Semantics and Semiotics

1975

Language, in terms of communication, can be defined as a semiotic tool used during the interactive human agreement. There are two important components of verbal structure in this definition, such as: compound "semiotic", otherwise called as "semantic-referent", which means that it possesses form and content, and "cooperative agreement", related to the main function of the languagethat of agreement and cooperation without which there can be no language. Communication can also be achieved by means of other signs, not necessarily part of language, but related to the latter.

Human language is a remarkable and complex system of communication that distinguishes us from other species on the planet. It serves as a tool for expressing our thoughts, sharing information, and creating social bonds. The study of language and its nature has fascinated linguists, philosophers, and researchers for centuries, leading to various theoretical frameworks and perspectives. One such perspective is the semiotic view, which explores language as a semiotic system of signs and symbols. The semiotic approach to understanding language emphasizes the relationship between signs, meanings, and their interpretation. Developed by scholars such as Ferdinand de Saussure and Charles Peirce, semiotics provides a framework to analyze human language's structure, function, and characteristics. In this context, this paper aims to explore the nature of human language and its key characteristics from a semiotic perspective using a real-life scenario where we explain how a message is conveyed through signals and channels. Additionally, we examine the nature of human language, referring to the definition Bloch and Trager gave in 1942. Finally, we conclude by asserting that all human languages are equally important and necessary, with no one language being superior in structure, history, or biology.

SHORT COURSE of GENERAL SEMIOTICS, 2022

My first book on semiotics was published in Moscow in 1992; it was called "Language as a Sign System". After that, I wrote and published many books and articles, trying to understand the intricacies of semiotics and highlight its main characteristics. Over time, some of my views have undergone metamorphoses, and I have adjusted my earlier statements to express new formulations. Now, on the threshold of my 95th birthday, I want to sum up my vacillations and doubts in a short concluding essay, which seems to me worthy of attention. Whether this is really so, is for the readers to judge. I want to say a few words about what general semiotics means. De facto, semiotics originated in ancient Greece and Rome − no science or craft can exist without its own signs. But only at the end of the 19th century did a movement arise for the creation of semiotics that would formulate general principles for all branches of this science. In contrast to particular semiotics, such science can be called general semiotics.

Social Semiotics, 1991

RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics

The study discusses the fundamental issues of semiotics. Semiotics still involves no broadly agreed upon theoretical assumptions, models, or empirical methodologies. Faced with much disagreement among notable semioticians about what semiotics actually entails, the study opens up the way to its theoretical re-thinking. Starting from the analysis of the discussions of scientists it indicated that the signs are not identical to what they represent this studies the issue through a theoretical concepts analysis, literature review, combined with comparative analysis of the main classical theoretical parameters of signs. The basic approach of this study is that signs, whether it is symbolic, iconic, or indexical, are not what they mean. The nature of the sign, whether it is symbolic, iconic, or indexical, determines the way it is used, and the same signifier can be used in different ways in different contexts. The role of an interpreter should be taken into account. A sign meaning is not i...

International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation , 2022

Human communication, often defined as the transfer of information between human beings, is better understood as the exchange of meaning between them. It has been discovered that meaning hardly makes sense outside the context of communication. Efforts to make sense of meanings date back to the classical times from the metaphysical postulates of Plato and Aristotle, which establish basic paradigms for the interpretation of the relation between 'ideas' and 'individual forms' as correlates of linguistic signs through Locke's postulates of a fully-fledged system of ideas pre-existent to language, Condillac's acknowledgement of the constitutive role of signs, which allow a level of cognitive organization beyond that of animals to the modern realization of the dependence of the mind on language and its social character which lead directly to Humboldt's linguistic relativism. One of the most dynamic breakthroughs in the understanding of human communication and the meanings exchanged therein is semiotics which is often defined as the science, doctrine, or study of signs and has become one of the traditions used in the study of communication. Combining historical inquiry and content analysis as methodological tools, this study explores the trajectory of semiotics, its nature, and dynamics and posits that because signs are socially and culturally polysemous, the use of semiotics requires exposure to diverse disciplines or at least more than one discipline in order to be able to properly underscore its multimodal tenor.

The article presents a terminological analysis of the notion of text in the context of semiotic and communication paradigms to define its boundaries and to disengage it from non-textual semiosis. The objectives were achieved through the application of general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, description), the semioanalysis following Yu. M. Lotman's methods and also structuralist and, to a certain degree, post-structuralist approaches. While performing the analysis, the author comes to the conclusion that the concept of infinite textualization of the actual reality, which is promoted by a number of post-structuralists, tends to neglect both the complex dialectical relationship and the opposition between the text and actual reality. The article defines the ontological status of a text as a specific conditional reality. Then, differences and similarities between the text, other conditional realities, and the actual reality can be more clearly identified, which is quite important, considering the current post-modernist tendency to blend the text and extra-textual realities. The conclusion is that the main characteristics of the text are ontological conditionality, semiotic property, informativity, communicative nature and origin, the presence of an intentional sender, artificial origin, accessibility for universal perception, coherence, integrity, and completeness. To sum up, I define the text as a semiotic conditional reality generated by a communicative situation with non-degenerated planes of expression and content, and characterized by the unity of syntagmatic cohesion and paradigmatic integrity, certain systematicity, and completeness.

World Wide Web

In this paper we present an overview of semiotics with particular emphasis on those concepts that offer promise to psychologists. We make no pretense that we are able to represent semiotics as that term is always used. We believe that most semioticians would agree, however, that semiotic theory offers the position that a wide variety of problems in modern inquiry, taken from a number of different disciplines, are actually special cases of one general set of problems: What is a sign? How does it work? How can I use it? Once the commonalities among all these inquiries are recognized, a substantial bonus is realized: researchers from a variety of disciplines who adopt a semiotic viewpoint become able to communicate across those disciplines and share valuable insights. We conclude with a series of short reviews of books on semiotics.