I just had a quick nomenclatural/semantic question regarding the usage of the term "semiotics". Thought this would be a good place to ask it, so here I am. Anyways, my question has to do with using the term semiotics to refer the study of signs/signal processes vs. using the term to refer to a substantive system of signs and signal processes. In particular, I wanted to know whether the latter usage is generally considered "acceptable".

For example, consider a system of behavioral heuristics and situationally-dependent/adaptive rules of "right" conduct functioning in some hypothetical modern society. (Here I would point to F.A. Hayek's formulation of "culture" as particularly illustrative instantiation of this concept.) To the extent that such a system is based on:

-abstract signifiers (e.g., social-psychological schemata)

-signs (e.g., normatively salient social cues)

-signal processes (e.g., reciprocal, adaptive cue-based interaction(s))

...could one call this a "semiotics of social morality"? Or is this a grievous abuse of terminology?

Any feedback would be much appreciated.

(P.S. - I am aware that semantics is branch of semiotics, so this whole question is delightfully meta and such. Funny coincidence, but unintentional.)

(P.P.S. - Also, I know that my formulation of a system of behavioral heuristics/rules of conduct glosses over the fact that addressing ontological questions as to the nature of such a system and epistemological questions as to what can be said to be known about such a system necessarily implies (or presupposes) some form of "study". I suppose what I am trying to ask is whether the substantive "output" of such inquiry [i.e., "knowledge" of some extant system of signs and signal processes undergirding certain supervenient phenomena] can itself be called a "semiotics of phenomenon X".)


Unfortunately, there is no entry in SEP about semiotics.

We have Peirce's Theory of Signs where we read that, according to Peirce :

"I define a sign as anything which is so determined by something else, called its Object, and so determines an effect upon a person, which effect I call its interpretant, that the later is thereby mediately determined by the former."

So, may be of your interest the link Peirce states between signs and effects (upon a person), and this is the "pragmatic flavour" of P's thought.

The traditional "organization" of Semiotics divided it :

into three branches:

Semantics : Relation between signs and the things to which they refer; their denotata, or meaning

Syntactics : Relations among signs in formal structures

Pragmatics : Relation between signs and sign-using agents

You may be interested into the last one, which involves agents.

| improve this answer | |
  • Thank you for your response! I'll definitely take some time to look into Peirce and pragmatics in more detail. – zrm Mar 19 '14 at 16:53

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.