Home Rethinking semiotics: Toward a theory of intentional sign
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Rethinking semiotics: Toward a theory of intentional sign

  • Yiqiang Jin EMAIL logo and Liqin Cao
Published/Copyright: March 26, 2016

Abstract

Sign involves a relation between two correlatives established essentially by an act of mental associating. An adequate theory of sign should regard sign as a process based on such an act. A theory of intentional sign thus formed may serve as an example of the approach to such a theory. Every intentional sign process involves five basic factors and multiple stages, whose variation results in various types of processes. Processes of the same sign-vehicle form an autonomous system covering most basic topics of semiotics. Process systems of different sign-vehicles are interconnected via relation between the sign-vehicles, forming a system of systems generally called “sign system.” This theory may be further expanded into a fuller framework.

References

Aristotle. 2006. Categories, on interpretation, and on sophistical refutations, E. M. Edghill & W. A. Pickard-Cambridge (trans.). Stilwell: Digireads.com.Search in Google Scholar

Augustine. 2009. On Christian doctrine, D. W. Robertson Jr. (trans.). New York: Dover.Search in Google Scholar

Danesi, Marcel. 2004. Messages, signs, and meanings: A basic textbook in semiotics and communication theory, 3rd edn. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.Search in Google Scholar

Eco, Umberto. 1979. A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Eco, Umberto. 1984. Semiotics and the philosophy of language. London: Macmillan Press.10.1007/978-1-349-17338-9Search in Google Scholar

Empiricus, Sextus. 2005. Against the logicians, Richard Bett (trans. & ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Holmes, James S. 1972. The name and nature of translation studies. In James S. Holmes (ed.), Translated! Papers on literary translation and translation studies, 67–80. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Search in Google Scholar

Husserl, Edmund. 2001 [1970]. Logical investigations, vol. 1, J. N. Findlay (trans.). London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Morris, Charles. 1946. Signs, language, and behavior. New York: Prentice-Hall.10.1037/14607-000Search in Google Scholar

Morris, Charles. 1964. Signification and significance. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Ogden, C. K. & I. A. Richards. 1923. The meaning of meaning. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Search in Google Scholar

Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1966. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce, 8 vols., C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. W. Burks (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Reference to Peirce’s papers will be designated CP followed by volume and paragraph number.]Search in Google Scholar

Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1998. Essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings, vol. 2 (1893–1913), Peirce Edition Project (eds.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [Reference to vol. 2 of Essential Peirce will be designated EP 2.]Search in Google Scholar

Saussure, F. D. 2001. Course in general linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Search in Google Scholar

Sebeok, Thomas A. 2001. Signs: An introduction to semiotics, 2nd edn. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2016-3-26
Published in Print: 2016-5-1

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton

Downloaded on 29.10.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/sem-2016-0065/html
Scroll to top button