventional.{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1pp=19–20|Manetti|2010|2pp=16–17}} His student [[Aristotle]] (384–322 BCE) distinguished verbal from nonverbal signs. He argued that verbal signs represent [[mental states]], which refer to external things, while nonverbal signs guide [[inference]] to expand knowledge.{{sfnpm|Manetti|2010|1pp=17–19}}{{efn|Aristotle also proposed a triadic model of signs, with a sign vehicle, an object as referent, and a mental concept that mediates between the two.{{sfnpm|Sebeok|2001|1pp=4–5|Chandler|2022|2pp=14–15}}}} Starting in the 3rd century BCE, the [[Stoics]] defended a triadic model of signs, understanding sign vehicle and referent as material objects linked through nonmaterial meaning. In the same period, the [[Epicureans]] proposed a dyadic model, emphasizing a direct connection between sign vehicle and referent without meaning as a separate component to link them.{{sfnpm|Nöth|1990|1pp=15–16|Deely|1990|2pp=109–110|Manetti|2010|3pp=19–21}} [[Philodemus]] ({{circa|110–40 BCE}}) provided a detailed overview of discussions about the Epicurean theory of signs, such as whether signs function as inferences from the known to the unknown.{{sfnpm|Manetti|2010|1pp=23–24}}
 
[[File:Hindi Manuscript 884 Wellcome L0024558.jpg|thumb|alt=Painting of a bearded man sitting cross-legged|[[Bhartṛhari]] explored how cognition depends on linguistic signs.{{sfnpm|1a1=Theodorou|1loc=Lead section, § 3. Brahman, Language, and the World, § 5. The Sphota Theory of Language}}]]
 
In [[ancient India]], various [[Āstika and nāstika|schools of Hinduism]] examined semiotic phenomena. [[Nyaya]] studied the relations between names, things, and knowledge, while [[Mīmāṃsā]] addressed the connection between word meaning and sentence meaning.{{sfnpm|1a1=Bekkum|1a2=Houben|1a3=Sluiter|1a4=Versteegh|1y=1997|1p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=uU9IAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA75 75–76, 102]|2a1=Chakrabarti|2y=1997|2p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=SbIRFAzav64C&pg=PA215 215]|3a1=Choksi|3a2=Khatri|3y=2022|3pp=1–2}} The philosopher [[Bhartṛhari]] (4th–5th century CE) developed and compared theories of meaning, arguing that sentences are the primary bearers of meaning. He asserted that cognition depends on linguistic categorization, for example, that names make it possible to individuate and perceive distinct objects.{{sfnpm|1a1=Theodorou|1loc=Lead section, § 3. Brahman, Language, and the World, § 5. The Sphota Theory of Language|2a1=Aklujkar|2y=1970|2p=13|3a1=Staal|3y=1966|3pp=304–307|4a1=Bekkum|4a2=Houben|4a3=Sluiter|4a4=Versteegh|4y=1997|4pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=uU9IAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA110 110–112]|5a1=Cardona|5y=2019|5p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=XnmVDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA303 303]}} Semiotic thought is also present in [[Buddhist philosophy]]. The [[Mahayana-sutra-alamkara-karika]], a text from the 4th century CE, explored the spiritual role of semiosis, suggesting that the [[soteriological]] goal is to transform [[cognition]] in such a way that semiotic activity ceases.{{sfnpm|D'Amato|2003|1pp=185–186, 191}} In [[ancient China]], [[Mohism]] understood sign use as the practical skill of drawing distinctions and argued that public, intersubjective standards ground meaning. The [[School of Names]] explored the relation between names and things. They practiced a method of public disputation, for example, to decide whether two names refer to the same thing or to different things.{{sfnpm|Fraser|2024|1loc=Lead section, § 3. The Search for Objective Standards|Fraser|2024a|2loc=Lead section, § 1. Background and Overview, § 2. Main Themes|Zhu|2023|3pp=109–111|Indraccolo|2020|4p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=MejqDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA174 174]}}
 
[[File:Roger-bacon-statue.jpg|thumb|alt=Photo of a sculpture of a man wearing robes|[[Roger Bacon]] developed a complex classification of signs.{{sfnpm|Meier-Oeser|2011|1loc=§ 5. Grammatica Speculativa and its critics}}]]
 
As a forerunner of semiotics in the [[medieval period]], [[Augustine]] (354–430) drew on Stoic, Epicurean, and [[Christianity|Christian]] ideas to develop one of the first systematic theories of signs. He examined the relations between signs, meanings, and interpreters. Augustine's theory included non-linguistic signs based on the distinction between natural and conventional signs.{{sfnpm|Sebeok|2001|1pp=4–5|Raposa|2003|2pp=801–802|Nöth|1990|3pp=16–17|Meier-Oeser|2011|4loc=§ 2.1 Augustine (354–430)}} [[Boethius]] (480–528) analyzed sign activity as a chain of signification: writing refers to speech, speech expresses mental concepts, and mental concepts represent external things.{{sfnpm|Meier-Oeser|2011|1loc=§ 2.2 Boethius (480–528)}} [[Peter Abelard]] (1079–1142) studied non-linguistic sign processes, such as images and conventional gestures.{{sfnpm|Meier-Oeser|2011|1loc=§ 3. Semiotic beginnings in the 11th and 12th century}} The most detailed medieval account of signs was proposed by [[Roger Bacon]] ({{circa|1214–1293}}), who understood signs as triadic relations between sign vehicle, represented thing, and interpreter. He developed a complex classification that distinguishes between natural signs and signs directed by the soul, with several subtypes in each category.{{sfnpm|Meier-Oeser|2011|1loc=§ 4.2 Roger Bacon (ca. 1214-ca. 1293)}} The [[Modistae|Modist grammarians]] proposed that all languages share a universal grammar that reflects the shared structure of modes of [[being]], understanding, and signifying.{{sfnpm|Meier-Oeser|2011|1loc=§ 5. Grammatica Speculativa and its critics}} [[William of Sherwood]] ({{circa|1200–1272}}), [[Peter of Spain]] ({{circa|1210–1277}}), and [[William of Ockham]] ({{circa|1285–1349}}) formulated contextual theories of meaning and reference.{{sfnpm|Nöth|1990|1pp=18–19|Meier-Oeser|2011|2loc=§ 7. The sign as a central notion in 14th-century logic}} In the [[Islamic]] world, philosophers explored semiotic topics from a religious perspective. They addressed the problem of how to interpret signs of [[Allah]] in the [[Quran]] and whether to describe Allah by affirming or negating attributes. Influential theorists were [[al-Kindi]], [[al-Farabi]], and [[Avicenna]].{{sfnpm|Netton|2013|1pp=21–22, 45, 99, 149, 321–322}}
 
In the early modern period, [[John Poinsot]] (1589–1644) integrated ideas of [[Thomas Aquinas]] (1225–1274) to investigate how signs mediate between objective reality and subjective experience.{{sfnpm|Cobley|2010|1pp=6–7|Nöth|1990|2pp=20}} The [[Port-Royal Grammar|Port-Royal school]], another tradition, formulated a mind-based theory of signs. It argued that signs consist of two ideas: one for the representing entity and one for the represented entity.{{sfnpm|Nöth|1990|1pp=21–22}} [[Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz]] (1646–1716) understood signs as visible marks that stand for ideas. He saw them as indispensable tools of thought, enabling operations on complex semantic concepts without apprehending them in full.{{sfnpm|Nöth|1990|1p=22}} [[John Locke]] (1632–1704) proposed a general science or doctrine of signs to examine the link between knowledge and representation. He distinguished two types of signs: ideas are signs of things, and words are signs of ideas, effectively functioning as signs of signs.{{sfnpm|Sebeok|2001|1pp=4–5|Nöth|1990|2p=24}} [[Christian Wolff (philosopher)|Christian Wolff]] (1679–1754) and [[Johann Heinrich Lambert]] (1728–1777) both developed theories of signs while focusing on how knowledge depends on sign activity.{{sfnpm|Nöth|1990|1pp=27–28}}
 
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, semiotics emerged as a distinct field of inquiry. The twin origins of this process lie in [[Semiotic theory of Charles Sanders Peirce|the works of the philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce]] (1839–1914) and the linguist [[Ferdinand de Saussure]] (1857–1913), who separately articulated the foundational principles of the discipline.{{sfnpm|Sebeok|2001|1pp=4–5|Klyukanov|2002|2pp=916–918}} Peirce developed a triadic model, understanding signs as relations that can apply to any sign vehicle that is interpreted to stand for something else. He distinguished different types of relations between sign vehicle and referent and used this distinction to classify signs as indices, icons, and symbols. As a [[Pragmatism|pragmatist]], Peirce focused on the effects of sign processes while emphasizing the dynamic nature of meaning.{{sfnpm|1a1=Cobley|1y=2001|1pp=233–234|2a1=Johansen|2a2=Larsen|2y=2002|2pp=227–228}} [[Charles W. Morris]] (1901–1979) popularized Peircean semiotics and integrated it with [[behaviorism]]. He conceptualized syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics as the main branches of the field.{{sfnpm|Cobley|2010|1pp=269–270|Turbanti|2023|2pp=31, 43–44}}
 
Saussure proposed a dyadic model that understands signs as relations in the mind between a sensible form and a concept. He emphasized the arbitrary nature of this relation and explored how signs form sign systems, such as language. Saussure distinguished synchronic or static from diachronic or historical aspects of language.{{efn|Saussure's main interest was in synchronic aspects or how language as a static system functions at a particular point in time. Diachronic aspects, by contrast, concern the historical dimension of how a language evolves.{{sfnpm|Cobley|2001|1p=255}}}} He formulated the foundations of [[structuralism]] to investigate how differences between signs, such as binary oppositions, are the primary mechanism of meaning.{{sfnpm|Cobley|2001|1p=255}} Based on Saussure's structuralism, [[Louis Hjelmslev]] (1899–1965) developed [[glossematics]], which divides language into basic units defined only by the formal functions they play in a sign system.{{sfnpm|1a1=Johansen|1a2=Larsen|1y=2002|1pp=226|2a1=Cobley|2y=2010|2pp=237–238}} Focused on articulating a general semiotics, [[Algirdas Julien Greimas]] (1917–1992) expanded glossematics and applied it to [[narratology]], aiming to discern a universal code underlying narrative texts.{{sfnpm|1a1=Johansen|1a2=Larsen|1y=2002|1pp=225|2a1=Cobley|2y=2010|2pp=227–228|3a1=Danesi|3y=2020|3pp=104–105}} [[Claude Lévi-Strauss]] (1908–2009) employed the principles of structural semiotics to engage in [[ethnology]], analyzing myths and cultural practices as sign systems that reveal how different cultures make sense of the world.{{sfnpm|1a1=Johansen|1a2=Larsen|1y=2002|1pp=227}} [[Roland Barthes]] (1915–1980) used the theories of Saussure and Hjelmslev to study literature and media, covering signifying processes in myths, theology, pictures, advertising, and fashion. In these fields, he often examined how connotations encode subtle ideological messages.{{sfnpm|1a1=Nöth|1y=2023|1pp=872–873|2a1=Johansen|2a2=Larsen|2y=2002|2pp=223}}
 
[[File:Julia Kristeva à Paris en 2008.jpg|thumb|upright=.8|alt=Photo of a woman with short, blond hair|[[Julia Kristeva]]'s thought combines semiotic, psychoanalytic, and feminist approaches.{{sfnpm|Cobley|2010|1pp=249–250|Chandler|2022|2pp=253}}]]
 
Using the [[Phenomenology (philosophy)|phenomenological]] method, [[Edmund Husserl]] (1859–1938) studied the nature of signs and meaning through the description of experience. He contrasted the direct awareness of objects in perception with the indirect awareness of objects that refer to something other than themselves.{{sfnpm|1a1=Nöth|1y=1990|1pp=35|2a1=Johansen|2a2=Larsen|2y=2002|2pp=226}} In psychoanalysis, [[Sigmund Freud]] (1856–1939) interpreted dream elements as signs of [[Unconscious mind|unconscious]] desires. [[Jacques Lacan]] (1901–1981) expanded Freud's ideas, analyzing the structure of the unconscious as a sign system.{{sfnpm|1a1=Johansen|1a2=Larsen|1y=2002|1pp=227|2a1=Nöth|2y=1990|2p=120}} Drawing on psychoanalysis and [[feminism]], [[Julia Kristeva]] (1941–present) has explored the problem of intertextuality and conceptualized the semiotic and the symbolic as two contrasting dimensions of signification.{{sfnpm|Cobley|2010|1pp=249–250|Chandler|2022|2pp=253}}
 
[[Jakob von Uexküll]] (1864–1944) pioneered the study of animal and plant semiosis. He understood the interaction between organism and environment as a process of sign exchange in which individuals respond to cues that are relevant to their species-specific needs and capacities. Uexküll argued that different species inhabit distinct perceptual worlds based on their selective interpretation of cues.{{sfnpm|1a1=Nöth|1y=1990|1pp=36–37|2a1=Johansen|2a2=Larsen|2y=2002|2pp=230}} [[Thomas A. Sebeok]] (1920–2001) relied on Uexküll's ideas to establish biosemiotics as a branch of semiotics, covering sign processes within and between organisms, such as animals, plants, and fungi.{{sfnpm|1a1=Johansen|1a2=Larsen|1y=2002|1pp=229–230|2a1=Nöth|2y=2023|2pp=880–882}}
 
[[Roman Jakobson]] (1896–1982) contributed to various schools of thought, including [[Russian formalism]], the [[Prague School]], and the [[Copenhagen School (linguistics)|Copenhagen School]]. Adopting structuralism, he reinterpreted Saussure's dyadic model and later incorporated Peircean ideas, such as an emphasis on contextual factors.{{sfnpm|1a1=Johansen|1a2=Larsen|1y=2002|1pp=226–227|2a1=Nöth|2y=2023|2pp=867–870}}{{efn|Jacobson also examined the different components and functions of communication.{{sfnpm|Danesi|2020|1pp=102–103}}}} [[Yuri Lotman]] (1922–1993) engaged in cultural semiotics, analyzing cultural formations in terms of models that showcase distinctive features of their origin culture.{{sfnpm|1a1=Johansen|1a2=Larsen|1y=2002|1p=227|2a1=Cobley|2y=2010|2pp=260–261}} [[Umberto Eco]] (1932–2016) understood semiotics as the study of communicative processes in culture, focusing the field on conventional codes. He explored the idea of unlimited semiosis, according to which the interpretation of signs is an open-ended process leading to further signs.{{sfnpm|1a1=Johansen|1a2=Larsen|1y=2002|1pp=224–225|2a1=Nöth|2y=2023|2pp=876–877|3a1=Cobley|3y=2010|3pp=210–211, 349–350}} [[Jacques Derrida]] (1930–2004) was an influential proponent of [[poststructuralism]]. He developed the method of [[deconstruction]] to discover internal ambiguities and contradictions within texts.{{sfnpm|1a1=Johansen|1a2=Larsen|1y=2002|1pp=224|2a1=Chandler|2y=2022|2pp=275, 307|3a1=Danesi|3y=2020|3pp=68–70}} The second half of the 20th century saw the emergence of many journals dedicated to semiotics, while international institutions, such as the [[International Association for Semiotic Studies]], were established.{{sfnpm|Chandler|2022|1pp=299–300|Cobley|2010|2p=241}}


== See also ==
== See also ==
{{col div|colwidth=30em}}
* {{annotated link|Ecosemiotics}}
* [[Ecosemiotics]]
* [[Ethnosemiotics]]
* [[Gender symbol]]
* [[Index of semiotics articles]]
* [[Index of semiotics articles]]
* [[Language game (philosophy)]]
* {{annotated link|Outline of semiotics}}
* [[Neurosemiotics]]
* {{annotated link|Philosophy of language}}
* [[Outline of semiotics]]
* {{annotated link|Semiofest}}
* [[Private language argument]]
* {{annotated link|Semiotica}}
* [[Semiofest]]
* {{annotated link|Sign Systems Studies}}
* [[Semiotic theory of Charles Sanders Peirce]]
* {{annotated link|The American Journal of Semiotics}}
* [[Social semiotics]]
* [[Universal language]]
{{colend}}


== References ==
== References ==
Line 239: Line 243:
{{Reflist|30em}}
{{Reflist|30em}}


=== Bibliography ===
=== Sources ===
{{refbegin|30em}}
{{refbegin|30em}}
* Atkin, Albert. (2006). "[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/ Peirce's Theory of Signs]", ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy''.
* {{cite dictionary |title=Hypertext |url=https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=hypertext |dictionary=The American Heritage Dictionary |publisher=HarperCollins |access-date=7 July 2023 |date=2022 |author=AHD staff}}
* [[Roland Barthes|Barthes, Roland]]. ([1957] 1987). ''Mythologies''. New York: Hill & Wang.
* {{cite journal |last1=Aklujkar |first1=Ashok |title=Ancient Indian Semantics |journal=Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute |date=1970 |volume=51 |issue=1/4 |pages=11–29 |jstor=41688671 |issn=0378-1143 }}
* Barthes, Roland ([1964] 1967). ''Elements of Semiology''. (Translated by Annette Lavers & Colin Smith). London: Jonathan Cape.
* {{cite journal |last1=Andersen |first1=R. S. |last2=Høybye |first2=M. T. |last3=Risør |first3=M. B. |title=Expanding Medical Semiotics |journal=Medical Anthropology |volume=43 |issue=2 |doi=10.1080/01459740.2024.2324892 |date=2024 |pages=91–101 |pmid=38437012 }}
* [[Daniel Chandler|Chandler, Daniel]]. (2001/2007). ''Semiotics: The Basics''. London: Routledge.
* {{cite book |last1=Arimura |first1=G. |last2=Pearse |first2=I. S. |chapter=From the Lab Bench to the Forest: Ecology and Defence Mechanisms of Volatile-Mediated 'Talking Trees' |editor-last1=Becard |editor-first1=Guillaume |title=How Plants Communicate With Their Biotic Environment |date=17 March 2017 |publisher=Academic Press |isbn=978-0-12-801620-6 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XPEbDQAAQBAJ |language=en |access-date=26 December 2022 }}
* Clarke, D. S. (1987). ''Principles of Semiotic''. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
* {{cite web |last1=Atkin |first1=Albert |title=Peirce’s Theory of Signs |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=11 October 2025  |date=2023 }}
* Clarke, D. S. (2003). ''Sign Levels''. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
* {{cite journal |last1=Bal |first1=Mieke |last2=Bryson |first2=Norman |title=Semiotics and Art History |journal=The Art Bulletin |volume=73 |issue=2 |doi=10.2307/3045790 |date=1991 |pages=174–208 |jstor=3045790 }}
* [[Jonathan Culler|Culler, Jonathan]] (1975). ''Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics and the Study of Literature''. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
* {{cite journal |last1=Barbieri |first1=Marcello |title=Biosemiotics: a new understanding of life |journal=Naturwissenschaften |volume=95 |issue=7 |doi=10.1007/s00114-008-0368-x |date=2008 |pages=577–599 |bibcode=2008NW.....95..577B }}
* [[Marcel Danesi|Danesi, Marcel]] & Perron, Paul. (1999). ''Analyzing Cultures: An Introduction and Handbook''. Bloomington: Indiana UP.
* {{cite journal |last1=Bates |first1=David |title='The jobs all go to foreigners': A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Labour Party's 'left-wing' Case for Immigration Controls |journal=Critical Discourse Studies |volume=20 |issue=2 |doi=10.1080/17405904.2022.2041451 |date=2023 |pages=183–199}}
* Danesi, Marcel. (1994). ''Messages and Meanings: An Introduction to Semiotics''. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press.
* {{cite book |last1=Bekkum |first1=Wout Jac van |last2=Houben |first2=Jan |last3=Sluiter |first3=Ineke |last4=Versteegh |first4=Kees |title=The Emergence of Semantics in Four Linguistic Traditions: Hebrew, Sanskrit, Greek, Arabic |publisher=John Benjamins Publishing |isbn=978-90-272-9881-2 |language=en |date=1997 }}
* Danesi, Marcel. (2002). ''Understanding Media Semiotics''. London: Arnold; New York: Oxford UP.
* {{cite book |last1=Berea |first1=Anamaria |title=Emergence of Communication in Socio-Biological Networks |date=16 December 2017 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-3-319-64565-0 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OIhDDwAAQBAJ |language=en |access-date=20 December 2022 }}
* Danesi, Marcel. (2007). ''The Quest for Meaning: A Guide to Semiotic Theory and Practice''. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
* {{cite book |last1=Bignell |first1=Jonathan |title=Media Semiotics: An Introduction, Second Edition |publisher=Manchester University Press |isbn=978-0-7190-6205-6 |language=en |date=2002 }}
* Decadt, Yves. 2000. ''On the Origin and Impact of Information in the Average Evolution: From Bit to Attractor, Atom and Ecosystem'' [Dutch]. Summary in English available at [http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/decadt/ The Information Philosopher].
* {{cite journal |last1=Brandt |first1=Per Aage |title=What is Cognitive Semiotics? A New Paradigm in the Study of Meaning |journal=Signata |volume=2 |doi=10.4000/signata.526 |date=2011 |pages=49–60}}
* [[John Deely|Deely, John]]. (2005 [1990]). ''Basics of Semiotics''. 4th ed. Tartu: Tartu University Press.
* {{cite book |last1=Brier |first1=S. |editor1-last=Brown |editor1-first=Keith |title=Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics |publisher=Elsevier |isbn=978-0-08-044854-1 |chapter-url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B0080448542013961 |chapter=Biosemiotics |date=2006 |pages=31–40 |edition=Second }}
* Deely, John. (2000), ''The Red Book: The Beginning of Postmodern Times or: Charles Sanders Peirce and the Recovery of'' Signum. {{cite document|title=Pictorial concepts. Inquiries into the semiotic heritage and its relevance for the analysis of the visual world|last=Sonesson|first=Göran|date=1989|publisher=Lund: Lund University Press}}Sonesson, Göran, 1989, Pictorial concepts. Inquiries into the semiotic heritage and its relevance for the analysis of the visual world, Lund: Lund University Press.{{small|(578&nbsp;[[Kibibyte|KiB]])}}Pictorial concepts. Inquiries into the semiotic heritage and its relevance for the analysis of the visual world{{cite web|url=http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/papers/greenbook.pdf|title=Eprint}}&nbsp;{{small|(571&nbsp;[[Kibibyte|KiB]])}}.
* {{cite book |last1=Cabestan |first1=Philippe |editor1-last=Malpas |editor1-first=Jeff |editor2-last=Gander |editor2-first=Hans-Helmuth |title=The Routledge Companion to Hermeneutics |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-317-67664-5 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zUaLBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA627 |language=en |chapter=Hermeneutics and Psychoanalysis |date=2014 |pages=623–633 }}
* Deely, John. (2001). ''Four Ages of Understanding''. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
* {{cite book |last1=Cardona |first1=Georgio R. |title=Panini: A Survey of Research |date=2019 |publisher=Walter de Gruyter |isbn=978-3-110-80010-4 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XnmVDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA303 |access-date=2024-02-23 }}
* Deely, John. (2003), "On the Word Semiotics, Formation and Origins", ''Semiotica'' 146.1/4, 1–50.
* {{cite book |last1=Chakrabarti |first1=A. |title=Denying Existence: The Logic, Epistemology and Pragmatics of Negative Existentials and Fictional Discourse |date=1997 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-0-792-34388-2 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SbIRFAzav64C&pg=PA215 |access-date=2024-02-23 }}
* Deely, John. (2003). ''The Impact on Philosophy of Semiotics''. South Bend: St. Augustine Press.
* {{Cite book |last=Chandler |first=Daniel |title=Semiotics: The Basics |publisher=Routledge |year=2022 |isbn=978-1-00-056294-1 |edition=4th |orig-year=1994}}
* Deely, John. (2004), {{"'}}Σημειον' to 'Sign' by Way of 'Signum': On the Interplay of Translation and Interpretation in the Establishment of Semiotics", ''Semiotica'' 148–1/4, 187–227.
* {{cite book |last1=Chandler |first1=Daniel |last2=Munday |first2=Rod |title=A Dictionary of Media and Communication |date=2011 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=9780199568758 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nLuJz-ZB828C |language=en }}
* Deely, John. (2006), "On 'Semiotics' as Naming the Doctrine of Signs", ''Semiotica'' 158.1/4 (2006), 1–33.
* {{cite book |last1=Chapman |first1=Siobhan |last2=Routledge |first2=Christopher |title=Key Ideas in Linguistics and the Philosophy of Language |date=2009 |pages=84–85 |publisher=Edinburgh University Press |isbn=978-0-748-63142-1 |url=https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780748631421-033/html |chapter=Ideational Theories |doi=10.1515/9780748631421-033 |access-date=2024-02-18 }}
* [[Jacques Derrida|Derrida, Jacques]] (1981). ''Positions''. (Translated by Alan Bass). London: Athlone Press.
* {{cite book |last1=Cherlin |first1=Michael |title=Varieties of Musical Irony: From Mozart to Mahler |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-108-50095-1 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=o74pDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA50 |language=en |date=2017 }}
* [[Terry Eagleton|Eagleton, Terry]]. (1983). ''[[Literary Theory: An Introduction]]''. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
* {{cite journal |last1=Choksi |first1=Nishaant |last2=Khatri |first2=J. A. H. |title=Introduction: Asian Perspectives on Semiotics |journal=Sanglap: Journal of Literary and Cultural Inquiry |volume=09 |issue=01 |doi=10.35684/JLCI.2022.9101 |date=2022 |doi-access=free }}
* [[Umberto Eco|Eco, Umberto]]. (1976). ''A Theory of Semiotics''. London: Macmillan.
* {{cite book |last1=Cobley |first1=Paul |title=The Routledge Companion to Semiotics and Linguistics |date=2001 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=0-203-99608-9}}
* Eco, Umberto. (1986) ''Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language''. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
* {{Cite book |title=The Routledge Companion to Semiotics |publisher=Routledge |year=2010 |isbn=978-0-415-44072-1 |editor-last=Cobley |editor-first=Paul}}
* Eco, Umberto. (2000) ''Kant and the Platypus''. New York, Harcourt Brace & Company.
* {{cite book |last1=Currie |first1=Gregory |chapter=16. Interpretation in Art |pages=291–306 |editor-last1=Levinson |editor-first1=Jerrold |title=The Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-927945-6 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-26tL4shIPkC&pg=PA1 |language=en |date=2005 }}
* Eco, Umberto. (1976) ''A Theory of Semiotics''. Indiana, Indiana University Press.
* {{cite journal |last1=D'Amato |first1=Mario |title=The Semiotics of Signlessness: A Buddhist Doctrine of Signs |journal=Semiotica |volume=2003 |issue=147 |doi=10.1515/semi.2003.090 |date=2003 }}
* [[Claus Emmeche|Emmeche, Claus]]; [[Kalevi Kull|Kull, Kalevi]] (eds.) (2011) ''Towards a Semiotic Biology: Life is the Action of Signs''. London: Imperial College Press. [https://www.academia.edu/727564/Towards_a_Semiotic_Biology_Life_is_the_Action_of_Signs pdf]
* {{cite book |last1=Danesi |first1=Marcel |editor-last1=Danesi |editor-first1=Marcel |title=Encyclopedia of Media and Communication |date=17 June 2013 |publisher=University of Toronto Press |isbn=978-1-4426-9553-5 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GZOBAAAAQBAJ |language=en |chapter=Communication |pages=167–185}}
* [[Michel Foucault|Foucault, Michel]]. (1970). ''The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences''. London: Tavistock.
* {{Cite book |last=Danesi |first=Marcel |title=Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics, Media, and Communications |publisher=University of Toronto Press |year=2000 |isbn=0-8020-4783-1}}
* [[Algirdas Julien Greimas|Greimas, Algirdas]]. (1987). ''On Meaning: Selected Writings in Semiotic Theory''. (Translated by Paul J Perron & Frank H Collins). London: Frances Pinter.
* {{Cite book |last=Danesi |first=Marcel |title=Messages, Signs, and Meanings: A Basic Textbook in Semiotics and Communication |publisher=Canadian Scholars' Press |year=2004 |isbn=978-1-55130-250-8 |edition=3rd |series=Studies in linguistic and cultural anthropology |volume=1 |orig-year=1994}}
* [[David Herlihy|Herlihy, David]]. 1988–present. "2nd year class of semiotics". CIT.
* {{cite book |last1=Danesi |first1=Marcel |title=Understanding Media Semiotics |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |isbn=978-1-350-06419-5 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wMB2DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA1 |language=en |date=2019 }}
* [[Louis Hjelmslev|Hjelmslev, Louis]] (1961). ''Prolegomena to a Theory of Language''. (Translated by Francis J. Whitfield). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press
* {{Cite book |last=Danesi |first=Marcel |title=The Quest for Meaning: A Guide to Semiotic Theory and Practice |publisher=University of Toronto Press |year=2020 |isbn=978-1-4875-0485-4 |edition=2nd }}
* Hodge, Robert & Kress, Gunther. (1988). ''Social Semiotics''. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
* {{cite book |last1=Danesi |first1=Marcel |last2=Perron |first2=Paul |title=Analyzing Cultures: An Introduction and Handbook |publisher=Indiana University Press |isbn=978-0-253-21298-6 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sNacmQ2yfGkC&pg=PA40 |language=en |date=1999 }}
* [[Jacques Lacan|Lacan, Jacques]]. (1977) ''Écrits: A Selection''. (Translated by [[Alan Sheridan]]). New York: Norton.
* {{cite book |last1=Daniel |first1=E. Valentine |date=2008 |chapter=Semiotics |editor-last=Darity Jr. |editor-first=William A. |edition=2nd |title=International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences |publisher=Macmillan |isbn=978-0-02-865965-7 |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/literature-and-arts/language-linguistics-and-literary-terms/language-and-linguistics/semiotics}}
* Lidov, David (1999) ''Elements of Semiotics''. New York: St. Martin's Press.
* {{cite book |last1=Davis |first1=Wayne A. |title=Nondescriptive Meaning and Reference: An Ideational Semantics |date=2005 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-191-60309-9 |url=https://academic.oup.com/book/8071 |access-date=2024-02-18 |archive-date=2024-02-16 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240216094419/https://academic.oup.com/book/8071 |url-status=live }}
* Liszka, J. J. (1996) ''A General Introduction to the Semeiotic of C.S. Peirce.'' Indiana University Press.
* {{Cite book |last=Deely |first=John |title=Basics of Semiotics |publisher=Indiana University Press |year=1990 |isbn=0-253-31676-6 |series=Advances in Semiotics}}
* [[John Locke|Locke, John]], ''The Works of John Locke, A New Edition, Corrected, In Ten Volumes, Vol.III'', T. Tegg, (London), 1823. (facsimile reprint by Scientia, (Aalen), 1963.)
* {{cite book |last1=Deely |first1=John |title=Four Ages of Understanding |publisher=University of Toronto Press |date=2001 |isbn=0-8020-4735-1}}
* [[Juri Lotman|Lotman, Yuri M.]] (1990). ''Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture''. (Translated by Ann Shukman). London: [[I.B. Tauris]].
* {{cite book |last1=Dirven |first1=René |last2=Verspoor |first2=Marjolijn |title=Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics |date=2004 |publisher=John Benjamins |isbn=978-9-027-29541-5 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OM58J4nQJaYC&pg=PA28 |edition=2nd }}
* Matthiessen, F. O. 1949. ''American Renaissance: Art and Expression in the Age of Emerson and Whitman''. Harvard, Boston
* {{cite journal |last1=Dunbar-Hall |first1=Peter |title=Semiotics as a Method for the Study of Popular Music |journal=International Review of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music |volume=22 |issue=2 |doi=10.2307/836920 |date=1991 |pages=127–132 |jstor=836920 }}
* Meyers, Marvin 1957 ''The Jacksonian Persuasion: Politics and Belief Stanford Press'', California
* {{Cite book |last=Eco |first=Umberto |title=A Theory of Semiotics |publisher=Indiana University Press |year=1979 |isbn=978-0-253-35955-1 |series=Advances in semiotics |orig-year=1976}}
* [[Charles W. Morris|Morris, Charles W.]] (1971). ''Writings on the general theory of signs''. The Hague: Mouton.
* {{cite book |last1=Elam |first1=Keir |title=The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-134-46512-5 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mAOCAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA44 |language=en |date=2003 }}
* {{cite journal|doi=10.1086/590650|hdl=10722/141740|title=Putting Social Context into Text: The Semiotics of E-mail Interaction|journal=American Journal of Sociology|volume=114|issue=2|pages=332–70|year=2008|last1=Menchik|first1=Daniel A|last2=Tian|first2=Xiaoli|s2cid=8161899|url=http://hub.hku.hk/bitstream/10722/141740/1/Content.pdf|hdl-access=free}}
* {{cite book |last1=Emmeche |first1=Claus |editor-last1=Van Huyssteen |editor-first1=J. Wentzel Vrede |title=Encyclopedia Of Science And Religion |chapter=Biosemiotics |edition=2nd |date=2003 |publisher=Macmillan Reference USA |isbn=0-02-865704-7 |pages=63–64 |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/education/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/biosemiotics}}
* [[Jean-Jacques Nattiez|Nattiez, Jean-Jacques]]. (1990). ''Music and Discourse: Toward a Semiology of Music''. Translated by [[Carolyn Abbate]]. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (Translation of: ''Musicologie générale et sémiologue''. Collection Musique/Passé/Présent 13. Paris: C. Bourgois, 1987).
* {{cite book |last1=Eysenck |first1=Michael W. |last2=Keane |first2=Mark T. |title=Cognitive Psychology |edition=7th |date=2015 |publisher=Psychology Press |isbn=978-1-84872-415-0}}
* [[Charles Sanders Peirce|Peirce, Charles S.]] (1934). ''Collected papers: Volume V. Pragmatism and pragmaticism''. Cambridge, MA, US: Harvard University Press.
* {{cite book |last1=Fadda |first1=Emanuele |editor1-last=Joseph |editor1-first=John E. |title=The Bloomsbury Handbook of Saussure |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |isbn=978-1-350-37979-4 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3rFmEQAAQBAJ&pg=PA306 |language=en |chapter=Saussure and Peirce |date=2025 |pages=299–316}}
* {{cite journal|doi=10.1515/SEMI.2009.015|title=Semiotics as semioethics in the era of global communication|journal=Semiotica|volume=2009|issue=173|pages=343–67|year=2009|last1=Petrilli|first1=Susan|s2cid=143553063}}
* {{cite book |last1=Fiske |first1=John |title=Introduction to Communication Studies |edition=2nd |date=1990 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=0-203-13431-1 }}
* [[Augusto Ponzio|Ponzio, Augusto]] & S. Petrilli (2007) ''Semiotics Today. From Global Semiotics to Semioethics, a Dialogic Response.'' New York, Ottawa, Toronto: Legas. 84 pp. {{ISBN|978-1-894508-98-8|}}
* {{cite book |last1=Forceville |first1=Charles |title=Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-134-66315-6 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_R6EAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA203 |language=en |date=2002 }}
* Romeo, Luigi (1977), "The Derivation of 'Semiotics' through the History of the Discipline", ''Semiosis'', v. 6 pp.&nbsp;37–50.
* {{cite web |last1=Fraser |first1=Chris |title=Mohism |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mohism/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University  |date=2024 }}
* [[Thomas Sebeok|Sebeok, T.A.]] (1976), ''Contributions to the Doctrine of Signs'', Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.
* {{cite web |last1=Fraser |first1=Chris |title=School of Names |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/school-names/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=8 October 2025  |date=2024a }}
* Sebeok, Thomas A. (Editor) (1977). ''A Perfusion of Signs''. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
* {{cite web |last1=George |first1=Theodore |title=Hermeneutics |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hermeneutics/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=1 October 2025  |date=2025 }}
* ''Signs and Meaning: 5 Questions'', edited by Peer Bundgaard and Frederik Stjernfelt, 2009 (Automatic Press / VIP). (Includes interviews with 29 leading semioticians of the world.)
* {{cite book |last1=Hébert |first1=Louis |title=An Introduction to Applied Semiotics: Tools for Text and Image Analysis |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-000-76059-0 |language=en |date=2019 }}
* [[Thomas L. Short|Short, T.L.]] (2007), ''Peirce's Theory of Signs'', Cambridge University Press.
* {{cite book |last1=Hoad |first1=T. F. |title=The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology |date=1996 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-283098-2 }}
* Stubbe, Henry ([[Henry Stubbe]]), ''The Plus Ultra reduced to a Non Plus: Or, A Specimen of some Animadversions upon the Plus Ultra of Mr. Glanvill, wherein sundry Errors of some Virtuosi are discovered, the Credit of the Aristotelians in part Re-advanced; and Enquiries made....'', (London), 1670.
* {{cite book |last1=Hodge |first1=Bob |title=Social Semiotics for a Complex World: Analysing Language and Social Meaning |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |isbn=978-0-7456-9624-9 |language=en |date=2017 }}
* {{cite journal|doi=10.1515/semi.1982.38.3-4.205|title=Semiotics and medicine|journal=Semiotica|volume=38|issue=3–4|year=1982|last1=Uexküll|first1=Thure von|s2cid=201698735}}
* {{cite book |last1=Indraccolo |first1=Lisa |chapter=Argumentation (Bian 辯) |title=Dao Companion to Chinese Philosophy of Logic |volume=12 |series=Dao Companions to Chinese Philosophy |editor1-last=Fung |editor1-first=Yiu-ming |year=2020 |publisher=Springer Nature |isbn=978-3-030-29033-7 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MejqDwAAQBAJ }}
* [[John William Ward (professor)|Ward, John William]] 1955. ''Andrew Jackson, Symbol for an Age''. New York: Oxford University Press.
* {{Cite book |last=Iskanderova |first=Tatiana |title=Unveiling Semiotic Codes of Fake News and Misinformation: Contemporary Theories and Practices for Media Professionals |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |year=2024 |isbn=978-3-031-53750-9}}
* Ward, John William 1969 ''Red, White, and Blue: Men, Books, and Ideas in American Culture''. New York: Oxford University Press
* {{Cite encyclopedia |year=2001 |title=Semiotics |encyclopedia=International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences |publisher=Elsevier |last=Jensen |first=K. B. |pages=13887–13891 |doi=10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/04378-3 |isbn=978-0-08-043076-8}}
* Williamson, Judith. (1978). ''Decoding Advertisements: Ideology and Meaning in Advertising''. London: Boyars.
* {{Cite book |last1=Johansen |first1=Jørgen Dines |title=Signs In Use: An Introduction to Semiotics |last2=Larsen |first2=Svend Erik |publisher=Routledge |year=2002 |isbn=0-203-99414-0 |translator-last=Gorlée |translator-first=Dinda L. |translator-last2=Irons |translator-first2=John}}
* Zlatev, Jordan. (2009). "The Semiotic Hierarchy: Life, Consciousness, Signs and Language, Cognitive Semiotics". Sweden: Scania.
* {{cite book |last1=Jorna |first1=René J. |title=Encyclopedia of Neuroscience |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-3-540-29678-2 |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-540-29678-2_3946 |language=en |chapter=Neurosemiotics |date=2009 |pages=2830–2833 |doi=10.1007/978-3-540-29678-2_3946 }}
* {{cite book |last1=Karban |first1=Richard |title=Plant Sensing and Communication |date=18 June 2015 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-26484-4 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8HOeCQAAQBAJ |language=en |access-date=26 December 2022 }}
* {{cite book |last1=Ketcham |first1=Christopher |title=Flowers and Honeybees: A Study of Morality in Nature |date=11 May 2020 |publisher=Brill |isbn=978-90-04-42854-6 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IXznDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA100 |language=en |access-date=26 December 2022 }}
* {{cite book |last1=Klyukanov |first1=Igor E. |editor-last1=Schement |editor-first1=Jorge Reina |title=Encyclopedia Of Communication And Information |chapter=Semiotics |volume=3 |publisher=Macmillan Reference USA |date=2002 |isbn=0-02-865385-8 |pages=916–918 |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/literature-and-arts/language-linguistics-and-literary-terms/language-and-linguistics/semiotics}}
* {{cite book |last1=Kull |first1=Kalevi |last2=Favareau |first2=Donald |date=2023 |chapter=Neurosemiotics: A Brief History of Its Development and Key Concerns |editor1-last=García |editor1-first=Adolfo M. |editor2-last=Ibáñez |editor2-first=Agustín |title=The Routledge Handbook of Semiosis and the Brain |pages=13–29 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=9781032355610}}
* {{cite book |last1=MacCannell |first1=Dean |title=Empty Meeting Grounds: The Tourist Papers |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-134-93398-3 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Yp2KAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA145 |language=en |date=2002 }}
* {{cite book |last1=MacCannell |first1=Dean |editor1-last=Winner |editor1-first=Irene Portis |editor2-last=Umiker-Sebeok |editor2-first=Jean |title=Semiotics of Culture |publisher=Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG |isbn=978-3-11-082313-4 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=y-cIEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA153 |language=en |chapter=Ethnosemiotics  |date=2019 |pages=149–172}}
* {{cite book |last1=MacEachren |first1=Alan M. |title=How Maps Work: Representation, Visualization, and Design |publisher=Guilford Press |isbn=978-1-57230-040-8 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xhAvN3B0CkUC&pg=PA242 |language=en |date=2004 }}
* {{Cite book |last1=Manetti |first1=Giovanni |chapter=Ancient Semiotics |title=The Routledge Companion to Semiotics |publisher=Routledge |year=2010 |isbn=978-0-415-44072-1 |editor-last=Cobley |editor-first=Paul |pages=13–28}}
* {{cite book |last1=Martin |first1=Bronwen |title=Key Terms in Semiotics |publisher=A&C Black |isbn=978-0-8264-8456-7 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ANBLPmfvSusC&pg=PA140 |language=en |date=2006 }}
* {{cite web |last1=Matthews |first1=Stéphanie Walsh |title=Semiotics |url=https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780190221911/obo-9780190221911-0024.xml |website=Oxford Bibliographies |access-date=26 September 2025 |language=en |doi=10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0024  |date=2017 }}
* {{cite web |last1=Meier-Oeser |first1=Stephan |title=Medieval Semiotics |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/semiotics-medieval/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=8 October 2025  |date=2011 }}
* {{cite journal |last1=Mertz |first1=Elizabeth |title=Semiotic Anthropology |journal=Annual Review of Anthropology |volume=36 |issue=1 |doi=10.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094417 |date=2007 |pages=337–353}}
* {{cite web |last1=Moore |first1=Richard |last2=Palazzolo |first2=Giulia |title=Animal Communication |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/animal-communication/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=23 September 2025  |date=2024 }}
* {{cite web |author1=MW staff |title=Definition of Semiotics |url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semiotics |website=Merriam-Webster Dictionary |publisher=Merriam-Webster |language=en |date=2025 }}
* {{cite book |last1=Netton |first1=Ian Richard |title=Allah Transcendent: Studies in the Structure and Semiotics of Islamic Philosophy, Theology and Cosmology |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-136-10274-5 |language=en |date=2013 }}
* {{cite book |last1=Neuman |first1=Yair |chapter=Semiotics as an Interdisciplinary Science |pages=125–134 |editor-last1=Trifonas |editor-first1=Peter Pericles |title=International Handbook of Semiotics |date=2015 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-94-017-9403-9}}
* {{Cite book |last=Nöth |first=Winfried |title=Handbook of Semiotics |publisher=Indiana University Press |year=1990 |isbn=0-253-34120-5 |series=Advances in semiotics}}
* {{Cite book |last=Nöth |first=Winfried |title=The Cambridge History of Linguistics |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2023 |isbn=978-0-521-84990-6 |editor-last=Waugh |editor-first=Linda R. |chapter=Semiotics |editor-last2=Monville-Burston |editor-first2=Monique |editor-last3=Joseph |editor-first3=John E.}}
* {{cite dictionary |chapter-url=https://www.oed.com/dictionary/semiotics_n?tab=factsheet#23560567 |dictionary=Oxford English Dictionary |date=2025 |publisher=Oxford University Press |edition=3rd |chapter=Semiotics, n. |author=OED staff}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Olteanu |first1=Alin |last2=Campbell |first2=Cary |title=A Short Introduction to Edusemiotics |journal=Chinese Semiotic Studies |volume=14 |issue=2 |doi=10.1515/css-2018-0015 |date=2018 |pages=245–260}}
* {{cite book |last1=Paolucci |first1=Claudio |title=Cognitive Semiotics: Integrating Signs, Minds, Meaning and Cognition |publisher=Springer Nature |isbn=978-3-030-42986-7 |language=en |date=2021 }}
* {{Cite book |last1=Petrilli |first1=Susan |last2=Ponzio |first2=Augusto |chapter=Semioethics |title=The Routledge Companion to Semiotics |publisher=Routledge |year=2010 |isbn=978-0-415-44072-1 |editor-last=Cobley |editor-first=Paul |pages=150–162}}
* {{cite book |last1=Posner |first1=Roland |editor1-last=Posner |editor1-first=Roland |editor2-last=Robering |editor2-first=Klaus |editor3-last=Sebeok |editor3-first=Thomas A. |title=Semiotik 3.Teilband |publisher=Walter de Gruyter |isbn=978-3-11-019415-9 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TBLe6YP0G98C&pg=PA2366 |chapter=The Relationship between Individual Disciplines and Interdisciplinary Approaches |date=2008 |pages=2341–2375}}
* {{Cite book |last1=Randviir |first1=Anti |last2=Cobley |first2=Paul |chapter=Sociosemiotics |title=The Routledge Companion to Semiotics |publisher=Routledge |year=2010 |isbn=978-0-415-44072-1 |editor-last=Cobley |editor-first=Paul |pages=118–134}}
* {{cite book |last1=Raposa |first1=Michael |editor-last1=Van Huyssteen |editor-first1=J. Wentzel Vrede |title=Encyclopedia Of Science And Religion |chapter=Semiotics |edition=2nd |date=2003 |publisher=Macmillan Reference USA |isbn=0-02-865704-7 |pages=801–803}}
* {{cite book |last1=Riemer |first1=Nick |title=Introducing Semantics |date=2010 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-85192-3 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tJjZ0FmNdzIC |access-date=2024-02-04 }}
* {{cite book |last1=Rothenberger |first1=Liane |last2=Hase |first2=Valerie |editor1-last=Oehmer-Pedrazzi |editor1-first=Franziska |editor2-last=Kessler |editor2-first=Sabrina Heike |editor3-last=Humprecht |editor3-first=Edda |editor4-last=Sommer |editor4-first=Katharina |editor5-last=Castro |editor5-first=Laia |title=Standardisierte Inhaltsanalyse in der Kommunikationswissenschaft – Standardized Content Analysis in Communication Research |publisher=Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden |isbn=978-3-658-36178-5 |language=de |chapter=Content Analysis in the Research Field of Terrorism Coverage |date=2023 |pages=137–146 |doi=10.1007/978-3-658-36179-2_12 }}
* {{cite book |last1=Ruben |first1=Brent D. |title=Encyclopedia of Communication and Information |date=2001 |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/media/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/models-communication |chapter=Models Of Communication |isbn=978-0-02-865386-0 |publisher=Macmillan Reference USA |access-date=28 November 2022 |archive-date=31 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221031122937/https://www.encyclopedia.com/media/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/models-communication |url-status=live }}
* {{cite book |last1=Schenk |first1=H. Jochen |last2=Seabloom |first2=Eric W. |chapter=Evolutionary Ecology of Plant Signals and Toxins: A Conceptual Framework |editor-last1=Baluška |editor-first1=František |editor-last2=Ninkovic |editor-first2=Velemir |title=Plant Communication From an Ecological Perspective |date=5 August 2010 |publisher=Springer Science & Business Media |isbn=978-3-642-12162-3 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9hUpvAoY_HAC&pg=PA1 |language=en |access-date=20 December 2022 }}
* {{Cite book |last=Sebeok |first=Thomas A. |title=Signs: An Introduction to Semiotics |publisher=University of Toronto Press |year=2001 |isbn=0-8020-3634-1 |edition=2nd |orig-year=1994}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Segundo-Ortin |first1=Miguel |last2=Calvo |first2=Paco |title=Consciousness and cognition in plants |journal=WIREs Cognitive Science |volume=13 |issue=2 |doi=10.1002/wcs.1578 |date=2022 |article-number=e1578 |pmid=34558231 |doi-access=free }}
* {{cite book |last1=Semetsky |first1=Inna |editor-last1=Semetsky |editor-first1=Inna |title=Edusemiotics – A Handbook |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-981-10-1495-6 |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-1495-6_1 |language=en |chapter=Introduction: A Primer on Edusemiotics |date=2017 |pages=1–14 |doi=10.1007/978-981-10-1495-6_1 }}
* {{cite journal |last1=Shackell |first1=Cameron |title=Finite semiotics: Cognitive sets, semiotic vectors, and semiosic oscillation |journal=Semiotica |volume=2019 |issue=229 |doi=10.1515/sem-2017-0127 |date=2019 |pages=211–235}}
* {{cite book |last1=Shinohara |first1=Kazuko |last2=Matsunaka |first2=Yoshihiro |editor1-last=Forceville |editor1-first=Charles J. |editor2-last=Urios-Aparisi |editor2-first=Eduardo |title=Multimodal Metaphor |publisher=Walter de Gruyter |isbn=978-3-11-021536-6 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TTv1Fu0MsbcC&pg=PA276 |language=en |chapter=Pictorial Metaphors of Emotions in Japanese Comics |date=2009 |pages=265–296}}
* {{Cite book |last1=Sless |first1=David |title=A New Semiotics: An Introductory Guide for Students |last2=Shrensky |first2=Ruth |publisher=Routledge |year=2023 |isbn=978-0-367-40844-2}}
* {{cite book |last1=Sonesson |first1=Göran |chapter=Semiotics of Photography: The State of the Art |pages=417–484 |editor-last1=Trifonas |editor-first1=Peter Pericles |title=International Handbook of Semiotics |date=2015 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-94-017-9403-9}}
* {{cite web |last1=Speaks |first1=Jeff |title=Theories of Meaning |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meaning/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=9 September 2025  |date=2024 }}
* {{cite journal |last1=Staal |first1=J. F. |title=Indian Semantics, I |journal=Journal of the American Oriental Society |date=1966 |volume=86 |issue=3 |pages=304–311 |jstor=597038 |issn=0003-0279 }}
* {{cite book |last1=Staiano |first1=Kathryn V. |title=Interpreting Signs of Illness: A Case Study in Medical Semiotics |publisher=Walter de Gruyter |isbn=978-3-11-085565-4 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cUiHDwAAQBAJ&pg=PR11 |language=en |date=2016 }}
* {{cite book |last1=Tanaka-Ishii |first1=Kumiko |title=Semiotics of Programming |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-51655-6 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=irizHa1MXJoC&pg=PA47 |language=en |date=2010 }}
* {{cite book |last1=Tanaka-Ishii |first1=Kumiko |chapter=Semiotics of Computing: Filling the Gap Between Humanity and Mechanical Inhumanity |pages=981–1002 |editor-last1=Trifonas |editor-first1=Peter Pericles |title=International Handbook of Semiotics |date=2015 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-94-017-9403-9}}
* {{cite web |last1=Theodorou |first1=Stephanie |title=Bhartrihari |url=https://iep.utm.edu/bhartrihari/ |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=7 October 2025}}
* {{cite book |last1=Thibault |first1=Mattia |editor1-last=Lee |editor1-first=Newton |title=Encyclopedia of Computer Graphics and Games |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-3-319-08234-9 |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-08234-9_142-1 |language=en |chapter=Semiotics of Computer Games |date=2018 |pages=1–3 }}
* {{cite book |last1=Tiefenbrun |first1=Susan |title=Decoding International Law: Semiotics and the Humanities |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-974956-0 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=R51oAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA19 |language=en |date=2010 }}
* {{Cite book |title=International Handbook of Semiotics |publisher=Springer |year=2015 |isbn=978-94-017-9403-9 |editor-last=Trifonas |editor-first=Peter Pericles}}
* {{cite book |last1=Turbanti |first1=Giacomo |title=Philosophy of Communication |publisher=Springer Nature |isbn=978-3-031-12463-1 |language=en |date=2023 }}
* {{cite book |last1=Zámečník |first1=Lukáš |title=Approaches To Biosemiotics Vol. 1 – Biosocial World: Biosemiotics And Biosociology |chapter=What Is It Like To Be A Biosemiotician |editor1-last=Coca |editor1-first=Juan R. |editor2-last=Rodríguez |editor2-first=Claudio J. |publisher=Universidad de Valladolid |isbn=978-84-1320-235-8 |pages=11–24 |date=2023}}
* {{cite book |last1=Zhao |first1=Yiheng |title=Semiotics: Principles & Problems |publisher=Springer Nature Singapore |isbn=978-981-96-0037-3 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=G-hMEQAAQBAJ&pg=PA16 |language=en |date=2025 }}
* {{cite book |last1=Zhu |first1=Dong |title=Chinese Semiotic Thoughts in the Pre-imperial Age |publisher=Springer Nature Singapore |isbn=978-981-99-5985-3 |doi=10.1007/978-981-99-5986-0 |language=en |date=2023 }}
* {{cite book |last1=Zlatev |first1=Jordan |chapter=Cognitive Semiotics |pages=1043–1068 |editor-last1=Trifonas |editor-first1=Peter Pericles |title=International Handbook of Semiotics |date=2015 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-94-017-9403-9}}
{{refend}}
{{refend}}


Line 307: Line 361:
|about=yes
|about=yes
|label=Semiotics }}
|label=Semiotics }}
* [http://www.signosemio.com/ Signo] — presents semiotic theories and theories closely related to semiotics.
* [http://pauillac.inria.fr/~codognet/web.html The Semiotics of the Web]
* [http://www.hum.au.dk/semiotics/ Center for Semiotics] — Denmark: [[Aarhus University]]
* [https://www.semioticsocietyofamerica.org/ Semiotic Society of America]
* [http://www.semioticon.com/ Open Semiotics Resource Center] — includes journals, lecture courses, etc.
=== Peircean focus ===
* [http://www.cspeirce.com/ Arisbe: The Peirce Gateway]
* [http://perso.numericable.fr/robert.marty/semiotique/anglais.htm Semiotics according to Robert Marty], with [http://perso.numericable.fr/robert.marty/semiotique/access.htm 76 definitions of the sign by C.&nbsp;S. Peirce]
* [http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/dictionary.html The Commens Dictionary of Peirce's Terms]
=== Journals and book series ===
* ''[https://www.pdcnet.org/ajs American Journal of Semiotics],'' edited by [[John Deely|J. Deely]] and C. Morrissey. US: [[Semiotic Society of America]].
* ''[http://french.chass.utoronto.ca/as-sa/ Applied Semiotics / Sémiotique appliquée (AS/SA)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181226162651/http://french.chass.utoronto.ca/as-sa/ |date=2018-12-26 }}'', edited by P. G. Marteinson & P. G. Michelucci. CA: University of Toronto.
* ''[http://www.degruyter.de/view/serial/16228 Approaches to Applied Semiotics]{{Dead link|date=March 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}'' (2000–09 series), edited by T. Sebeok, et al. Berlin: [[Walter de Gruyter|De Gruyter]].
* ''[http://www.degruyter.de/view/serial/16067 Approaches to Semiotics]'' (1969–97 series), edited by T. A. Sebeok, [[Alain Rey|A. Rey]], R. Posner, et al. Berlin: [[Walter de Gruyter|De Gruyter]].
* ''[https://www.springer.com/life+sciences/evolutionary+%26+developmental+biology/journal/12304 Biosemiotics]'', journal of the [http://www.biosemiotics.org/ International Society for Biosemiotic Studies].
* ''[http://www.chkjournal.com/ Cybernetics and Human Knowing]'', edited by S. Brier, (chief).
* ''[https://ijmarketingsemiotics.com/ International Journal of Marketing Semiotics]'', edited by G. Rossolatos, (chief).
* ''[http://www.irma-international.org/journal/international-journal-signs-semiotic-systems/41024/ International Journal of Signs and Semiotic Systems (IJSSS)]'', edited by A, Loula & J. Queiroz.
* ''[http://semioticsonline.org/ The Public Journal of Semiotics]'', edited by P. Bouissac (eic), A. Cienki (assoc.), R. Jorna, and W. Nöth.
* ''[http://www.library.utoronto.ca/see/pages/SEED_Journal.html S.E.E.D. Journal (Semiotics, Evolution, Energy, and Development)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130225080114/http://www.library.utoronto.ca/see/pages/SEED_Journal.html |date=2013-02-25 }}'' (2001–7), edited by E. Taborsky. Toronto: [http://www.library.utoronto.ca/see/index.html SEE] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120503121407/http://www.library.utoronto.ca/see/index.html |date=2012-05-03 }}.
* ''[http://projects.chass.utoronto.ca/semiotics/index.html The Semiotic Review of Books] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181215115549/http://projects.chass.utoronto.ca/semiotics/index.html |date=2018-12-15 }}'', edited by G. Genosko (gen.) and P. Bouissac (founding ed.).
* ''[https://web.archive.org/web/20080610163330/http://www.degruyter.de/journals/semiotica/ Semiotica]'', edited by [[Marcel Danesi|M. Danesi]] (chief). [http://iass-ais.org/ International Association for Semiotic Studies].
* ''[https://web.archive.org/web/20160823202805/http://www.ananke-edizioni.com/ananke/?s=Semiotiche Semiotiche]'', edited by A. Valle and M. Visalli.<!-- Some articles in English. Home site seems gone from Web, old url [http://www.semiotiche.it/] no longer live, and not available in the Wayback Machine. -->
* ''[http://www.degruyter.de/view/serial/41472 Semiotics, Communication and Cognition]{{Dead link|date=March 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}'' (series), edited by P. Cobley and [[Kalevi Kull|K. Kull]].
* ''[https://www.pdcnet.org/cpsem Semiotics: Yearbook of the Semiotic Society of America]'', edited by J. Pelkey. US: Semiotic Society of America.
* ''[http://www.semioticon.com/semiotix/ SemiotiX New Series: A Global Information Bulletin]'', edited by P. Bouissac, et al.
* ''[https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/sss/ Sign Systems Studies]'', edited by O. Puumeister, K. Kull, et al., Estonia: [http://www.ut.ee/SOSE/eng.html Dept. of Semiotics, University of Tartu].
* ''[http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/journals/journal/sas.html Signs and Society]'', edited by R. J. Parmentier.
* ''[https://web.archive.org/web/20120416202924/http://vip.iva.dk/signs/ Signs: International Journal of Semiotics],'' edited by M. Thellefsen, T. Thellefsen, and B. Sørensen, (chief eds.).
* ''[https://tyk.ee/et/TSL Tartu Semiotics Library]'' (series), edited by [[Peeter Torop|P. Torop]], K. Kull, S. Salupere.<!-- EDITORS: THE FOLLOWING MARKUP, THE TRANSACTIONS ENTRY, AND THE MARKUP DIRECTLY AFTER IT ARE ONLY MOVABLE AS ONE -->
* ''[https://web.archive.org/web/20071011065724/http://peircesociety.org/transactions.html Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society]'', edited by C. de Waal (chief). [http://www.peircesociety.org/ The Charles S. Peirce Society].
* ''[https://web.archive.org/web/20080308152226/http://versus.dsc.unibo.it/ Versus: Quaderni di studi semiotici]'', founded by [[Umberto Eco|U. Eco]].


{{Communication studies}}
{{Communication studies}}
{{Human geography}}
{{Nonverbal communication}}
{{Authority control}}
{{Authority control}}


[[Category:Semiotics| ]]
[[Category:Semiotics| ]]
[[Category:Communication studies]]
[[Category:Communication studies]]
[[Category:Cybernetics]]
[[Category:Philosophy of language]]
[[Category:Linguistics terminology|+]]

Latest revision as of 20:13, 5 November 2025

Template:Short description

SemioticsTemplate:Efn is the study of signs. It is an interdisciplinary field that examines what signs are, how they form sign systems, and how individuals use them to communicate meaning. Its main branches are syntactics, which addresses formal relations between signs, semantics, which addresses the relation between signs and their meanings, and pragmatics, which addresses the relation between signs and their users. Semiotics is related to linguistics but has a broader scope that includes nonlinguistic signs, such as maps and clothing.

Signs are entities that stand for something else, like the word cat, which stands for a carnivorous mammal. They can take many forms, such as sounds, images, written marks, and gestures. Iconic signs operate through similarity. For them, the sign vehicle resembles the referent, such as a portrait of a person. Indexical signs are based on a direct physical link, such as smoke as a sign of fire. For symbolic signs, the relation between sign vehicle and referent is conventional or arbitrary, which applies to most linguistic signs. Models of signs analyze the basic components of signs. Ferdinand de Saussure's dyadic model identifies a perceptible image and a concept as the core elements, whereas Charles Sanders Peirce's triadic model distinguishes a sign vehicle, a referent, and an effect in the interpreter's mind.

Sign systems are structured networks of interrelated signs, such as the English language. Semioticians study how signs combine to form larger expressions, called texts. They explore how the message of a text depends on the meanings of the signs composing it and how contextual factors and tropes influence this process. They also investigate the codes employed to communicate meaning, including conventional codes, such as the color code of traffic signals, and natural codes, such as DNA encoding hereditary information.

Semiotics has diverse applications because of the pervasive nature of signs. Many semioticians study cultural products, such as literature, art, and media, investigating both the elements used to express meaning and the subtle ideological messages they convey. The psychological activities associated with sign use are another research topic. Biosemiotics extends the scope of inquiry beyond human communication, examining sign processes within and between animals, plants, and other organisms. Semioticians typically adjust their research approach to their specific domain without a single methodology adopted by all subfields. Although the roots of semiotic research lie in antiquity, it was not until the late 19th and early 20th centuries that semiotics emerged as an independent field of inquiry.

Definitions and related fields

Template:Multiple image Semiotics is the study of signs or of how meaning is created and communicated through them. Also called semiology,Template:Efn it examines the nature of signs, their organization into signs systems, like language, and the ways individuals interpret and use them. Semiotics has wide-reaching applications because of the pervasive nature of signs, affecting how individuals experience phenomena, communicate ideas, and interact with the world.Template:Sfnpm

These applications make it an interdisciplinary field, originating in philosophy and linguistics and closely related to disciplines like psychology, anthropology, aesthetics, sociology, and education sciences.Template:Sfnpm Because most sciences rely on sign processes in some form, semiotics is sometimes characterized as a meta-discipline that provides a general approach for the analysis of signs across domains.Template:Sfnpm It is controversial whether semiotics is itself a science since there are no universally accepted theoretical assumptions or methods on which semioticians agree.Template:Sfnpm Semiotics has also been characterized as a theory, a doctrine, a movement, or a discipline.Template:Sfnpm Apart from its interdisciplinary applications, pure semiotics is typically divided into three branches: semantics, syntactics, and pragmatics, studying how signs relate to objects, to each other, and to sign users, respectively.Template:Sfnpm

Semiotic inquiry overlaps in various ways with linguistics and communication theory. It shares with linguistics the interest in the analysis of sign systems, examining the meanings of words, how they are combined to form sentences, and how they convey messages in concrete contexts. A key difference is that linguistics focuses on language, while semiotics also studies non-linguistic signs, such as images, gestures, traffic signs, and animal calls.Template:Sfnpm Communication theory studies how individuals encode, convey, and interpret both linguistic and non-linguistic messages. It typically focuses on technical aspects of how messages are transmitted, usually between distinct organisms. Semiotics, by contrast, concentrates on the meaning of messages and the creation of meaning, including the role of non-communicative signs.Template:SfnpmTemplate:Efn For example, semioticians also study naturally occurring biological signs, like disease symptoms, and signs based on inanimate relations, such as smoke as a sign of fire.Template:Sfnpm

The term semiotics derives from the Greek word Script error: No such module "Lang". (Template:Transliteration), originally associated with the study of disease symptoms.Template:Sfnpm Proposing a new field of inquiry of signs, John Locke suggested the Greek term as its name.Template:Sfnpm The first use of the English term semiotics dates to the 1670s.Template:Sfnpm Semiotics became a distinct field of inquiry following the works of the philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce and the linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, the founders of the discipline.Template:Sfnpm

Signs

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". A sign is an entity that stands for something else. For example, the word cat is a sign that stands for a small domesticated carnivorous mammal. Signs direct the attention of interpreters away from themselves and toward the entities they represent. They can take many forms, such as words, images, sounds, and odours. Similarly, they can refer to many types of entities, including physical objects, events, or places, psychological feelings, and abstract ideas. They help people recognize patterns, predict outcomes, make plans, communicate ideas, and understand the world.Template:Sfnpm

Semioticians distinguish different elements of signs. The sign vehicle is the physical form of the sign, such as sound waves or printed letters on a page, whereas the referent is the object it stands for. The precise number and nature of these elements is disputed and different models of signs propose distinct analyses.Template:Sfnpm The referent of a sign can itself be a sign, leading to a chain of signification. For instance, the expression "red rose" is a sign for a particular type of flower, which can itself act as a sign of love.Template:Sfnpm

Semiosis is the capacity or activity of comprehending and producing signs. Also characterized as the action of signs, it involves the interplay between sign vehicle and referent as organisms interpret meaning within a given context.Template:Sfnpm Different types of semiosis are distinguished by the type of organisms engaging in the sign activity, such as the contrast between anthroposemiosis involving humans, zoösemiosis involving other animals, and phytosemiosis involving plants.Template:Sfnpm

Meaning, sense, and reference

The meaning of a sign is what is generated in the process of semiosis. Meaning is typically analyzed into two aspects: sense and reference.Template:Efn This distinction is also known by the terms connotation and denotation as well as intension and extension. The reference of a sign is the object for which it stands. For example, the reference of the term morning star is the planet Venus. The sense of a sign is the way it stands for the object or the mode in which the object is presented. For instance, the terms morning star and evening star have the same reference since they point to the same object. However, their meanings are not identical since they differ on the level of sense by presenting this object from distinct perspectives.Template:Sfnpm

Various theories of meaning have been proposed to explain its nature and identify the conditions that determine the meanings of signs. Referential or extensional theories define meaning in terms of reference, for example, as the signified object or as a context-dependent function that points to objects.Template:Sfnpm Ideational or mentalist theories interpret the meaning of a sign in relation to the mental states of language users, for example, as the ideas it evokes.Template:Sfnpm Pragmatic theories describe meaning based on behavioral responses and use conditions.Template:Sfnpm

Types and sign relations

Oil painting of a bearded man wearing a coat
Icons represent through similarity, such as a portrait referring to Vincent van Gogh by resembling him.Template:Sfnpm
Photo of a footprint of a dog in the sand
Indexical signs represent through a direct physical link, such as a footprint of a dog referring to the dog.Template:Sfnpm
Diagram with the word "apple", and an arrow, and an apple image
Symbols are signs with an arbitrary relation between sign vehicle and referent, such as the link between the word "apple" and the fruit.Template:Sfnpm

Semioticians distinguish various types of signs, often based on the sign relation or how the sign vehicle is connected to the referent.Template:Sfnpm A type is a general pattern or universal class, corresponding to shared features of individual signs. Types contrast with tokens, which are individual instances of a type. For example, the word banana encompasses six letter tokens (b, a, n, a, n, and a), which belong to three distinct types (b, a, and n).Template:Sfnpm

A historically influential classification of sign types relies on the contrast between conventional and natural signs. Conventional signs depend on culturally established norms and intentionality to establish the link between sign vehicle and referent. For example, the meaning of the term tree is fixed by social conventions associated with the English language rather than a natural connection between the term and actual trees. Natural signs, by contrast, are based on a substantial link other than conventions. For instance, the footprint of a bear signifies the presence of a bear as a result of the bear's movement rather than a matter of convention. In modern semiotics, the distinction between natural and conventional signs has been replaced by the threefold classification into icons, indices, and symbols, initially proposed by Peirce.Template:Sfnpm

Icons are signs that operate through similarity: sign vehicles resemble or imitate the referents to which they are linked. They include direct physical similarity, such as a life-like portrait depicting a person, but also encompass more abstract resemblance, such as metaphors and diagrams.Template:Sfnpm Icons are also used in animal communication. For instance, ants of the species Pogonomyrmex badius use a smell-based warning signal that resembles the type of danger with a correspondence between intensity and duration of signal and danger.Template:Sfnpm

Indices are signs that operate through a direct physical link. Typically, the referent is the cause of the sign vehicle. For example, smoke indicates the presence of fire because it is a physical effect produced by the fire itself. Similarly, disease symptoms are signs of the disease causing them and a thermometer's gauge reading indicates the temperature responsible. Other material links besides a direct cause-effect relation are also possible such as a directional signpost physically pointing the path to a nearby campsite.Template:Sfnpm

Symbols are signs that operate through convention-based associations. For them, the relation between sign vehicle and referent is arbitrary. It arises from social agreements, which an individual needs to learn in order to decode the meaning. Examples are the numeral "2", the colors on traffic lights, and national flags.Template:Sfnpm

The categories of icon, index, and symbol are not exclusive, and the same sign may belong to more than one. For example, some road warning signs combine iconic elements, like an image of falling rocks to indicate rockslide, with symbolic elements, such as a red triangle to signal danger.Template:Sfnpm Various other categories are discussed in the academic literature. Thomas Sebeok expands the icon-index-symbol classification by adding three more categories: signals are signs that typically trigger behavioral responses in the receiver; symptoms are automatic, non-arbitrary signs; names are extensional signs that identify one specific individual.Template:Sfnpm Other categorizations of signs are based on the channel of transmission, the intentions of the communicators, vagueness, ambiguity, reliability, complexity, and type of referent.Template:Sfnpm

Models

Models of signs seek to identify the essential components of signs. Many models have been proposed and most introduce a unique terminology for the different components although they often share substantial conceptual overlap. A common classification distinguishes between dyadic and triadic models.Template:Sfnpm

Diagram of a circle with the words "signified" and "signifier" inside
According to Saussure's dyadic model, signs are composed of a sensible image (signifier) and a concept (signified).Template:Sfnpm

Dyadic models assert that signs have essentially two components, a sign vehicle and its meaning. An influential dyadic model was proposed by Saussure, who names the components signifier and signified. The signifier is a sensible image, whereas the signified is a concept or an idea associated with this form. For Saussure, the sign is a relation that connects signifier and signified, functioning as a bridge from a sensory form to a concept. He understands both signifier and signified as psychological elements that exist in the mind. As a result, the meaning of signs is limited to the realm of ideas and does not directly concern the external objects to which signs refer. Focusing on language as a general model of signs, Saussure argued that the relation between signifier and signified is arbitrary, meaning that any sensible image could in principle be paired with any concept. He held that individual signs need to be understood in the context of sign systems, which organize and regulate the arbitrary connections.Template:Sfnpm

Various interpreters of Saussure's model, such as Louis HjelmslevTemplate:Efn and Roman Jakobson, rejected the purely psychological interpretation of signs. For them, signifiers are material forms that can be seen or heard, not mental images of material forms. Similarly, critics have objected to the idea that the relation between signs and signifiers are always arbitrary, pointing to iconic and indexical signs as counterexamples.Template:SfnpmTemplate:Efn

Diagram of a triangle with the words "sign", "representamen", "interpretant", and "object"
According to Peirce's triadic model, signs are composed of a sign vehicle (representamen), a referent (object), and an effect in the interpreter's mind (interpretant).Template:Sfnpm

Triadic models assert that signs have three components. An influential triadic model proposed by Peirce argues that the third component is required to account for the individual that interprets signs, implying that there is no meaning without interpretation. According to Peirce, a sign is a relation between representamen, object, and interpretant. The representamen is a perceptible entity, the object is the referent for which the representamen stands, and the interpretant is the effect produced in the mind of the interpreter.Template:Sfnpm

Peirce distinguishes various aspects of these components. The immediate object is the object as the sign presents it—a mental representation. The dynamic object, by contrast, is the actual entity as it really is, which anchors the meaning of the sign. The immediate interpretant is the sign's potential meaning, whereas the dynamic interpretant is the sign's actual effect or the understanding it produces. The final interpretant is the ideal meaning that would be reached after an exhaustive inquiry.Template:Sfnpm Peirce emphasizes that semiosis or meaning-making is a continuously evolving process. Analyzing Peirce's model, Umberto Eco talks of an "unlimited semiosis" in which the interpretation of one sign leads to more signs, resulting in an endless chain of signification.Template:Sfnpm

Another triadic model, proposed by Charles Kay Ogden and I. A. Richards, distinguishes between symbol, thought, and referent. Known as the semiotic triangle, it asserts that the connection between symbol and referent is not direct but requires the mediation of thought to establish the link.Template:Sfnpm

Sign systems

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". A sign system is a complex of relations governing how signs are formed, combined, and interpreted, such as a specific language. Signs usually occur in the context of a sign system, and some semiotic theories assert that isolated signs have little meaning apart from their systemic relations to other signs.Template:Sfnpm

Sign elements and texts

Sign systems often rely on basic constituents or sign elements to compose signs. For example, alphabetic writing systems use letters as sign elements to construct words, while Morse code uses dots and dashes. Letters are essential for differentiating word meanings, like the contrast between the words cat, rat, and hat based on their initial letter. The basic sign elements usually do not have a meaning of their own unless combined in systematic ways.Template:Sfnpm

A text is a large sign composed of several smaller signs according to a specific code.Template:Sfnpm Unlike basic sign elements, the units composing a text are themselves meaningful. The meaning of a text, called its message, depends on its components. However, it is usually not a mere aggregate of their isolated meanings, but shaped by their interaction and organization. In addition to linguistic texts, such as a novel or a mathematical formula, there are also non-linguistic texts, such as a diagram, a poster, or a musical composition consisting of several movements.Template:Sfnpm The capacity to create and understand texts, known as textuality, is also present in some non-human animals. For example, honey bees perform a complex dance combining diverse features to communicate information about their environment to other bees.Template:Sfnpm

The meaning of a text can depend on and refer to other texts—a feature called intertextuality.Template:Sfnpm Semioticians distinguish several aspects of texts. Paratext encompasses elements that frame or surround a text, such as titles, headings, acknowledgments, footnotes, and illustrations. Architext refers to the general categories to which a text belongs, such as its genre, style, medium, and authorship. A metatext is a text that comments on another text. A hypotext is a text that serves as the basis of another text, such as a novel that has a sequel or is parodied in another work. In such cases, the derivative text that refers to the earlier work is the hypertext.Template:SfnpmTemplate:Efn

Structural relations between signs

Diagram showing syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations for the sentence "The man sleeps."
Diagram showing syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations for the sentence "The man sleeps."Template:Sfnpm

The signs in a sign system are connected through several structural relations, like the contrast between syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations. Syntagmatic relations govern how individual signs or sign elements can be combined to form larger expressions. For example, sentences are linear arrangements of words, and syntagmatic relations govern which words can be combined to produce grammatically correct sentences. Similarly, a dinner menu is a sequence of courses with syntagmatic relations governing their arrangement, like beginning with a starter, followed by a main course and a dessert. Some sign systems use non-linear arrangements, such as traffic signs combining the shape of a sign with the symbol it shows.Template:Sfnpm

Paradigmatic relations are links between signs that belong to the same structural category. They specify which elements can occupy a particular position and can substitute for each other without breaking the system's rules. For example, in the sentence "The man sleeps.", the word man stands in paradigmatic relations to words like woman, child, and person because substituting them also results in a correct sentence. For the dinner menu, the same holds for the different options for the dessert, such as cake, ice cream, and fruit salad. In the case of traffic signs, there are paradigmatic relations between the shape options, such as triangle and circle. The meaning of the chosen paradigmatic option is influenced by the absent options, which form a background of meaningful alternatives. In natural language, these alternatives are typically related to specific word classes. For instance, when a particular word position in a sentence calls for a verb then the paradigmatic options consist of verbs.Template:Sfnpm

Diagram of a square with contrasting terms in each corner
The semiotic square is a tool to analyze the meanings of contrasting terms, such as rich/poor.Template:Sfnpm

Another form of semiotic analysis examines sign pairs consisting of opposites where two signs denote contrasting features and exclude each other, like the pairs good/bad, hot/cold, and new/old. Some contrasts involve a continuous scale with intermediate levels, like fast/slow, whereas others are polar oppositions without degrees in between, such as alive/dead.Template:Sfnpm Early structuralist philosophy is associated with the idea that meaning arises primarily from binary oppositions.Template:Sfnpm The semiotic square, proposed by Algirdas Greimas, offers a more fine-grained differentiation. It relates a sign, such as rich, to three contrasting terms: its contradictory (not rich), its contrary (poor), and the contradictory of its contrary (not poor).Template:Sfnpm

Another structural feature is asymmetric sign pairs where one item is unmarked and the other marked. The unmarked sign is the generic and neutral expression often taken for granted, whereas the marked sign is specialized and denotes additional features. The unmarked term is more commonly used and is typically privileged as the default or norm. Examples are the pairs dog/bitch, day/night, he/she, and right/left. This asymmetry is of particular interest to the semiotic study of culture as a guide to implicit background assumptions and power relations.Template:Sfnpm For example, patriarchal societies tend to use unmarked forms for masculine terms, while unmarked forms for feminine terms are more common in matriarchal societies.Template:Sfnpm

Tropes

Semioticians study associative mechanisms through which a sign acquires alternative meanings by interacting with other signs. This change in meaning can occur in cases where the literal meaning of a sign is inadequate or absurd, leading to a shift toward a figurative meaning. For example, the term snake literally refers to a limbless reptile but has a different meaning in the sentence "The professor is a snake."Template:Sfnpm

The mechanisms through which this shift in meaning happens are called tropes. Discussions of tropes sometimes focus on four master tropesTemplate:Efn as the basis of most others: metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and irony.Template:Sfnpm A metaphor is an analogy in which attributes from one entity are carried over to another, such as associating the snake-like attributes of being sneaky and cold-blooded with a professor.Template:Sfnpm A metonymy is a way of referring to one object by naming another closely related thing, like speaking of a king as the crown.Template:Sfnpm Similarly, a synecdoche is a way of referring to one object by naming one of its parts, like speaking of one's car as my wheels.Template:Sfnpm The trope of irony works through dissimilarity, literally expressing the opposite of what is meant, such as remarking "Great job!" after a horrible failure.Template:Sfnpm

Semiotic tropes are primarily discussed in relation to linguistic sign systems, where they are also known as figures of speech. However, their underlying mechanisms also affect non-linguistic sign systems.Template:Sfnpm For example, an advertisement for an airline may juxtapose the landing of a plane with the tranquil touchdown of a swan as a pictorial metaphor for grace and reliability.Template:Sfnpm Comics often rely on pictorial metonymies to express emotions, like a raised fist to stand for anger.Template:Sfnpm In photography, close-ups can function as synecdoches by presenting the whole through a part.Template:Sfnpm In film, one type of audiovisual irony presents a horrific visual scene accompanied by incongruously cheerful music.Template:Sfnpm

Codes

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". A code is a sign system used to communicate. It includes a set of signs, the meaning relations among them, and the rules for combining them to create and interpret messages.Template:SfnpmTemplate:Efn Digital codes rely on clear and precise distinctions of how signs are formed and combined, as in written language. They contrast with analog codes, which use continuous variations to convey meaning, such as seamless gradations of color in painting.Template:Sfnpm Simple codes include only few basic elements and relations, as in the color code of traffic signals. Complex codes, like the English language, can encompass countless elements as well as syntactic and sociocultural norms involved in meaning-making. Conventional codes are human-made constructs, including aesthetic codes used in the creation of artworks, like music and painting. They contrast with natural codes,Template:Efn like DNA, which functions as a biochemical information system encoding hereditary information through nucleotide sequences.Template:Sfnpm

Semioticians analyze codes along several dimensions, such as the domain and context they operate in, the sensory channel they rely on, and the function they perform. Some codes focus on the precise expression of knowledge, such as mathematical formulas, while others govern cultural and behavioral norms, including conventions of politeness and ceremonial practices.Template:Sfnpm A code can have domain-specific subcodes that refine its scope of meaning or regulate usage in particular settings. Codes and subcodes are not static frameworks but can evolve as new conventions or technologies emerge.Template:Sfnpm

Diagram showing the most common components of models of communication
Models of communication are representations of the main components of communication, often including the processes of encoding and decoding.Template:Sfnpm

Code also plays a central role in models of communication—conceptual representations of the main components of communication. Many include the idea that a sender conveys a message through a channel to a receiver, who interprets it and may respond with feedback. Encoding is the process of expressing meaning in the form of a message using the system of a specific code. Decoding is the reverse process of interpreting the message to understand its meaning. In some cases, different codes can be used to express the same message. Similarly, messages can sometimes be translated from one code into another, such as transcribing a written text into Morse code.Template:Sfnpm

Discourse is the social use of language or other codes, taking place at a specific moment in a particular context. Discourse analysis examines how meaning arises in a discourse, considering the communicators and their respective roles, as well as the influences of context and institutional backgrounds.Template:Sfnpm

Semioticians are also interested in how codes reflect and shape human perception of the world.Template:Sfnpm By influencing perception, codes can affect behavior by making individuals aware of possible courses of action.Template:Sfnpm The controversial Whorfian hypothesis suggests that language shapes thought by providing fundamental categories of understanding, with the potential consequence that speakers of different languages think differently.Template:Sfnpm

Core branches

Diagram with lines between the words "semiotics", "syntactics", "semantics", and "pragmatics"
Semiotics is typically divided into three branches: syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics.Template:Sfnpm

General semiotics studies the nature of signs and their operation within sign systems in the widest sense, independent of the domains to which they belong. It contrasts with applied semiotics, which examines signs in particular domains or from discipline-specific perspectives.Template:Sfnpm An influential categorization, proposed by Morris, divides general semiotics into three branches: syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics.Template:Sfnpm

Syntactics studies formal relations between signs. It investigates how signs combine to form compound signs and which rules govern this process. For example, the rules of grammar in natural languages specify how words may be arranged to form sentences and how different arrangements influence meaning. As a result of the syntactic rules of the English language, the expression "elephants are big" is grammatically correct, whereas "elephants big are" is not.Template:Sfnpm Syntactics is not limited to language and includes the study of non-linguistic compound signs, such as the arrangement of visual elements in geographic maps.Template:Sfnpm

Semantics studies the relation between signs and what they stand for, examining how signs refer to concrete things and abstract ideas. It typically focuses on the general meaning of a sign rather than its meaning in a particular context. Semantics addresses the meaning of both basic and compound signs. In the linguistic domain, it includes lexical semantics, which explores word meaning, and phrasal semantics, which studies sentence meaning.Template:Sfnpm Other areas include animal semantics, which investigates, for example, how animal warning calls stand for predators.Template:Sfnpm

Pragmatics studies the relation between signs and sign users. It examines how individuals produce and interpret signs in concrete contexts, applying syntactic insights into formal structures and semantic insights into general meaning to real-life situations. The pragmatic dimension of sign use in communication encompasses aspects such as social conventions and expectations, speaker intention, audience, and other contextual factors. For example, it depends on the concrete situation whether the expression "she found a mole" refers to the discovery of an animal, a skin mark, or a spy.Template:Sfnpm

Various academic discussions address the relation between the three branches, such as their relative importance or hierarchy. Historically, syntactics and semantics have received more attention than pragmatics, particularly in the study of linguistic sign systems. One reason for this preferential treatment is the idea that sign usage is largely determined by what signs mean and how they can be combined. As a result, pragmatics has often been regarded as a secondary discipline, reserved for diverse problems that could not be adequately addressed from the perspectives of the other two disciplines. However, this marginal treatment of pragmatics is questioned in the contemporary discourse. Some proposals reverse the priority and see pragmatics as the primary discipline. One reason is the idea that syntactics and semantics are abstractions that cannot be scientifically studied on their own without examining actual sign use.Template:Sfnpm

Applications

Biology

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".

Photo of a yellow bird
Biosemiotics includes the study of animal communication, such as bird calls.Template:Sfnpm

While traditional semiotics focuses on human communication and culture, biosemiotics integrates this perspective with biology. It studies how living beings produce and interpret signs through channels such as vision, sound, movement, and chemical cues like smell.Template:Sfnpm It does not restrict sign processes to conscious mental activities and explicitly includes nonintentional processes within its scope.Template:Sfnpm Biosemiotics has branches dedicated to different types of organisms, such as zoosemiotics (animals), phytosemiotics (plants), bacteriosemiotics (bacteria), mycosemiotics (fungi), and protistosemiotics (protists).Template:Sfnpm Anthroposemiotics, which addresses humans, is sometimes included in zoosemiotics or treated as a distinct branch.Template:Sfnpm

The scope of biosemiotics covers semiotic activities on different levels of organization, ranging from cellular information processes to communication between distinct individuals. At the microlevel, there are sign activities within individual organisms. For example, genes encode information about hereditary traits, and diverse biological processes decode and activate this information. Similarly, hormones function as signaling molecules that control physiological functions by conveying information over long distances in the body. Biosemioticians also study how nerve cells communicate with each other and how neurotransmitters regulate this process.Template:Sfnpm This topic is more closely examined by neurosemiotics, which investigates neural processes involved in sign interpretation and meaning-making.Template:Sfnpm

At the macrolevel, there are sign processes between distinct organisms. They happen primarily between individuals of the same species as forms of cooperation or coordination.Template:Sfnpm For example, birds use calls to attract mates, warn of predators, and maintain territorial boundaries.Template:Sfnpm Similar semiotic processes also happen in the plant kingdom, such as airborne chemicals released by maple trees as a warning signal of herbivore attacks.Template:Sfnpm In some cases, communication happens between members of distinct species.Template:Sfnpm For instance, flowers use symmetrical shapes and vivid colors as signs to guide insects to nectar.Template:Sfnpm Because of the pervasive nature of sign processes, biosemioticians typically argue that semiosis is not a rare phenomenon limited to specific biological niches but an intrinsic feature of life in general.Template:Sfnpm

Culture

Several branches of applied semiotics study cultural phenomena, which encompass systems of beliefs, values, norms, and practices shared in society. The semiotics of culture analyzes sign systems used in cultural practices by examining the meanings and ideological assumptions they embody. It integrates findings from fields such as psychology, anthropology, archaeology, linguistics, and neuroscience. It addresses both the fundamental characteristics of culture in general and the distinctive features of specific cultural formations, such as myths, aesthetics, cuisine, clothing, rituals, and artifacts.Template:Sfnpm On a more general level, the semiotics of culture explores how culture differs from nature and which processes are responsible for the emergence of cultural formations.Template:Sfnpm Social semiotics, a related field, studies sign practices as social phenomena in cultural contexts.Template:Sfnpm It also investigates the social construction of reality. This includes semiotic practices that establish social meanings, categories, and norms shaping how people perceive the world and what they take for granted.Template:Sfnpm Related fields include semiotic anthropology, which analyzes how sign systems reproduce, transmit, and change culture,Template:Sfnpm and ethnosemiotics, which examines and compares semiotic phenomena in specific ethnic groups.Template:Sfnpm

Semioticians have been particularly interested in cultural myths, which they understand as structures of meaning that codify ideologies. In this sense, myths are not only a specific genre of literature but encompass widely shared views about human nature or the world. For example, pervasive ideological myths in Western culture include the idea of progress, which frames history as a linear series of improvements, and individualism, which conceives individuals as autonomous and self-reliant agents. Myths help people make sense of experience and guide behavior through common frameworks that conceptualize phenomena. Semiotic analysis sees myths as secondary sign systems that use other signs as vehicles to convey their ideas, often in the form of metaphors. For instance, the image of a child represents a child on the literal level. However, it can at the same time embody a myth of childhood associated with innocence and purity, motivating social arrangements associated with protection and parenting. Semioticians analyze this secondary level of signification across diverse media, such as literature, film, and advertising.Template:Sfnpm

In specific areas of culture, semiotics examines the codes and conventions they employ and the meanings they produce.Template:Sfnpm The semiotics of clothing studies clothing as a nonverbal sign system. Clothes are often implicitly interpreted as signs of the personality and social status of the wearer, covering features such as gender, age, and political beliefs. Different social occasions are associated with distinct dress codes, such as uniforms for sport, the military, and religious rituals.Template:Sfnpm Similarly, the semiotics of food analyzes food items as bearers of cultural meanings. It explores how culinary practices reflect social organization and belief systems, like cooking methods, table etiquette, taboos against eating certain items, the cultural roles of fasting and feasting, and food symbolism.Template:Sfnpm Research topics in popular internet culture include the codes and conventions of emojis and internet memes.Template:Sfnpm

Literature

Text semiotics studies the meanings of linguistic texts. It typically focuses on larger fragments of discourse, leaving the analysis of smaller units, like phonemes, to linguistics.Template:Sfnpm Text semiotics plays a central role in literary criticism by exploring the codes, conventions, and tropes employed in literary texts. It situates these insights within broader cultural and semiotic frameworks.Template:Sfnpm

Central schools of thought in text semiotics include structuralism and poststructuralism.Template:Sfnpm Structuralism assumes that structural relations within sign systems are the primary source of meaning and understanding. It examines how texts employ these patterns, such as binary oppositions between good and evil or nature and culture, often with the goal of identifying ideological biases.Template:Sfnpm Post-structuralism argues that sign systems are self-referential and cannot provide a stable representation of reality. The post-structuralist method of deconstruction aims to reveal contradictions and ambiguities within texts, for example, by showing how a text unintentionally undermines a binary opposition on which it relies.Template:Sfnpm

A historically influential tradition in text semiotics is hermeneutics—the study of interpretation. Hermeneutics originates in the examination of mythological and religious texts. It was used by medieval Christian philosophers to decode the theological and moral doctrines of the Bible, for instance, by distinguishing literal from spiritual meanings and analyzing symbolic structures associated with allegories. Modern hermeneutics extends these practices to secular texts. The hermeneutic circle is a central concept in this field. It is the idea that understanding involves a circular movement in which preconceptions guide interpretation and interpretation shapes preconceptions. It is sometimes explained as an interplay where understanding the text as a whole depends on understanding its parts and vice versa.Template:Sfnpm It is debated whether there is a single correct interpretation of every text or whether incompatible interpretations can be valid at the same time.Template:Sfnpm

Narratology is a branch of semiotics that studies narrative texts, such as tales and stories. It assumes that there is a universal narrative code of the different elements found in narratives, meaning that individual texts only express variations of the same underlying code. For example, according to Algirdas Julien Greimas's actantial model, these elements include a subject, such as the hero of the story, an entity that they desire, and an opponent or obstacle to their goal.Template:Sfnpm Other research directions in text semiotics are stylistics and rhetorics, which compare different styles and explore how texts persuade.Template:Sfnpm

Arts and media

Coca Cola advertisement of a woman holding a glass
In the study of advertising, semioticians examine the use of linguistic and non-linguistic codes to target consumers.Template:Sfnpm

Semiotics has diverse applications in the analysis of art and other media, ranging from film and music to advertising and video games.Template:Sfnpm The field of media semiotics studies how meaning is produced, interpreted, and shared in media, such as newspapers, radio, television, and the internet. Understood in the widest sense, it encompasses all channels of everyday communication, including shop signs and posters.Template:Sfnpm

In the visual arts, semioticians examine how meaning is created through aspects such as color, shape, texture, composition, and perspective. For example, colors can express different moods, emotions, and atmospheres, such as warm and soft colors in contrast to cold and harsh ones. Colors can also have culture-specific symbolic meanings, such as pink signifying femininity.Template:Sfnpm Semioticians are further interested in the representational dimension of images, studying how they may act as icons that represent their motive through similarity. In photography, images may additionally function as indexical signs because of the causal connection between the depicted object and the photograph.Template:Sfnpm

Musical semiotics studies music as a meaning-making process involving signifiers and signifieds.Template:Sfnpm There is substantial disagreement about the extent to which music is a semiotic activity. Some theoretical attempts treat sounds as individual signs and compositions as compound signs or messages, while others argue that sounds and compositions signify nothing beyond themselves.Template:Sfnpm Another research approach investigates the cultural significance of music, for example, how musical styles, like heavy metal, reggae, and classical music, are associated with different subcultures and lifestyles.Template:Sfnpm

Film semiotics analyzes films as sign activities, exploring how visual and auditory codes interact. Some theorists compare films to language, arguing that individual shots act as words and that montages, which combine several shots, correspond to sentences. A key difference to many other forms of language is that film involves asymmetrical communication since there is usually no direct way for spectators to respond to messages.Template:Sfnpm The semiotics of architecture, another field, examines how buildings communicate meaning, including their practical functions, historical heritage, and social significance.Template:Sfnpm

The semiotics of advertising studies how advertisements use and combine signs to influence consumers. Advertisements typically combine linguistic and non-linguistic codes. For instance, print ads typically use language for the brand name and verbal commentary, while visual elements convey non-verbal messages to the target audience. In many cases, the core message, related to the economic reality of selling a product, is not stated explicitly. Instead, an indirect message is used to make the product appealing.Template:Sfnpm

Computer games integrate elements from many other media and combine them with an interactive dimension. They include diverse sign elements, for example, to explain how to interact with the virtual world, set goals, provide feedback, and establish a narrative.Template:Sfnpm

Cognition

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". Cognitive semiotics is an interdisciplinary field that examines how mental processes contribute to meaning-making. It integrates insights of diverse disciplines, covering semiotics, cognitive science, linguistics, anthropology, psychology, and philosophy.Template:Sfnpm Cognitive semioticians study sign activity from complementary perspectives: the subjective first-person perspective, the intersubjective second-person perspective, and the objective third-person perspective. While acknowledging the validity of each perspective in its respective area, the field privileges first-person and second-person methods as offering more direct access to the mental dimension of meaning. For example, it relies on the phenomenological description to analyze how sign processes shape experience.Template:Sfnpm By examining how meaning operates in the mind, it contrasts with certain aspects of biosemiotics that address sign processes without mental activity, like in genetics.Template:Sfnpm

Cognitive semioticians typically understand mind and cognition in terms of practical engagement with the world rather than theoretical attempts to model or depict it. They argue that meaning includes representation as one way of engaging with the world, but is not limited to it. Their primary focus is on non-representational forms of meaning, such as habits, values, and other ways how individuals attune to their environment. From this perspective, sign structures are understood as processes that shape habits and dispositions to act in different circumstances, emphasizing that meaning is a dynamic process rather than a static product.Template:Sfnpm The theory of finite semiotics explains semiosis as an effect of the finite nature of the human mind that occurs as an individual passes from one cognitive state to another.Template:Sfnpm

Others

In the field of non-verbal communication, semioticians investigate the exchange of information without linguistic sign systems.Template:Sfnpm For example, body language includes signifying practices like raising a thumb and other gestures, as well as facial expressions like laughing and frowning.Template:Sfnpm Other types of non-verbal communication encompass touching behavior, like shaking hands or kissing, and the use of personal space, such as the distance between speakers to express their degree of familiarity.Template:Sfnpm Paralanguage encompasses non-verbal elements of linguistic messages. For instance, pitch and loudness in a conversation can express emotion or emphasis without stating them explicitly.Template:Sfnpm

Semiotics has various applications in psychoanalysis. Sigmund Freud proposed a theory of dream interpretation to understand and resolve psychological conflicts. He argued that dream elements act as symbols that stand for unconscious desires and fears. For example, dreams of losing a tooth can signify castration or fear of impotence.Template:Sfnpm Semiotics also plays a central role in the psychoanalytic theory of Jacques Lacan, who argued that the unconscious is structured like a language.Template:Sfnpm

In the field of computing, semiotics has been used to describe programming languages and analyze human–computer interaction. There are also attempts to develop formal theories of semiotics, allowing computational processes to perform semiotic analyses.Template:Sfnpm Cybersemiotics, another approach, combines biosemiotics with cybernetics to provide a unified framework of semiotic processes across biological, social, and technological domains.Template:Sfnpm

Edusemiotics is a research movement that conceptualizes semiotic activity as the foundation of educational theory. For instance, it understands teaching and learning as sign processes.Template:Sfnpm Semioethics is a critical approach that examines the ethical dimension of sign activities. It seeks to diagnose problems that arise in the context of global communication.Template:Sfnpm Medical semiotics studies how disease symptoms, such as pain, dizziness, and fever, indicate medical conditions.Template:Sfnpm Legal semiotics investigates sign activities in legal practice, including the interpretation of evidence, testimony, and legal texts.Template:Sfnpm

Methods

Semioticians use diverse methods to analyze and compare signs and sign systems. Different domains of signs and perspectives of inquiry typically call for distinct techniques depending on the forms of representation and modes of meaning-making under study. As a result, there is no universally adopted methodology but only an interdisciplinary, loosely connected set of approaches.Template:Sfnpm Within a given domain, semioticians typically seek to determine what meaning is produced, why it emerges the way it does, and how it is encoded.Template:Sfnpm

Structural analysis examines the structural framework of texts and sign systems, exploring the syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations underlying signification. The commutation test is an influential tool for structural analysis. It explores how the meanings of linguistic and non-linguistic texts are shaped by their components and what roles specific signs play in this process. It proceeds by changing certain elements of a text, either actually or as a thought experiment, and assesses whether or how this change affects the overall meaning. For example, in the analysis of an advertisement, a semiotician may probe whether the overall message changes if a woman is shown using the product instead of a man. If it does then gender is a signifying element. The way how the overall message changes provides insights into the semiotic role of the changed aspect. The commutation test can be applied to a wide range of elements or features, such as shape, size, color, camera angle, typeface, age, class, and ethnicity. Instead of replacing one element with another, other versions of the commutation test add or remove elements to explore, for instance, what draws attention by its absence or what is taken for granted.Template:SfnpmTemplate:Efn

In the study of cultural sign systems, semioticians often focus on hidden meanings and connotations, such as ideological messages and power dynamics that influence meaning-making without being immediately apparent to observers.Template:Sfnpm This dimension can be studied in diverse ways, such as comparing marked and unmarked terms to reveal how cultural norms privilege certain meanings and marginalize others.Template:Sfnpm Critical discourse analysis has a similar goal, seeking to understand how texts and social reality shape each other. It is particularly interested in how ideologies and power relations are reproduced in discourse, for example, by analyzing how political actors depict immigrants as threats to promote restrictive immigration policies.Template:Sfnpm

Another approach to semiotics focuses on the historical dimension of sign systems and semiotic practices. It examines how they came into existence and evolved, studying how the relevant codes and media developed and how new conventions and genres emerged. The historical inquiry also considers the effects of technological developments, for instance, by tracing how the invention of the printing press and the internet have shaped the way people engage with written texts.Template:Sfnpm

Although qualitative investigation is the dominant approach in semiotics, some researchers also use quantitative methods. For example, many forms of content analysis examine objective patterns found in an individual document or an entire discourse and employ statistical analysis to discover systematic patterns in sign usage. Applied to the news coverage of a violent incident, a content analyst may gather statistical information about how often the perpetrators are described as rebels rather than terrorists. Quantitative data on its own is usually not sufficient to explain complex semiotic processes, which is why content analysis is typically combined with other approaches.Template:Sfnpm

In applied semiotics, researchers often tailor their approach to the specific area of signs under investigation.Template:Sfnpm For instance, biosemioticians may adapt concepts intended for linguistic analysis to biological codes like DNA. In some cases, this requires conceptual modifications, for example, when terms like interpretation are applied to sign processes without a conscious subject.Template:Sfnpm

History

Engraving of a bust of bearded, bald man
Hippocrates pioneered the study of medical signs.Template:Sfnpm

The study of signs has its origin in antiquity. Early approaches examined concrete patterns that indicate underlying conditions or future outcomes, such as medical diagnosis and divination. Some Mesopotamian tablets from the 3rd millennium BCE document this practice, such as the interpretation of the moon's visibility as a sign of an impending drought.Template:Sfnpm In ancient Greek thought, Hippocrates (460–377 BCE) and later Galen of Pergamum (Template:Circa) investigated medical signs as indications of underlying diseases, establishing "semeiosis" or symptomatology as a branch of medicine.Template:Sfnpm In philosophy, Plato (427–347 BCE) explored whether the relation between linguistic signs and their referents is natural or conventional.Template:Sfnpm His student Aristotle (384–322 BCE) distinguished verbal from nonverbal signs. He argued that verbal signs represent mental states, which refer to external things, while nonverbal signs guide inference to expand knowledge.Template:SfnpmTemplate:Efn Starting in the 3rd century BCE, the Stoics defended a triadic model of signs, understanding sign vehicle and referent as material objects linked through nonmaterial meaning. In the same period, the Epicureans proposed a dyadic model, emphasizing a direct connection between sign vehicle and referent without meaning as a separate component to link them.Template:Sfnpm Philodemus (Template:Circa) provided a detailed overview of discussions about the Epicurean theory of signs, such as whether signs function as inferences from the known to the unknown.Template:Sfnpm

Painting of a bearded man sitting cross-legged
Bhartṛhari explored how cognition depends on linguistic signs.Template:Sfnpm

In ancient India, various schools of Hinduism examined semiotic phenomena. Nyaya studied the relations between names, things, and knowledge, while Mīmāṃsā addressed the connection between word meaning and sentence meaning.Template:Sfnpm The philosopher Bhartṛhari (4th–5th century CE) developed and compared theories of meaning, arguing that sentences are the primary bearers of meaning. He asserted that cognition depends on linguistic categorization, for example, that names make it possible to individuate and perceive distinct objects.Template:Sfnpm Semiotic thought is also present in Buddhist philosophy. The Mahayana-sutra-alamkara-karika, a text from the 4th century CE, explored the spiritual role of semiosis, suggesting that the soteriological goal is to transform cognition in such a way that semiotic activity ceases.Template:Sfnpm In ancient China, Mohism understood sign use as the practical skill of drawing distinctions and argued that public, intersubjective standards ground meaning. The School of Names explored the relation between names and things. They practiced a method of public disputation, for example, to decide whether two names refer to the same thing or to different things.Template:Sfnpm

Photo of a sculpture of a man wearing robes
Roger Bacon developed a complex classification of signs.Template:Sfnpm

As a forerunner of semiotics in the medieval period, Augustine (354–430) drew on Stoic, Epicurean, and Christian ideas to develop one of the first systematic theories of signs. He examined the relations between signs, meanings, and interpreters. Augustine's theory included non-linguistic signs based on the distinction between natural and conventional signs.Template:Sfnpm Boethius (480–528) analyzed sign activity as a chain of signification: writing refers to speech, speech expresses mental concepts, and mental concepts represent external things.Template:Sfnpm Peter Abelard (1079–1142) studied non-linguistic sign processes, such as images and conventional gestures.Template:Sfnpm The most detailed medieval account of signs was proposed by Roger Bacon (Template:Circa), who understood signs as triadic relations between sign vehicle, represented thing, and interpreter. He developed a complex classification that distinguishes between natural signs and signs directed by the soul, with several subtypes in each category.Template:Sfnpm The Modist grammarians proposed that all languages share a universal grammar that reflects the shared structure of modes of being, understanding, and signifying.Template:Sfnpm William of Sherwood (Template:Circa), Peter of Spain (Template:Circa), and William of Ockham (Template:Circa) formulated contextual theories of meaning and reference.Template:Sfnpm In the Islamic world, philosophers explored semiotic topics from a religious perspective. They addressed the problem of how to interpret signs of Allah in the Quran and whether to describe Allah by affirming or negating attributes. Influential theorists were al-Kindi, al-Farabi, and Avicenna.Template:Sfnpm

In the early modern period, John Poinsot (1589–1644) integrated ideas of Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) to investigate how signs mediate between objective reality and subjective experience.Template:Sfnpm The Port-Royal school, another tradition, formulated a mind-based theory of signs. It argued that signs consist of two ideas: one for the representing entity and one for the represented entity.Template:Sfnpm Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) understood signs as visible marks that stand for ideas. He saw them as indispensable tools of thought, enabling operations on complex semantic concepts without apprehending them in full.Template:Sfnpm John Locke (1632–1704) proposed a general science or doctrine of signs to examine the link between knowledge and representation. He distinguished two types of signs: ideas are signs of things, and words are signs of ideas, effectively functioning as signs of signs.Template:Sfnpm Christian Wolff (1679–1754) and Johann Heinrich Lambert (1728–1777) both developed theories of signs while focusing on how knowledge depends on sign activity.Template:Sfnpm

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, semiotics emerged as a distinct field of inquiry. The twin origins of this process lie in the works of the philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) and the linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913), who separately articulated the foundational principles of the discipline.Template:Sfnpm Peirce developed a triadic model, understanding signs as relations that can apply to any sign vehicle that is interpreted to stand for something else. He distinguished different types of relations between sign vehicle and referent and used this distinction to classify signs as indices, icons, and symbols. As a pragmatist, Peirce focused on the effects of sign processes while emphasizing the dynamic nature of meaning.Template:Sfnpm Charles W. Morris (1901–1979) popularized Peircean semiotics and integrated it with behaviorism. He conceptualized syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics as the main branches of the field.Template:Sfnpm

Saussure proposed a dyadic model that understands signs as relations in the mind between a sensible form and a concept. He emphasized the arbitrary nature of this relation and explored how signs form sign systems, such as language. Saussure distinguished synchronic or static from diachronic or historical aspects of language.Template:Efn He formulated the foundations of structuralism to investigate how differences between signs, such as binary oppositions, are the primary mechanism of meaning.Template:Sfnpm Based on Saussure's structuralism, Louis Hjelmslev (1899–1965) developed glossematics, which divides language into basic units defined only by the formal functions they play in a sign system.Template:Sfnpm Focused on articulating a general semiotics, Algirdas Julien Greimas (1917–1992) expanded glossematics and applied it to narratology, aiming to discern a universal code underlying narrative texts.Template:Sfnpm Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908–2009) employed the principles of structural semiotics to engage in ethnology, analyzing myths and cultural practices as sign systems that reveal how different cultures make sense of the world.Template:Sfnpm Roland Barthes (1915–1980) used the theories of Saussure and Hjelmslev to study literature and media, covering signifying processes in myths, theology, pictures, advertising, and fashion. In these fields, he often examined how connotations encode subtle ideological messages.Template:Sfnpm

Photo of a woman with short, blond hair
Julia Kristeva's thought combines semiotic, psychoanalytic, and feminist approaches.Template:Sfnpm

Using the phenomenological method, Edmund Husserl (1859–1938) studied the nature of signs and meaning through the description of experience. He contrasted the direct awareness of objects in perception with the indirect awareness of objects that refer to something other than themselves.Template:Sfnpm In psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) interpreted dream elements as signs of unconscious desires. Jacques Lacan (1901–1981) expanded Freud's ideas, analyzing the structure of the unconscious as a sign system.Template:Sfnpm Drawing on psychoanalysis and feminism, Julia Kristeva (1941–present) has explored the problem of intertextuality and conceptualized the semiotic and the symbolic as two contrasting dimensions of signification.Template:Sfnpm

Jakob von Uexküll (1864–1944) pioneered the study of animal and plant semiosis. He understood the interaction between organism and environment as a process of sign exchange in which individuals respond to cues that are relevant to their species-specific needs and capacities. Uexküll argued that different species inhabit distinct perceptual worlds based on their selective interpretation of cues.Template:Sfnpm Thomas A. Sebeok (1920–2001) relied on Uexküll's ideas to establish biosemiotics as a branch of semiotics, covering sign processes within and between organisms, such as animals, plants, and fungi.Template:Sfnpm

Roman Jakobson (1896–1982) contributed to various schools of thought, including Russian formalism, the Prague School, and the Copenhagen School. Adopting structuralism, he reinterpreted Saussure's dyadic model and later incorporated Peircean ideas, such as an emphasis on contextual factors.Template:SfnpmTemplate:Efn Yuri Lotman (1922–1993) engaged in cultural semiotics, analyzing cultural formations in terms of models that showcase distinctive features of their origin culture.Template:Sfnpm Umberto Eco (1932–2016) understood semiotics as the study of communicative processes in culture, focusing the field on conventional codes. He explored the idea of unlimited semiosis, according to which the interpretation of signs is an open-ended process leading to further signs.Template:Sfnpm Jacques Derrida (1930–2004) was an influential proponent of poststructuralism. He developed the method of deconstruction to discover internal ambiguities and contradictions within texts.Template:Sfnpm The second half of the 20th century saw the emergence of many journals dedicated to semiotics, while international institutions, such as the International Association for Semiotic Studies, were established.Template:Sfnpm

See also

References

Footnotes

Template:Reflist

Citations

Template:Reflist

Sources

Template:Refbegin

  • Template:Cite dictionary
  • Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Template:Cite dictionary
  • Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".

Template:Refend

External links

Template:Sister project Template:Sister project Template:Library resources box

Template:Communication studies Template:Authority control