Talk:Semiotics/Archives/2012

Types of Signs

The different types of signs need to be addressed immediately. There are different schemes for types, but the most basic is Peirce's: icon, index, symbol. These should probably be added to the subject bar under their own section, or as a single page, or at least get elaborated under the "Sign" page.

Peirce spelled the subject semeiotics

And Saussure spell it Semiologie and I spell it Semeiotexte... making Semeion instead Sign. Butsie it's usage over natural culture before the contemporary, is poing-poing-ping!!!

He did made his Ouvre Completes like PING.

On a fgayirst look I stopped over this: syntax, element: sign,. I am no literate in this area, but doesn't syntax include _the way_ signs are put together? Is syntax and element in this sentence supposed to be syntax and elements? (What's the syntax of a single sign?) Just a quick reaction. - Sigg3.net

Chcksie Levi-Strauss

--Lanoo Timeless (UTC)

Criticism Removed

I remove my criticism of this article from the discussion page since the recent work by User:David91 has certainly improved matters. The article still needs to be more balanced and expanded - the history section could usefully be longer.

Peirce spelled the subject semeiotics and a number of working semeioticians today continue to use that spelling. Semiotics appears to be favored in Saussurian linguistics and literary criticism.

The term semeiosis or semiosis is also used in medicine to indicate the process of symptoms, the signs of illness, though I am not certain this is how an MD would actually define it.

--Steven Zenith 09:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Stevenzenith writes: "I remove my criticism ... The article still needs to be more balanced ..." I would agree, except I feel the criticism needs to be radical, not superficial. I'm talking about addressing this enterprise in light of the current backlash against Theory's Empire. Chairease (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC).

Sign or symbol?

Most uses of the term "sign" in this page should properly be "symbol", e.g. in literary symbolism. In common usage, gestures are signs, whereas words are symbols but not signs. Perhaps this is a specialized sense of "sign" used in semiotics? Jorge Stolfi 12:53, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Sign" in linguistics and semiotics is "the combination of the signifier and the signified by a sign." Thus, words are signs: they contain within them the signifier (the sound or graphical look of the thing) and an implication of a referrant. This is often put as s/v. Semiotics these days (can't understand why Claude Levi-Strauss isn't mentioned) considers a sign system that is prior to any given language. There is a belief that a sort of grammar exists that governs all human sign systems, from the arrangement of redlights in a city to the way slang terms work in an urban gang, and semiotics attempts to dig up this deep structure. Geogre 19:52, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Medical semiotics

The discipline of "medical semiotics" seems to be worked on by semioticists, not by medical doctors. In medicine, the study of diseases and their symptoms is a branch of pathology.Jorge Stolfi 13:47, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Literary semiotics

In semiotics, a sign is simply anything that can convey meaning. It may be sensed (for example, seen or heard) or thought. Literary semiotics is (in part) the investigation of literary symbolism and how it works. You may wish to check out Umberto Eco -- this is basically his area of focus.

Gecko 17:18, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Syntax

On a first look I stopped over this: syntax, element: sign,. I am no literate in this area, but doesn't syntax include _the way_ signs are put together? Is syntax and element in this sentence supposed to be syntax and elements? (What's the syntax of a single sign?) Just a quick reaction. - Sigg3.net 21:26, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Examples needed

I think that this article would be greatly improved by the addition of some examples. Can anyone describe a specific sign studied by a semiotician, list the hypotheses formed about this sign, and describe the sort of evidence used to support or refute the hypotheses? Physicist 15:20, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Scope?

Would heraldry be regarded as part of semiotics? How about the study of Scottish tartans, or Blissymbolics? All of these appear to involve sets of "signs", forming a "signification system". Physicist 18:27, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All three would, though Blissymbolics would probably have a more linguistic focus, while heraldry and the study of Scottish tartans would likely be more important to sociology. There are also many subtler applications of semiotics, where the signs aren't so readily apparent as signs. You might check the articles on deconstruction, Roland Barthes, Jean Baudrillard, literary criticism, and gender identity and gender role for some examples. As far as the question I think you're getting at, semiotics doesn't have a scope, per se. Though semioticians generally focus on a relatively small area of interest, anything that human beings can invest with meaning (and possibly things not involving human beings at all) falls under the semiotician's gaze. -Seth Mahoney 20:20, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Source removal

The single source for this article was removed on the grounds that it is a book on homosexuality and that this does not relate to semiotics. Unfortunately, it is about heterosexuality, and is a work in the field of queer theory, which does concern itself heavily with semiotics (in fact, the entire field could be considered a branch of semiotics). I don't think it should be the sole listed source for this article, but it is worthwhile IMHO to point out the various directions semiotics has taken. -Seth Mahoney 00:26, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

It is extremely hard for me to see any justification for the inclusion of this "source" as a text in this article. I have every respect for the cause but this simply does not seem appropriate. It contributes nothing but confusion to the subject. It should be removed permenantly.

Actually, I partially agree - I'd put it in a "Further reading" section, which I'll do in a moment. But do tell me, how does it contribute "nothing but confusion" to the subject? And what cause that is referred to here do you have every respect for? -Seth Mahoney 09:18, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Even if "Queer Theory" is a branch of semiotics - a dubious assertion IMHO but not entirely incorrect - it is not warranted in isolation here.

A "dubious assertion", or "not entirely incorrect"? Which is it? Also, quotes implying "your words not mine" (ie, those around queer theory - a recognized field of inquiry) are not conductive to a reasonable discussion here. -Seth Mahoney 09:18, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

That "queer theory" utilizes semeiotics does not make it a branch of semeiotics - it is correct that "queer theory" apparently makes use of semeiotics. Quere theory is not related to semeiotics in any way. Confusion arises by suggesting that it does - this is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry not a platform. There are many well known and worthy sources on the subject of semeiotics. Let's get that right first. Including a note about applications of semeiotics has merit. It should cover many other mature efforts before this one is even considered. Steven Zenith 09:37, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're right, that queer theory, quotes or not (I prefer not), and apparently or not (I prefer not - 'apparently' doesn't really add any useful information), uses semiotics doesn't make it a branch of semiotics - my apologies for the awkward phrasing, though you clearly knew what I meant anyway. You're also right in that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia rather than a platform. I don't think in the least that including a work on sexual presentation moves toward using this article as a platform. Why do you? You're also right that there are many well-known and worthy sources on the subject, though you'll note that I changed it from a source to something else entirely (we've already got that part right - confining your comments to the current version of the article will help the flow of this discussion greatly). You'll also note that I have already stated I'd prefer this particular text not be the only one on the page, as I totally agree that it gives the wrong impression, or probably more accurately, doesn't seem to make a lot of sense without context. I'm not sure how to make sense of your last sentence, though. Are you saying that queer theory isn't a mature effort? How are you using the word mature here? I guess what I'm wondering in the end is whether you would object to some other work in the body of critical theory being included here, or if it is just the supposed gay theme (note that, again, this work is not about homosexuality per se) that bothers you? I guess as far as its inclusion for the time being goes, we can leave it off to avoid an edit war (since you seem unwilling to leave it in until this discussion is concluded to avoid an edit war) until someone adds a much-needed section explaining the connection between semiotics, critical thinking, and queer theory. -Seth Mahoney 03:59, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

My initial edit by deletion strategy is simply to clarify the existing entry and to remove confusion. I do not have to justify why this source should not be included. It simply is not relevant - that you attempt to color this discussion with a whining fear of homophobia is not only inappropriate it displays a lamentable ignorance of the subject at hand. Both of you appear to be pushing the gay agenda in an inappropriate way that, honestly, is a disservice to your cause. I plan to appeal to Wikipedia administrators to review all your contributions for this bias. Steven Zenith 10:02, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Steven Zenith 05:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome to do so, though I don't think any of the admins have time to go over all or even most of my edits, not to mention Hyacinth's. We're both fairly active Wikipedians and have contributed to a variety of articles. If you want to reveiw them yourself, you can do so by clicking on my name following this message, then clicking on "User contributions" or something similar on the left-hand side of the window. I haven't made any major contributions lately (not a lot of time, what with midterms and all), so what you'll find initially is mostly a lot of reverts of vandalism. As far as my "coloring this discussion with a whining fear of homophobia", I have not once mentioned homophobia, whining or not. As far as ignorance is concerned, you have displayed a particular ignorance toward the text in question, judging it "homosexual propaganda" it seems entirely because of one word in its title. This has nothing to do with a gay agenda, and with this article I have no cause. The work in question is relevant in two ways, which have been previously discussed. That's it. -Seth Mahoney 17:42, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Steven Zenith, your edit summary "a book on homosexuality is not a source on semiotics" displays an uncivil sentiment towards gay people, ignorance of the book in question, and disregard for the actual quote and its context: "Saussure established a dyadic notion of signs relating the signifier to the signified, in Calvin Thomas' words (2000), language is a 'differential system without positive terms'." Far from adding "confusion" the quote explains part of Saussure's conception of the sign and the term "dyadic" according to Wikipedia:Explain jargon. Hyacinth 06:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are barking up the wrong path here I am afraid. I, in fact, stated a sympathy with your cause. That sympathy does not extend to supporting propaganda. The subject here is semeiotics - and there are many worthy sources on this subject - this is not one of them. Steven Zenith 09:18, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please address why the content is not appropriate. It is self apparent that a "source" is not "worthy" if there is no information taken from it. The content in question being the quote: "differential system without positive terms". Hyacinth 04:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If the source is included to show where this particular quote comes from as is required by Wikipedia:Cite sources, shouldn't a superscript or something along the lines described in Wikipedia:References make that adequately clear? It seems that if this is the real issue, there shouldn't be any further problems. -Seth Mahoney 04:20, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

More to the point is why one would possibly consider this content appropriate - especially given that it is not directly relevant and this article as a whole requires a considered and detailed revision. I am proposing to undertake such a revision once I have completed a review of all relevant and related content and structure in the encyclopedia. Do either of you gentlemen feel qualified to participate? Steven Zenith 07:39, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do agree that this article needs some major work, and I would be perfectly happy to support anyone willing to undertake that task, especially anyone genuinely interested in participating in a group effort in that direction. However, you have yet to do so, and the majority of your edits to this article have taken the form of deleting material you find objectionable with little explanation as to why. As far as the material in question is considered, both Hyacinth and I have explained, from different perspectives, why we consider it appropriate. You have yet to offer any explanation, other than that you don't feel particularly inclined to include it or that you feel a book dealing with heterosexuality, which happens to contain a particularly useful quote, is "homosexual propaganda", of why you find it inappropriate. -Seth Mahoney 07:58, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion: The best way around this would be a more complete bibliography, you know, and particularly an annotated bibliography. Semiotics qua semiotics is pretty much apolitical. Its desire and aim is to be ante-conscious, working out the systems of signs that exist prior to conscious thought, and therefore prior to any expression. Thus, the conclusions and methods of semiotics have been used by and incorporated into all other Literary Theory topics. There are attempts at feminist semiotics, queer semiotics, even reception semiotics. However, semiotics is the (actually dry as dust) theoretical endeavor that is isolated from the expressed work of literature. Semiotics is not a "branch" of anything except philosophy or anthropology (the marriage of one of those two with linguistics). Nor are any of these other theories branches of semiotics. For the inclusion or exclusion of this reference work, the best idea would be to have a bibliography that actually lists Works on Semiotics, Works by Semioticists, and then Notable Works Employing Semiotic Approaches. The disputed source would go in this last category. (I personally feel that semiotics hasn't really given much to Queer Theory or Feminist Theory, but that's because I think the attempted melding is misbegotten. Semiotics is long on method and low on results by necessity.) Geogre 20:02, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"reception semiotics"? Maybe you could add a definition of that to the article. And "Semiotics is long on method and low on results by necessity"? Why is that necessary? Physicist 21:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, the idea is the deep grammar, the structure that exists before any expression. If there is a grammar that determines the expression of signs, there is a grammar that determines the positions all signs must take in the recipient's mind. Is the structure in the author or the reader/viewer/motorist? That's what I meant about the attempt at reception semiotics. The reason that the science is long on method and short on results is that its attempts are pre-linguistic. There are two ways I've seen folks go about the project. One is to compare all existing sign systems to determine any structural principles that are common, and the other is to try to look at "misprision" and "noise" to determine when a thing fails and therefore what the structure must have looked like. These are both excruciatingly difficult tasks that are invariably going to produce results that are hard to verify. The problem is the same as Hegelian history, in a sense: how can you tell what the historical moment is saying, when the historical moment is determining you? Semiotics asks the participant to see beyond the constituitive system. That makes it really, really hard. Geogre 02:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am not really interested in any judgements about semeiotics and I don't think such judgements should influence an encyclopedia article. What I am interested in is an unbias presentation of exactly what semeiotics is, what its particular concerns are, a description of major recognized theories esp. those from Peirce and Saussure, a description of the major personalities and an account of its influence (for example in Logic and Psychology), and links to external relevant resources. As far as applications are concerned I suggest that the right way to do this is by identifying the established, academically published, authority (Teresa de Lauretis in the case of feminist theory) that uses semeiotics in their endeavor rather than make an unqualified association with semeiotics. Given a little time and a little space I propose to write such an article. Steven Zenith 20:58, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I eagerly await it, but I'd suggest that there are many recognized feminist semioticians, including Christine Brooke Rose. Saussure is fine, but how you can duck Levi-Strauss is beyond me. I only wanted to suggest a way to end the edit war. I long ago decided that semiotics wasn't an interest of mine. I thought it was rather hopeless, and you'll note that I haven't edited a word of the article. Nor do I intend to, regardless of my feelings about it. For you, though, to dismiss a work that attempts to incorporate semiotics seems like a rotten foot to get off on. Geogre 02:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Content removal

Hey all, what about this: "Saussure established a dyadic notion of signs relating the signifier to the signified, in Calvin Thomas' words (2000), language is a 'differential system without positive terms'."? Hyacinth 20:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can you explain what it means? What is meant by "differential system" and by "positive terms" in this context? I think the first half of the sentence is perfectly clear, and the second half ("in Calvin ...") is perfectly incomprehensible. Further, the topic of the first half is Saussure's dyadic conception of signs, while the second half is about somebody else's definition of language. There's no obvious connection between the two parts. Even if it were intelligible, it's a bad sentence. Physicist 21:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It remains unclear to me that Calvin Thomas' is the right source to quote in an article on semeiotics - perhaps he is appropriate in an article on literary theory. I am not familiar with his work but certainly am familiar with sources in semeiotics. I would not exclude the work arbitrarily but I cannot support a contention that it is an authority in semeiotics. I urge you to ask a literary theorist - while literary theory uses semeiotics - and should be included here as a field influenced by semeiotics, there are only one or two sources I would refer to (Umberto Eco, et al. for example). Steven Zenith 21:09, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category for Semeiotics

Semeiotics is miscategorized - it should not primarily be under "critical theory" though there probably should be a redirect from here. I am undertaking a complete review of the subject in Wikipedia and expect to make changes through the end of this year (2004).

Steven Zenith 10:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It isn't primarily under "critical theory" - its just that that is the only category anyone has bothered to add. Feel free to add more. -Seth Mahoney 03:51, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I changed the category to Category:Philosophy, a supercategory of Category:Critical theory as it would seem many other branches of philosophy find semiotics pertinent. Hyacinth 04:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There exists a top level category for semeiotics that already contains content. I am in the process of reviewing all content related to this subject. Perhaps you will permit that a considered approach to the revision is better than a whimsical one. In anycase I am undertaking such a review.

Steven Zenith 07:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome. By "top level" do you mean a member of Category:Fundamental or Category:Semiotics? Hyacinth 00:54, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is your problem? Hyacinth 01:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

A couple more sentences in the introductory section would be wonderful, to give a very straightforward explanation of what semiotics is to someone who's never heard of it before. "Semiotics examines how people communicate, whether through language or through other non-verbal media. It examines the essential meaning of objects and texts." Or something like that. The second sentence is probably getting ahead of ourselves already. Suggestions? [this really reminds me sitting in Professor Danesi's class as the class tried to figure out how the hell you define sem...] Krupo 04:31, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Citations

Oh great User:Stevenzenith, please provide a citation to make up for the one you removed. Hyacinth 01:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think Stevenzenith is gone. He hasn't made any contributions (at least while signed in) since Februrary. -Seth Mahoney 02:26, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it appears quit, citing too many students with agendas (me!), as indicated on his userpage. However, he is a semiotician, added his website to this article, and supports a view of semotics entirely consistent with that website. Hyacinth 06:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heh, I've got nothing to add, except apparently that I've got nothing to add. -Seth Mahoney 06:51, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I have not gone exactly, I watch with interest the dynamics of Wikipedia. It is, itself, an interesting case study in semeiotics - but an authority of any kind it is not.

Steven Zenith 19:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it's down to the contributors to make it an authority, really. Sockatume 20:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Linguists have long been aware of the importance of the social aspects of language, hence the study of sociolinguistics. It appears that the major distinction to be made here is linguistics' concentration on human languages and semiotics concentration on symbol systems in general. I think the paragraph on the plausability of semiotics over linguistcs should be revised as it does not capture the distinction correctly. Any thoughts?

A common starting Semiotics Example

I read in one of the comments as well as at the top of the main body of this article that the writing is too complicated and technical. I am afraid that this is to be expected of a field of study that has a nasty way of prying apart the constructs that we use to navigate our world. It took me a month to get my head around even the basic principles as held out in my classes, and I still find something new whenever I review and look through such issues.

But an example? Yeah. Surprisingly there is a very simple one, although for the life of me I'm not sure where to put it in the body:

Take for example, the English word CAT. This word is used to denote a furry, feline animal that walks on four legs, possesses pointy ears and a prehensile tail. But from a semiotics viewpoint, there is no real reason that the animal should be called a 'cat': it could just as easily be called, say, a 'furcow', or a 'nongyi'. The word 'cat' is a sign, composed of the alphabets C, A and T. The animal it describes is the signified: what society (at any scale) has agreed the letters mean. It is not a cat in Japanese; it is a 'neko'. Other languages have the same difference in what sign they agree should refer to the concept of a cat.

What is this an example of? Signification? Hyacinth 06:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An example of Saussure's assertion that there is no relationship between signifier and signified? (If so, to extend the example, it has meaning because it is not bat, fat, sat, rat, and so on.) -Seth Mahoney 06:24, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

A baby cannot know the meaning of cat because it does not yet know the differential bat, fat, sat, rat, and so on. Is that correct? --KYPark 08:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this just elementary semantics? The idea that words are arbitrary symbols with meaning is a pretty well-known one—I've certainly never met anyone who argues otherwise, although I suppose there may be some mystical folks who do. (Basically, I'm not sure what this example shows, because it's illustrating a point that's already obvious.) --Delirium 11:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm a novice, but from intuition, I could see two arguments that might corrode the assumed arbitrariness between symbols and their meaning: 1) Etymological origination from similar symbols that also have similar meanings. For example, perhaps the noun "hound" was coined arbitrarily, but the verb "hound" has a symbol that is non-arbitrarily originated – it is tied to the noun's symbol and its meaning. 2) Without being aware of particular research, it does seem that there could be some sub- or semi-consciously-held semiotic proclivities to even very fundamental symbols, such as phonetics. For example, while it is clearly possible for different societies to have entirely unrelated and distinct symbols for the same objective entity (such as cat and 'neko'), one or many of the set of phonetic sounds that make up each societies' symbol may be partially derived from a priori or a posteriori semiotic relationships (perhaps from cultural associations for the former and genetic predispositions in the latter). This is not to mention measurable, objective differences among the objects that a particular language is attempting to symbolize. That is, cats in Japan are different than cats in America. Oh, and I'm no mystic. :) Telosmachina (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm

It seems I am walking into something of a bear pit here. Well, I am modifying the contents of this page to link into the material I have gently been adding on semiotics. I still have a way to go, but I register my activities and await comment. -David91 1 July 2005 18:05 (UTC)

Thanks for your work! It all looks good so far. My only complaint, and its a problem with the topic, not with your writing, is that the article is still very jargony. Its a hard topic to write about without using jargon, and if there's no introduction of the terms used in the field, its an incomplete article. Its a fine line there, but one that I'm sure we'll all be able to find. -Seth Mahoney July 1, 2005 21:30 (UTC)

I have tried to link all the jargon words to their explanatory pages. If you give me a few examples of words that should be given better definitions in situ, I will redraft. -David91 2 July 2005 05:03 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the jargon words were linked. I'm just sort of wishing out loud that we could both not use them and explain how they are used at the same time, because as an encyclopedia article, this should be an introduction, which means it should be easy to read (no jargon) and should also introduce the jargon used. I think the best way is exactly what you seem to be doing - find a line between introductory use and overuse and link either to wikipedia or wikitionary articles whenever they come up. -Seth Mahoney July 2, 2005 21:46 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read the material. It is always difficult for the writer to know how the material will be received. I have redrafted the introductory passages, hopefully rendering them more easily comprehensible? -David91 3 July 2005 05:51 (UTC)

Current Uses (Bias)

"The use of semiotic methods to reveal hidden motivations has led some to demonise elements of the subject as Marxist. The acquisition of this and similarly pejorative labels may evidence new respect for the effectiveness of these methods."

Or this could also indicate that semiotics was being used to create "hidden motivations" where there were none. Isn't there a better way to make the point that semiotics has at least matured enough to create controversy without guessing the motives of its detractors. If not, there should be a reference to the specific case where elements of semiotics were called Marxist and the reasoning made clear. I'll admit I don't understand semiotics, I came here to try find out what its about, but I was sort of taken aback by the "obviously semiotic methods is effective or people wouldn't call it names" argument. That just shows that semiotic methods are good at generating controversy.

Easy enough to fix. --131.216.168.114 23:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

A Non-example?

it is a methodology that can be used by any other major discipline whether it be anthropology, computing, engineering, linguistics, mathematics, philosophy, or psychology. The concepts and methods are highly portable and may enrich understanding, for example, for improving ergonomic design in any situation where it is important to ensure that human beings can interact more effectively with their environments, whether it be on a large scale, as in architecture, or on a small scale in the configuration of instrumentation for human use.

This sounds nice, but it lacks evidence. Is there a method in ergonomics/human-machine-interaction that is based on Semiotics? Is it actually used? If so, it should be mentioned as an example.

--zeno 12:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The design of any data display relies on semiotics because the need is to sender the user messages, ensuring that the most critical are sent in the most salient form. Since you think it important to verify this, I will add one of the many possible references to the subfield on Computational Semiotics. -David91 17:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, you seem to use "semiotics" as something happening in the physical world. To my understanding, that paragraph is about "Semiotics" as methodology. IMHO it is possible to create displays/interfaces without relying on such methods. --zeno 19:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

When you design any system for the transmission of data, you cannot avoid being in the realm of semiotics. That many who design such systems may not call it semiotics does not prevent my statement from being true. The problem seems to be that you reject the notion that an academic discipline can be composed of hypotheses, theories and methodologies. Semiotics is a broad school of thought and, like other disciplines it has a metamethodology that determines which methodologies would be most appropriate for different areas of research or application, and then determines within those methodologies, which methods it would be most appropriate to use. The three meta levels are empiricism, hermeneutics and critical theory. To consider an HCI application, some empirical methodologies would be relevant to measure design effectiveness as a physical transmission system, and then cognitive effectiveness would need to tested within the latter two meta systems to reflect the greater subjectivity of the inquiry. I regret to say that this is well documented and a non-issue in semiotics. -David91 05:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello David,

thank you for your explanation. However, I do not understand what you mean by meta systems. Could you please explain that?

--zeno 12:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

My apologies for not making the terminologiy absolutely clear. A meta-level approach is the most abstract and, in this instance, is the third level above methodology and method respectively. In this instance, the metamethodological level contains three potentially relevant schools of thought (actually a slight simplication in that hermeneutics is itself divided) and the rules for determining which of them might be relevant at any given time. One or all of the schools of thought might be relevant to the particular issue. One then refers to each in turn to identify which theories might be most relevant and then, dropping down to the lowest level of methods, which specific tools should be used for each aspect of the problem to be resolved. -David91 13:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that I don't see a single example of the principles of semiotics, the data that support them, or the application of those principals in the whole article. For example, the current applications section says that semiotics can improve ergonomic design. I'd like to hear about a specific design, which precise result of semiotics affected that design, the methods semioticians used to develop and evaluate those results, and how the ergonomics of that specific design were improved. Yet there's no reference, and I haven't been able to find this anywhere. The whole article discusses things so vaguely that I wonder whether the emperor is wearing any clothes. Compare the articles on linguistics (and its other subfield articles) and physics and just about any other academic discipline. Unfortunately, I don't have the knowledge to add these references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.236.134.66 (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Literature

Ok, sorry to start another thread ;-) There are plenty of references at the end of the article. However, someone interested might not find out which of them is good introductory text. I only know "Einführung in die Semiotik" by Eco (Italian La struttura assente, 1968). It is ok, but it is more than thirty years old. I am quite sure that there have been significant changes in this field. --zeno 12:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

There are old and new references because, in this discipline, one studies schools of thought that have evolved over time — e.g. the Saussurian approach as against the Peircian. Your assumption that there have been changes in the field is correct but not in the sense that you intend. In the last thirty years, there have been more books and articles published than in the previous thirty years but they consolidate and build upon what has gone before just as in, say, Philosophy there would be a cumulative volume of literature exploring its increasingly specialised fields of interest. So Chandler's book is included in the list as a modern introductory text. That will give you the basics. The rest are a small sample of important texts that everyone still studies today. David91 13:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Probably considered irrelevant or off-topic by the experts

Followed this item here from Sean Connery, of all things, but it occurs to me that there might be some mention or link to Wittgenstein - to paraphrase 'there are no philosophical problems, only linguistic ones' and Sam Beckett, just 'cos. Plus I once spent a week trying to talk an ex- out of a tree after she got real xxxx'd trying to get her semiotics together for her BA. [luser:danla]20050804

The relationship between the sounds and movements we make and the power to think and express ourselves has fascinated people who think since they could think autonomously. You are not wrong at all. It is merely redundant to say so in this context. David91

Scientists in this field of study

Hi, how do you call someone who studies Semiotics? A Semiot? Or a the subdisciplines of Semiotics so far apart, that everyone fits perfectly into one of the subcategories? --Trickstar 13:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• You call them a SEMEIOTICIAN. -- --Steven Zenith 07:42, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

needs rework

This entire semiotics page is fraught with the exact difficulties that semioticians study. Anyone who knows semiotics can see that (by and large) the contributors are confused about the field itself. The simple definition: "Semiotics is the study of sign and symbol systems" must be buried somewhere in an obscure location if it is present at all. The operative word here is "system." What can we do about it? cyrialla 19:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Go for it... Be bold! Sbwoodside 20:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Material removed

"==Theoretical redundancy==

A few realist philosophers have argued that ironically, the discourse of semiotics is redundant by its own definitions. Since the entire discourse of semiotics is merely many signifiers that refer to their actual signified, and because by definition, signifieds can have many signifiers, but not vice versa, then to be self-consistent, any talk of semiotics could refer to concepts that can be discussed in great detail without any reference to semiotic theory at all. Through the logic of redundant explanation, if semiotic discourse is to be self-consistent, then any talk of post-modern constructionist semiotics may not be at all necessary."

This sounds interesting but, before it is added, I must ask for verifiable sources: specifically, which philosophers have advanced this "argument" and in which periodicals? It also needs some clarification. Sadly, I am now very out of date with this field, so can someone young and willing please supply citations. Many thanks. David91 12:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Semeiotic, Semiology, Semiotics

JA: It wiil eventually be incumbent onus [sic] to sort out the varieties of sign theories under the appropriate heads. My current impression is that the word "semiotics" is being used very broadly, covering what was formerly called "semiotics" in the sense of Peirce, for which he sometimes but not always used the term "semeiotic" or its plural, along with what was formerly more properly called "semiology" in the sense of Saussure. If a usage change has occurred in the literature, then very little can be done about it but to cluck our tongues and document it, but if the confusion is due solely to WP editors, then it will need to be corrected under the banner of WP:VERIFY. So let all interested parties think on that fond task fora [sic] while. Jon Awbrey 16:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Semiotics and linguistics?

I'm not particularly knowledgeable in this field, but at a first glance, it appears to have significant overlap with many areas of linguistics. Can someone clarify the relationships, and why they're considered distinct fields? --Delirium 18:06, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Sometimes semiotics is a subdiscipline of linguistics, but only when looking at the signs in language. The main difference between semiotics and, say, semantics or some other field in linguistics is that semiotics isn't restricted to language or even, necessarily, human communication. -Seth Mahoney 03:10, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Do you happen to know if semiotics regards language as central and the other concern as marginal? Then what is meant by saying that it is more inclusive than linguistics? --KYPark 08:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quoting:

Semiotics should also be distinguished from linguistics... semiotics links linguistic facts to non-linguistic facts to give a broader empirical coverage and to offer conclusions that seem more plausible because, intuitively, humans understand that one can only interpret language in a social context (sometimes termed the semiosphere). Pure linguistics dismantles language into its components, analysing usage in slow-time, whereas, in the real world of human semiotic interaction there is an often chaotic blur of language and signal exchange which semiotics attempts to analyse and so identify the systemic rules accepted by all the participants.

I don't suppose you could put this any more divisively and preposterously, could you? Speaking as a linguist, I regard the above as nonsense, roughly on a par with saying that chemistry is wrong because it "dismantles" the world into elements, analyzing the environment in micro-size, whereas in the real world of earth, air, fire and water there is an often chaotic blur of... Well, you get the idea. Mcswell 12:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

JA: Yes, the article as a (w)hole is in pretty poor shape, and probably needs a {cleanup} and maybe a {references} tag pasted on it. The stuff on Saussure needs to be moved to Semiology, which page was mistakenly redirected here way back in 2002. It's been on my do-list for a while, but I haven't been able to get a round tuit. Will give it a quick once-over later today maybe. Jon Awbrey 13:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

References

Shouldn't there be at least one reference to one of Saussure's works? I am not an expert in this field but from my understanding, his contribution to semiotics was highly significant. scskowron 10:13 7 Nov 2006

Non-universal color-coding image

It strikes me that the image of the red and blue faucets on pipes that are clearly the same temperature is not an example of non-universal color-coding as it purports. It is an example of arbitrary coding resulting from the prevalence of the universal code (meaning they needed two faucets for cold water and bought a set which came in a standard red/blue pair). If we had other colors coding for hot and cold or red and blue coding for some other distinction, the image would work. As it stands, it should be removed. Focomoso 11:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I put this image to this page, and I don't claim it is the best illustration here. (If I had one from Mexico, with "C" standing for "Caliente", and "H" being used instead of "F" for "Frio", it would probably work better :-) I don't mind if you remove it. Vmenkov 21:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Focomoso. --Tail 21:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Why no criticism of semiology?

I'm surprised that there's nothing about the view held by many that semiology is just psuedo-science since it does not use any experimental verification of itself, thereby allowing people to construct elaborate 'castles in the air' theories from their armchair speculations. All the comment here seems to be from paid-up members of The Church Of Semiology.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.52.219 (talk • contribs)

I have no idea why this article is even on my watchlist, but I agree as per above. While there is no implicit approval voiced in the article, the other side isn't really represented. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 20:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of it really does sound like approval being voiced, which ought to be toned down. This pair of sentences is particularly non-neutral: "In some countries, its role is limited to literary criticism and an appreciation of audio and visual media, but this narrow focus can 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." --Delirium 13:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• • After a historiography seminar in grad school first introduced me to the wonderful world of deconstruction, I have never quite shaken the belief that it was only an ingenious fiction created by leterary critics and social scientists in order to guarantee them slots on college faculties. It was bad enough that the "new paradigm" had created its own new language (that only other practitioners could comprehend) but that it had, by the time of my graduate studies, crossed the gap from the social sciences to my field, history. How ingenious of the deconstructionists to point out to us the all too obvious - that historians (past, present, and future) were biased or had their own agendas to fulfill! We had never considered the concept that all historical writing was a form of fiction! The idea that historians had to extremely careful in their use of sources or in their upholding or dismantling of particular viewpoints had never crossed our minds. How original! Can you imagine? My opinion has not altered over the ensuing decades. RM Gillespie (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important to distinguish the field itself from the work of individual scholars. The "wonderful world of deconstruction" is a tiny branch of this field (if it's a branch at all!), and even among proponents of deconstruction, one finds wide variations in quality of scholarship. Asking for a critique of "semiotics" is like asking for a critique of "biology" or of "linguistics." You can critique particular arguments, particular conclusions within biology, but how could you critique the study of living things itself? You would have to claim that living things shouldn't be studied. Are you saying that systems of meaning shouldn't be studied?

One could apply the falsificationist critique above to individual arguments and theories, but there's nothing to falsify about "biology" or "semiotics" apart from the fundamental claim that these fields study particular categories of things -- "living things" and "signs" respectively. I think the more appropriate approach would be to register differences and arguments among semioticians. It seems to me that many statements made by semioticians are falsifiable, but they are best falsified by looking at signs and seeing how they work. That is to say, the best critique of semiology is semiology itself, just as the best critique of biology is biology itself. Please do say that people have been studying signs wrongly, but please do not say that they shouldn't study signs at all.

I also want to say that the statement that "historians had to be extremely careful in their use of sources or in their upholding or dismantling of particular viewpoints" is not, as I see it, the message of deconstruction. The message of deconstruction is that no amount of care could ever enable a lossless representation of history, and that therefore "care" is not what is called for, but something else. The problem with deconstruction is that it cannot specify what that something else is; and I think that, at least among scholars of literature that I know, historical "care" has come back into favor. But I remain sympathetic with the opinion that "care" still isn't enough; it is, perhaps, necessary but not sufficient for the study of history. Solemnavalanche (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

removed actor Jaxin Hall

removed: It was first coined by the late professor of semiotomy Dr Jaxin Hall PHD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jm34harvey (talk • contribs) 15:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

References and Further reading.

Can someone please move those article and books which are not used as references in the article into the seperate further reading section. This article IMHO also needs lots of work on citations. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. More in-line citations please. Any current article stewards willing to clean it up? Shrumster 13:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Umberto Eco

I replaced "ostentation" with "ostension" in the text. Eco's four modes of sign production were recognition, ostension, replica, and invention. Kemet 23:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Umberto Eco entry is badly written, apparently by a non-native English speaker.

"His most important contributions to the field bear on interpretation, encyclopedia, and model reader." I assume "model reader" is what is usually called "reader model". In any case it should be linked or explained, since it is not likely to be understood by anyone outside the field. What does "encyclopedia" refer to? The E. of Unified Science? If so, say so or link it.

"He has also criticized in several works ... the "iconism" or "iconic signs" (taken from Peirce's most famous triadic relation, based on indexes, icons, and symbols), to which he purposes four modes of sign production: recognition, ostension, replica, and invention." This sentence is incoherent, I suspect due to using words as they are used in some other language. I don't think "criticized" means what we mean by that word. I think "purposes" probably should be "proposes". His use of "the" is not idiomatic, and neither is "most famous". The trouble is, I dare not rewrite this sentence because I really don't know what the writer is trying to say! SixWingedSeraph (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the implication is that indexes, icons, and symbols, as a group, are "Pierce's most famous triadic relation". Who knows? By "criticized", he probably meant "berated". I'm sorry I don't have a thesaurus close at hand. I take it that it was the theory, not the concepts themselves, that was being challenged. Unfree (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

General Semantics

The introductory part on the Vienna Circle's division of semiotics into semantics, syntax and pragmatics seems to imply that within this division "pragmatics" is equivalent to "General Semantics" as conceived by Alfred Korzybski. Although Korzybski may have been influenced by the Vienna Circle, it seems dubious that general semantics in this sense is what the members of the Vienna Circle had in mind. Can we get citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.66.192 (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Request

All those of you watching this page, please come and have a look at linguistics. There is a gross misrepresentation and censorship taking place there. Post-structural linguistics has been deleted and censored by the community there, and I urge you to participate in the discussion to restore a balanced view for the article. Supriya 13:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A convenient distinction of two kinds of meaning

Link...-->      --Faustnh (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

There is something strange in the first two paragraphs after the table of contents, under the heading “Terminology,” that smells like vandalism by a kid honoring an acquaintance named Jordana, or perhaps by Miss Jordana herself.

The link to Ancient Greek I imagine was originally just “Greek” as is usual in etymologies (there being no need to belabor the fact that it is Ancient as opposed to Modern Greek). But now it is the nonsense “Greek Jordana,” and there is no such dialect or variant of Greek that I know of. And even if there were, the form cited (I’ll decline to try to scribble the Greek letters here) is equally valid in plain old ancient (Attic) Greek.

Also, the John Locke quote was originally “All that can fall within the compass of human understanding, being either, First, the nature of things, as they are in themselves...” Our young scholar decided to improve the quote by changing both “human” and “things” to “Jordana.”

I’ll try to fix all this after I post this note. ---Randall, 208.66.124.31 (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This Wiki neophyte is getting a little better at this. By exploring around on this article's History page, I determined that the vandalism I undid last night was done on April 9th, at 4:36 am (that would be 11:36 the previous night here in the eastern quadrant of America). By Mr. "114.77.155.214".

Is there some way to scan all Wiki articles for "improvements" by the same URL, on the same evening? ---Randall, 208.66.124.31 (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

like this? Darrenhusted (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Does Semiotics Online merit an entire section?

Semiotics Online looks like a good resource, but does it really deserve an entire section? I think it should just be listed in one of the external links. David Delony (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. _obbst 03:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

of...into

"study of ... into" (in the opening sentence) makes no sense to me. Unfree (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

as

"Semiotics is frequently seen as having important anthropological dimensions, for example Umberto Eco proposes that every cultural phenomenon can be studied as communication." The "as" in "studied as" makes no sense. Unfree (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

denotata

May I change "their denotata" (a word that appears only once in the article) to "what they denote" without introducing error? It looks like superfluous pseudo-Latin jargon. Unfree (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Syntactics?

In linguistics the name is "syntax", not "syntactics". Is there a variation in meaning, such as syntactics being the field of study and syntax the structure of the studied meaning, or is it a synonym for syntax peculiar for semiotics? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Who said that three branches of semiotics are syntatics, semantics and pragmatics? There's no source, and I don't think it is exactly correct. Semantics and pragmatics are part of linguistics as well. Why call them "branches" of semiotics? Squarrels (talk) 12:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

"In Linguistics"

What's up with characterizing Semiotics as "in linguistics"? Saussure (one of the 'big two') of course positioned linguistics within semiotics. Barthes on the other hand proposed his "trans-linguistics" that would encompass semiotics. Today semiotics is often positioned within linguistics along the lines proposed by Barthes, but that's not the only way to characterize it as a field of study or emerging discipline. Eco referred to semiotics as "concerned with anything that can be taken as a sign" (or something like that – I'm quoting from memory). Anyway, this by way of opening up the box. While we can say that semiotics is often considered to be a part of linguistics, it can also be argued (and supported with solid references) that linguistics is a part of semiotics. If no one objects I'll modify the article to reflect this verifiable reality as soon as I've had time to gather all the references I'll need. --Picatrix (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct, semiotics is more general, linguistics is part of it and it's limited to phonetic signs. The top reference to back this up is Derrida, in the first part of Grammatology.--Sum (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to classify either linguistics or semiotics as part of each other. They are both parallel disciplines and can be interchangeably studied within each other. Squarrels (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Biosemiosis

It is stated per 01.04.11 that semiotics is the study of cultural sign processes. I can't find that semiotics are limited to signs created by humans. Semiosis do occur on the DNA-level, and is a field of semiotics. Therefore I find it somewhat misleading, and unnecessary to say cultural sign processes. Semiotics is the study of sign processes both natural and cultural, allthough one may argue that semiotics is quintessential to what is defined cultural. On the other hand, some biosemioticians (von Üexkull) hold that semiosis is the particular characteristic of life. --Xact (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I moved this new section to the correct place for new sections, at the talk page's bottom.
You're correct that semiotics is not only about cultural sign processes. The problem is that the term "semiotics" itself has become equivocal. There were two distinct traditions, distinct fields really - Peircean semiotic and Saussurean semiology. "Semiotic" (in one or another spelling) was the word adopted by Peirce for the study of signs, be they symptoms, semblances, or symbols, natural, cultural, or abstractly logical, and sign processes (Peirce coined the word "semiosis" for sign process). Peirce defined logic (apart from its mathematics) as a part of philosophy, and as the formal branch of semiotic, and as studying not only sign classification, but also modes of inference (including hypothesis-generation, deduction, and induction) and methods of opinion-settling or inquiry (scientific or otherwise). Usually when Peirce said "semiotic" he meant formal semiotic. The Saussurean tradition (about which I know rather less) grew in connection with linguistics, is narrower in scope, and (as far as I know) doesn't focus on interpretive and inferential processes, the growth of signs, and so on; it doesn't aspire to be logic qua sign theory. For some reason the semiologists started calling work in their tradition "semiotics." And I haven't even mentioned Charles Morris. Nowadays there are people who take from both traditions. John Deely draws a lot from Peirce but has also helped recover an earlier tradition of sign theory from before both Peirce and Saussure. I'm unsure of how to describe the current situation. It seems hard to provide an unmisleading lead for the article without making some reference to the disparate source traditions of contemporary semiotics, and of course it needs to be done briefly, succinctly, etc. Biosemiotics (about which I know very little) seems to draw more from the Peircean tradition. The Tetrast (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC).

citation

Semiotics is frequently seen as having important anthropological dimensions; for example, Umberto Eco proposes that every cultural phenomenon can be

studied as communication.[citation needed]

Umberto Eco, A Theory of Semiotics, p8 - http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BoXO4ItsuaMC&lpg=PP1&dq=theory%20of%20semiotics&pg=PA8#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.160.241 (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Quote from Locke or Stubbes?

In the Terminology section, there is a quote attributed to both Locke (quoted there as "Nor is there any thing to be relied upon in Physick,[7] but an exact knowledge of medicinal physiology (founded on observation, not principles), semiotics, method of curing, and tried (not excogitated,[8] not commanding) medicines.") and to Henry Stubbes, 8 or so lines above, as a footnote. Obviously, it's one or the other, but not attributable to both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.186.195 (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)