Translation semiotics and semiosic translation: clarification of disciplinary intension and concept

2.1 Research objects of translation semiotics and semiotranslation

Translation semiotics takes semiotic transformations in the process of translation as its research object, in contrast to translation studies, which focuses on translation as its object. Like linguistic semiotics, translation semiotics does not take translation as its object. Its goal is to construct a branch of semiotics using semiotic theory and methodology as the guiding principle. In contrast, semiotranslation aims to analyze and explain translation phenomena and processes that translation theories are incapable of analyzing and illustrating and is based on the fundamentals of such theories as Saussure’s signified and signifier theory in linguistic semiotics, Peirce’s linguistic semiotic trichotomy, and the three dimensions of syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics from Charles Morris (1833–1922). It is a semiotic hermeneutic study which focuses on translation corpuses and translative processes, rather than translation studies. Therefore, it is bound to wander on the edge of semiotics and translatology. Specifically, translation semiotics concerns not only the signifying process in the translative processes, but also the sign transformations between the source text and the translated version, intertextuality, intersubjectivity, and semiotic interpretativity. In addition, translation semiotics researches translational activities and processes of ancillary texts (prefaces and postscripts of the translator, related articles by the author and the translator, comments on the original work and translation, addendum, annotation, etc.) based on the source text and the translated version, which can be evidenced in the examples from Gorlée (2010, 2012.

In conclusion, the research object of translation semiotics is the transformation of tangible and intangible signs and issues related to them: (1) the transformation of the physical forms of tangible signs into tangible signs, involving transformation between verbal signs, from verbal signs (spoken and written language) into nonverbal signs (posture, gestures, makeup, etc.), and from nonverbal signs into verbal signs (from conception to words); (2) the transformation of tangible signs into intangible signs with non-physical forms as the carrier, including the conversion from text to thinking and speculation, and behavior to thinking reaction; (3) the transformation of intangible signs into tangible symbols, with the example of conception to text, painting, music score, etc., as well as the process, behavior, relationship, hierarchy, intersubjectivity (intersign and intersubjectivity), conservation, function and contingency, and interpretativity involved in sign conversion.

Based on the monism, dualism, and trilogy of semiotics, translation semiotics explores semiotic transformation and its related problems in the broad sense of translation, and constructs a branch of semiotics on the related issues of semiotics, including both macro theory and micro application, breaking the previous focus on the transformation between tangible symbols. The research scope is extended to the mutual transformation between tangible and intangible signs (Jia 2016a: 97).

Semiotranslation takes the semiotic problems involved in the translative processes as the pointcut. Semiotranslation as proposed by Gorlée^[5] lies in using translation to illustrate semiotics, rather than semiotics to explain translation (Stecconi 2008: 162). Gorlée defines semiotranslation as a “unidirectional, future-oriented, cumulative, and irreversible process, one which advances, in successive instances, toward higher rationality, complexity, coherence, clarity, and determination, while progressively harmonizing chaotic, unorganized, and problematic translation (and elements and/or aspects of translations), as well as neutralizing dubious, misleading, and false ones” (Gorlée 1994: 231). Here, Gorlée defines semiotranslation with the reference to semiotic theory and other related theories. Semiotranslation is actually characterized by Peirce’s signs as an “upgraded” way of thinking, as it establishes the concept and meaning of translation based on the classifications and sub-classifications of Peirce’s logic terms, and constructs the theory and methodology as a branch of the discipline in translatology from the perspective of Peirce’s dynamic semiotic trichotomy of sign–object–interpretant (corresponding respectively to Peirce’s Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness of signs in categories).

2.2 The constitution of translation semiotics and semiotranslation

The research object of translation semiotics determines the internal composition of translation semiotics and affects its future development. Torop (2000: 599) claimed that “the object of translation studies is formed by the process of translation, while semiotics has focused on signs and sign systems […]. By this we would achieve at least complementarity of the aspect of translation studies and the aspect of semiotics.” In fact, Torop oversimplified the research object of translation semiotics and wrongly took it for granted that the research object of translation semiotics is the integration of objects in the translation process and the semiotic system. Based on the research object of translation semiotics, Torop (2000: 607) pointed out the main aspects of translation semiotics: (1) semiotics of translation as translation of semiotics (proceeding from the semiotic features of language, texts, and culture); (2) complementary translation semiotics that analyzes textual associations originating in the cause of metacommunication and total translation (textual, metatextual, intextual, intertextual, and extratextual translations); (3) social translation semiotics, the object of interest of which is formed by problems of postcolonial translation and semiotranslation, as well as postmodern approaches to translation (social and discursive practice, habitus, literacy, etc.); (4) processual translation semiotics as semiotic description of the different actualizations of the translation process and creation of a model of the translation process for the uniform description of types of translation; and (5) radical translation semiotics as usage of semiotic means for the analysis of intersemiotic translation.

In fact, to regard translation semiotics as semiotranslation is just an obvious sign of unclear discipline boundaries, although both are based on the characteristics of language, text, and cultural signs. Accordingly, the internal structure of translation semiotics includes: (1) being based on the monism, dualism, and triad of semiotics and its research methodology; (2) taking the text and cultural features involved in the mutual transformation between tangible signs and tangible and intangible signs as the object and categoric basis; (3) taking the purpose of exploring the relevance of semiotic texts caused by the communication and information content in the process of semiotic transformation and discourse practice, convention, reading and writing ability, ideology, social needs and functions, translator’s intention and purpose, and text in human “life form” (Wittgenstein); and (4) constructing the relevant models of translation semiotics theory and application based on the process of semiotic transformation (Jia 2016a: 94).

Therefore, scholars tend to designate the process of translation semiosis as semiotranslation based on Peirce’s semiotics as the discipline foundation. If semiotranslation is used to refer to translation semiotics, it is inevitable that there will be confusion between translation semiotics and semiotranslation in terms of disciplinary classification, research scope, research object, research task, and disciplinary nature, etc. Although both areas mainly focus on the signifying process in sign conversion, essential differences still remain. The focus of the two are different in that translation semiotics takes the broad category of translation as its pointcut, whereas semiotranslation takes sign phenomena as the kernel. They also differ in terms of their theoretical framework and methodological basis, as well as the disciplinary classification (the former is a branch of semiotics and the latter is a branch of translatology). Although they apply similar research methods, they belong to different disciplines and serve different scholars in different fields.

3.1 Semiosis of translation and translation semiotics

A trend proceeding from the semiotics of C. S. Peirce has taken into use the term semiotranslation, which designates translational semiosis. According to Gorlée, translational activity progresses under the conditions of contractual semiosis (Gorlée 1993: 212). In this view, the process of translation principally has a complementary nature: “In translation real exchange ‘degenerates’ into complementarity” (Gorlée 1993: 213). The result is making sense of a translation text in the framework of a definite contractual semiosis, and this also entails the dynamism of description:

Nothing is fixed in sign translation: the translating text-sign, the translated text-sign, the (non)linguistic codes, the translator, the translational and general cultural norms, all are subject to continual interaction and change, even to a minute degree (Gorlée 1993: 223)

Gorlée expresses the idea that “translation is a semiosis process” in terms of semiotranslation, or sign translation (1994: 106), which actually argues for the application of semiotic theory and semiotic methodology to analyze and explain the processes and phenomena of translation.

Ubaldo Stecconi states that “Gorlée’s interest lies in using translation to illustrate semiotics, rather than semiotics to explain translation” (Stecconi 2008: 162). Therefore, both semiotranslation and semiosis of translation in semiotranslation form the branch of translation studies from the perspective of semiotics per se. However, the semiosis of translation and translation semiotics are essentially the same in a broad sense of translation, i.e., translation semiotics is a semiotic transformation of semiosis in nature.

Stecconi holds that “all translation is semiosis but not all semiosis is translation” (Stecconi 2004: 471). He, then, assumes that “T-semiosis (translation semiosis) is a special and identifiable form of semiosis” in terms of the comparison between T-semiosis and other forms of general semiosis (Stecconi 2004: 473). Finally, he concludes that “semiosis is more general than T-semiosis” (Stecconi 2004: 473). Therefore, one should use semiosis to explain what translation is like rather than using translation to explain what semiosis is like. In other words, logically speaking, translation is a process of semiosis, which implies that all translation processes are semiosis, but not all translation phenomena are related factors of semiosis (Jia 2019a: 16). In addition, translation involves forward and backward semiosis. The latter is not a normal case of semiosis, which occurs only when semiotic transformation is involved.

In a broad sense of translation, almost all daily sign activities are translation activities. Chesterman (1997, 2000; cf. Stercconi 2004: 473) argues that “all writing is translating,” Peirce states that “interpretation is merely another word for translation” (EP 2.388). “Any utterance is actually a translation” (Hartama-Heinonen 2012: 116). Therefore, the assertions on semiosis in translation made by Stecconi are expressed in a narrow sense, which is restricted to intralingual translation and interlingual translation as proposed by Jacobson so that it inevitably narrows the scope of the reference of signs and sign activities.

Ritva Hartama-Heinonen claims that “for a semiotranslation scholar, semiosis constitutes translational semiosis: signs becoming signs through translating” (2012: 115); thus, “interpretation is translation and translation, in turn, is semiosis” (2012: 119), and “semiosis is translation, and translation is semiosis” (2012: 115); “semiotranslation entails translations of whatever is conceived as a sign” (2012: 120). Heinonen views the semiotic transformation between semiosis and translation in a broad sense, involving forward and backward semiosis, so that the proposition that “semiosis is translation semiosis and semiosis is translation” is verified correctly. As Susan Petrelli and Augusto Ponzio put it: “Where there are signs and semiosic processes, there is translation” (Petriili and Ponzio 2012: 116).

However, Heinonen explains the relationship between translational semiosis and general semiosis or translation as semiosis and semiosis in general from the perspective sign translation, i.e., semiotranslation which deals with the translation process and phenomenon in terms of semiotic theory, so that she confuses the boundaries and disciplinary properties of translation semiotics and semiotranslation. Nonetheless, she clarifies the relationship between semiosis and translation in a broad sense. Therefore, the term of semiotranslation adopted by Heinonen is applied to analyze the translational semiosis and translation, which indeed disturbs the boundaries between semiotranslation and translation semiotics and triggers the chaos in understanding the concepts of semiotranslation and translation semiotics. The intension and disciplinary properties of semiotranslation are, thus, different from those of translation semiotics.

Consequently, the arguments of Heinonen, Petrelli, and Ponzio are based on the categories of translation reference and signs in a broad sense, and all human sign activities are semiosic activities and products. In other words, translation semiotics emphasizes the various semiotic transformation from tangible to intangible, and vice versa, in which translational semiosis refers to translation semiotics itself. In contrast, semiotranslation is the combination of semiotics and translation which applies semiotic theory and methodology to analyze and explain the process and phenomenon of translation. Essentially, semiotranslation is still a branch of translation, while translation semiotics is a branch of semiotics involving semiotic transformation, activities, and products between tangible signs, from tangible signs to intangible signs, and vice versa, i.e., translation in a broad sense.

Therefore, the assertion that the translational semiosic process is semiosis but semiosis is not necessarily translational semiosic process is valid in the narrow sense of the definition of sign and translation. However, from the perspective of sign reference and translation in a broad sense, all sign activities involve semiosis and semiosic action as long as signification of signs is taking place. Semiotic transformation is bound to produce translational action in a broad sense because of the existence of semiosic process and action, i.e., the elucidation of signs is translational action and process. Therefore, since the translational semiosic process is semiosis in a broad sense, semiosic process is in fact translational process in a broad sense. Therefore, it does not seem necessary to coin a term “semiosis of translation,” which has unclear boundaries and vague references, as translation itself is semiosis with sign transformation.

3.2 Semiosic translation

Semiosic translation is the term proposed by Columbian scholar Sergio Torres-Martínez in his paper entitled “Semiosic translation: A new theoretical framework for the implementation of pedagogically-oriented subtitling” in 2015. In this paper, Martínez defines the properties, generalizes the characteristics, and categorizes the types of semiosic translation on the basis of its definition. The differences between semiosic translation and semiotranslation can be explored and analyzed according to this definition. Inspired by Peirce’s semiotics and Wittgenstein’s philosophy, Martínez proposed this term integrating the fields of experience of translation and semiotics.

However, Martínez admits that semiosic translation greatly deviates from the frameworks of both Peirce’s semiotics and Wittgenstein’s philosophy. He claims that his semiosic translation defines the categories of the Peircean trichotomy of “sign–object–interpretant,” which respectively corresponds to the three categories of Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness as semiosic elements. In this vein, these semiosic elements do not necessarily issue from or confine themselves to a given “irreversible” semiosis. He further argues that, semiotically, translation is a sensory-driven process of semiotic transformation engendered in pre-Firstness, although translation is a conscious act embedded in the broader process of interpretation (Martínez 2019: 14). Thereby, the translative process in semiosic translation is defined as a transformative, borderless interplay of interlocking sign systems (Martínez 2019: 14). He defines semiosic translation as “a purposeful, socially-driven activity (which stresses the social character of our concepts) progressing away from the action of specialized translation agents (intention and not expertise distinguishes translation and interpretation)” (Martínez 2019: 14).

In his 2019 book entitled Introducing semiosic translation, Martínez reiterates three points for clarifying the ideas of semiosic translation: (1) “the target culture is no longer perceived as a recipient onto which the translation is projected, since many translation users are increasingly involved in the translation process themselves”; (2) “translation is detached from any literary or high-brow culture paradigm defining the tenets of translation in terms of ‘linguistic and cultural confrontation between two linguistic codes’ (Gorlée 2002: 166)”; and (3) “[t]ranslation should not simply be subjected to the rules of effectiveness and, consequently, to a blind and instrumental rationality” (Martínez 2019: 14). By inference, Martínez defines semiosic translation as “an inclusive, all-encompassing project that does not anatomize, contain, idealize, manipulate, schematize, nor biologize semiosis” (Martínez 2019: 14).

As for the properties and characteristics of semiosic translation, Martínez points out the differences between semiosic translation and semiotranslation from seven perspectives based on Gorlée’s definition of semiotranslation:

[S]emiotranslation is a unidirectional, future-oriented, cumulative, and irreversible process, one which advances, in successive instances, toward higher rationality, complexity, coherence, clarity, and determination, while progressively harmonizing chaotic, unorganized, and problematic translations (and elements and/or aspects of translations), as well as neutralizing dubious, misleading, and false ones. (Gorlée 1994, 231; my emphasis)

(1) Semiosic translation attaches itself conceptually to an extended notion of semiosis involving the transformation of any sign system into other sign systems. Notwithstanding, it deviates greatly from Gorlée’s semiotranslation, particularly in its rejection of a definition of translation and translating as interpretation, or of translation proper as an interlingual operation. In other words, translation does not take place “wherever semiosic processes occur” (Ponzio 2000 [1999]: 5), semiotic transformation does! Crucially Semiosic Translation combines both fitting and tracking approaches to interpretation.

(2) Semiosic Translation is not confined to the boundaries of anthroposemiosis. It acknowledges all sorts of semiotic transformation well beyond the human semiosphere.

(3) Semiosic Translation is abductive, i.e., it derives its explanatory power from an emphasis on Firstness rather than from sign oppositions (Secondness) leading to interpretation (Thirdness).

(4) In the context of Semiosic Translation, all the forms of translation suggested by Jakobson (1966 [1959]) are considered as “translation proper”.

(5) Semiosic Translation is not a matter of Thirdness, of symbolicity or habit only. It constantly creates usage-driven signs and interpretations begotten in Firstness.

(6) The skopos of a translation is an all-encompassing criterion determining the quality and functional value of a translation in a given culture.

(7) Semiosic Translation shifts the accent onto an active, writerly role of the translator. Thus, semiosic translation is in some nontrivial sense a writerly rather than a readerly operation.

(Martínez 2019: 15–17)

Grounded on the analysis above and the theoretical framework of semiosic translation, Martínez classifies semiosic translation into four types: (1) haptic translation, drawing on sensory-driven immersion in the text; (2) indexical translation, dealing with the connection of both signs and pre-signs across sign systems; (3) dynamic discontinuity, drawing on the surfacing of Objects in Secondness from the stream of signs in Firstness; and (4) metaleptic translation, operating a “contaminating semiotic effect” by way of the emergence of signs of a sign system in a different sign system (Martínez 2019: 15).

3.3 The differences between semiosic translation and semiotranslation

In regard to the differences between semiosic translation and semiotranslation, Martínez claimed that semiotranslation propounds final signification as a means to attain self-contentment through the overcoming of an alleged “lack” of cultural sophistication and rationality, whereas semiosic translation views the conjunction of translation and semiotics as a desire-driven process leading to self-overcoming in the Nietzschean sense (2015: 108–109). Notwithstanding, semiosic translation deviates greatly from Gorlée’s semiotranslation from the perspective of semiosis and hypothesis. Semiosic translation designates that translation is hypothesis not a fact; semiotranslation holds that translation is semiosis. Nevertheless, semiosic translation is consistent with semiotranslation in terms of its discipline properties, as both of them emphasize the translative process and translative activities by the application of semiotic theories and methodology, as well as focusing on semiosis in the translative process. However, since translation semiotics has a larger scope of reference than that of semiotranslation, semiosic translation and semiotranslation belong to different disciplines, i.e., translation semiotics is considered a branch of semiotics while semiotranslation is seen as a branch of translation studies. Semiosic translation is, thus, different from translation semiotics with respect to its nature and disciplinary characteristics.

4.1 Semiosis and semiosics

The term semiosis was introduced by Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) to describe a process that interprets signs as referring to their objects, as described in his theory of sign relations, or semiotics.

[B]y ‘semiosis’ I mean […] an action or influence which is, or involves, a cooperation of three subjects, such as a sign, its object, and its interpretant, this trirelative influence not being in any way resolvable into actions between pairs […] [M]y definition confers on anything that so acts the title of a ‘sign’. (CP 5.484)

Semiosis, or sign process, is any form of activity, conduct, or process that involves signs, including the production of meaning. A sign is anything that communicates a meaning that is not the sign itself to the interpreter of the sign. The meaning can be intentional, such as a word uttered with a specific meaning, or unintentional, such as a symptom being a sign of a particular medical condition. Signs can communicate through any of the senses, visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, or taste. Therefore, semiosis is a technical term and the noun pertaining to the process of meaning being made – through signs. So, semiosis is the subject or discipline of study, semiosics is a technical term for meaning generation.

Charles Peirce used the term semiosis to describe how multiple Interpretants can be implied and triggered off by a single Representamen and Object. One sign leads to another, which leads to another in a potentially endless chain of signification. This was what he termed “infinite semiosis,” a concept Umberto Eco (1991) later critiqued in The limits to interpretation.

Peirce’s semiosis, or “action of signs,” is an irreducibly triadic process, comprising a relation between a sign, its object, and its explicit or implicit interpretant (CP. 5.473). Peirce particularly focuses on the way that the interpretant is produced, and thus what is involved in the understanding, or goal-oriented interpretation, of a sign. Similarly, Morris defined semiosis as “a sign-process, that is, a process in which something is a sign to some organism” (Morris 1946: 353).

Therefore, semiosis may be regarded as a branch of semiotics, as semiotics is the study of sign processes, or “action of signs,” i.e., semiosis with reference to innate capacity that underlies the comprehension and production of signs. Thus, semiosis is an activity of the brain that controls the production and comprehension of signs, from simple physiological signals to highly complex symbols (Danesi 2004: 204). Since semiotics deals with the relations among sign, object, and interpretant, which is a dynamic process involving the trajectories of sign actions in infinite ways, semiosis, as the process of signs signifying, is closely related to semiotics as one of its parts. As nouns, the difference between semiosis and semiotics is that semiosis is any form of activity, action, or process that involves signs, including the production of meaning while semiotics is the study of signs and symbols, especially as means of language or communication.

Later, the American philosopher Morris revised Peirce’s definition of semiotics under the influence of Peirce’s semiotic conception. “Semiotic has for its goal a general theory of signs in all their forms and manifestations, whether in animals or men, whether normal or pathological, whether linguistic or nonlinguistic, whether personal or social” (Morris 1971[1964]: 401). In 1938, Morris regarded semiotics as “a science [that] makes use of special signs to state facts about signs; it is a language to talk about signs” on the foundation of exploring semiotic scientificity (Morris 1949 [1938]: 8), and he divided semiotics (subdivision of pure semiotics and descriptive semiotics) into the three branches of syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics from the perspective of linguistic semiotics. Morris then revised the definition of semiosis: “The process in which something functions as a sign may be called semiosis.” “Semiosis is accordingly a mediated-taking-account-of” (Morris 1949 [1938]: 3–4) Then, he further revised the definition as semiosis is the process of signs signifying, i.e., the process of an object being used to signify the sign of an organism (Morris 1946: 353). He argued:

[T]his process, in a tradition which goes back to the Greeks, has commonly been regarded as involving three or four factors: that which acts as a sign, that which the origin refers to, and that effect on some interpreter in virtue of which the thing in question is a sign to that interpreter. These three components in semiosis may be called, respectively, the sign vehicle, the designatum, and the interpretant; the interpreter may be included as a fourth factor. (Morris 1949 [1938]: 3)

Morris then divided semiosis into the three dimensions of syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics, defining them and interpreting them from the perspective of linguistics.

Pelc accepted the conceptions of Morris in the light of the definition of semiosis, the analysis of the three dimensions, and the four factors, but he still held reservations about them. Firstly, a sign interpreter may be an experiential organism, but also a living and breathing organism and an organ; secondly, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics in semiosis are properties of semiosis as well as attributes of semiotics. (Pelc 2000: 426–427). Therefore, Pelc distinguishes syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics in semiosis from syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics in semiotics.

Semiosic and semiosics are derived from the term “semiosis.” Semiosic is used as an adjective to signify semiosis, for example, signifying the signal referential activities in semiosis is called “semiosic activities.” Semiosics is the term coined by Pelc in his 2000 article titled “Semiosis and semiosics vs. semiotics,” signifying the sign activities in verbal semiosis from the three dimensions of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics:

Thus the syntactic_o relations of some word (W) are its syntactic_o properties, while the pragmatic_o relations are its pragmatic_o relations. The totality of semiosic properties or semiosic relations of word (W) may be designated the semiosics of this word. If I were to inquire about the semiosics of word W, then, in keeping with the above terminological convention, I would expect to be informed about its structure, about the syntactic structures it may correctly occur in, and about its meaning, what it designates and denotes, what it expresses, and about the kinds of reactions it generates. (Pelc 2000: 427)

Rationally, Pelc proposed semiosics on the foundation of language signs, specifically with reference to human utterances, which is a research system of sign properties and relations in the light of the three dimensions of syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics in the semiosis of signs. In terms of content focus, semiosics research may be classified as applied research of semiotic theories used to analyze syntax, semantics, and pragmatics in linguistics. In other words, the research adopted the linguistic semiotic route, but referred to signs in general as the subjects in semiotic research. Even if it belongs to semiotic research, it may be classified as research from the linguistic dimension of semiosis in semiotics, as an aspect of verbal signs in semiosis. Therefore, it may be taken as incomplete semiotic studies for not covering all the signifying activities (nonverbal signs in the tangible signs and intangible signs) except for human utterances.

Regarding the broad sense of translation of semiotic transformation, semiosis is involved in every step from thinking to writing and the thinking activities triggered by written words, from verbal signs to nonverbal signs and vice versa, from verbal signs to the comprehensive sign texts of verbal signs and nonverbal signs, from nonverbal signs to the comprehensive sign texts of verbal signs and nonverbal signs, etc., all of which are regarded as the transformative activities between tangible and intangible signs involving semiosis. In contrast, Pelc’s proposal of semiosics refers to just one aspect of verbal signs, which cannot be fully applied to every type of transformation between tangible and intangible signs. Therefore, on the foundation of Morris’s semiosis and Pelc’s semiosics, the research on translation or sign transformation can only be limited to the narrow sense of the linguistic perspective.

4.2 The differences between translation semiotics and semiosic translation

Translation semiotics and semiosic translation essentially belong to different fields of the discipline. Although Martínez denies that his theory of semiosic translation is grounded on Pelc and Morris, what he argues for the “translation proper” of intralingual, interlingual, and intersemiotic translation based on Jacobson’s trinocular taxonomy is substantially identical to the assertions and pointcuts of Pelc and Morris, whose ideas of semiosics and semiosis are grounded on linguistics, i.e. both of their theories of semiosics and semiosis are proposed on the fundamentals of syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics, thus triggering problems relating to unclear referential boundaries and overlapping logic in the ontology of semiosic translation. Jia critically points out that “Torres-Martínez’s redefinition of Jakobson’s triad is not only too loose, but logically problematic, since the boundary between intralingual and intersemiotic translation is not clearcut, and interlingual translation is almost too inclusive, even including intralingual and intersemiotic translation as its sub-categories” (Jia 2019b: 8). Therefore, Jia further suggested that: “Generally, judging by what Pelc (2000: 427) gives as the definition for the term “semiosics” (the totality of [a sign’s] semiosic [syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic] properties), semiosic translation should study the syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic properties of the signs participating in the translational activity in the broad sense, but Torres-Martínez’s definition is not such” (Jia 2019b: 7–8).

Essentially, “semiosic translation can be defined as an inclusive, all-encompassing project” (Martínez 2019: 14), although it is still defined from the linguistic dimension that Morris and Pelc adopted in their semiosis and semiosics, thus causing disorder in the inner references and generating the contradictions in logic that produce the indeterminacy and lack of clarity in the ideas. Martínez’s semiosic translation tends to be all-inclusive, so as to lay the foundation of the application of textual analysis in translation. Nonetheless, his translation idea is still limited in the sign activities triggered by the linguistic-centered semiotic transformation, which inevitably leads to conceptual reference and application errors. It deviates from the primary assertions of semiosis and semiosics.

Martínez’s semiosic translation excludes the dimensions of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic, and his assertion is confined to the linguistic category by means of verbal and nonverbal signs. Thereby, it is inevitable that the contradiction between internal logic and historical intertextuality arises if the language characters and their nonverbal signs are used as auxiliary means to prove the claims of semiosic translation. Martínez asserts that “translation does not take place ‘wherever semiosic processes occur’ (Ponzio 2000 [1999]: 5), semiotic transformation does!” (Martínez 2019: 15), which makes the mistake of understanding in the narrow sense the specific contents of “translation” and “transformation” from the perspective of semiotics.

In reality, translation in a broad sense can be any kind of activity of semiotic transformation for the purpose of conveying ideas, involving transformation from intangible signs as thought to written words, and the definition of translation in a broad sense defined by the predecessors of translation, including “understanding as translation”(Steiner 1975: 1; cf. Jia 2018: 267), “dialogue as translation” (García-Landa 1995: 388; cf. Jia 2018: 267), “rewriting as translation” (Lefevere 1992: 9; cf. Jia 2018: 267), etc. In addition, the classifications of semiosic translation made by Martínez (2019) are a development based on the 2015 classification of semiosic translation, which only includes “metaleptic translation,” “indexical translation,” and “translation as dynamic discontinuity.” Among the three types of semiosic translation, Martínez states that “a discontinuous quality (external, i.e., a form instantiated in the realm of Secondness) reveal[s] a flow of meaning captured by the Interpreter in the realm of Thirdness. This alludes to the role of languages’ external discontinuities such as semantics, pragmatics, and parsing as an important part of language learning” (Martínez 2015: 114). Martínez’s assertion of “translation as dynamic discontinuity” is inconsistent with the property of semiosis as an ad infinitum continuous and recursive process of interpretation from the perspective of logic and features. Thereby, semiosic translation is the co-habitation of semiosis and translation, referring to semiosis from the perspective of semiotics. It is in essence research on the translative process from the perspective of semiotics, belonging to the category of translation studies.

By comparison, translation semiotics is a branch of semiotics that aims to explore semiotic transformation and related problems in the translative process based on semiotic theories and the application of semiotic methodology (Jia 2016a: 96), which takes transformation between tangible and intangible signs as well as the related problems as its objects. In terms of signs and sign transformative activities, signs are classified as tangible and intangible signs, by which tangible signs include verbal and nonverbal signs, while intangible signs refer to the information-bearing sign processed in the human brain as thought. The latter are so named because they have no explicit or tangible physical forms.

The semiotic transformations embedded in translative activities can be classified according to such aspects as the transformation between verbal signs in the tangible class of signs, the transformation from verbal signs into nonverbal ones in the tangible class of signs, the transformation from verbal signs into the composition of “verbal and nonverbal signs” in the tangible class of signs, the transformation from nonverbal signs into verbal ones in tangible signs, the transformation from nonverbal signs into the composition of “verbal and nonverbal signs,” and vice versa, the transformation of tangible signs into intangible ones and various tangible signs respectively. As the development of computer technology is promoting the evolution of sign-bearing media, the semiosphere is also developing from a traditional unitary sphere of ethnic culture into a multimodal sphere composed of multiple media. Therefore, semiotic transformation has also developed from traditional intrasemiospheric and intersemiospheric transformation to suprasemiospheric transformation (Jia 2016c).