Talk:Semiotics

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 9 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Allysonstarr (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Allysonstarr (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

A recent modification mentioned an assertion as "bullshit". I removed that (which seemed somewhat exaggerated) and tried to express the lead in simpler terms, but there obviously is a problem in that semiotics, in these firts paragraphs, appears described as a matter of communication, which it may or may not be. More should be done to clarify that. I may try to do something in the coming days, but everybody is welcome ... — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The page about Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz remarks that his attention to symbols and notation made his work a precursor to semiotics. But his name does not appear in this page. Van.snyder (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Remsense and I are thinking about implementing changes to this article with the hope of moving it in the direction of GA status. Large parts of the current article lack references. There are also the maintenance tags 13x citation needed, 1x Only primary sources, and 1x permanent dead link. At some points, the article is incoherent. For example, the discussion in the subsubsection "Peirce's list of categories" does not state what those categories are but jumps instead to the topics of Umwelt and animals without clarifying the relation.

The article has an odd structure in some places. Individual theorists are first discussed in the history section and then again in the section "Notable semioticians" with a lot of overlap and without a principle of what goes where. I think it would be better to have a unified history section that covers all notable semioticians in a concise manner. The article would also benefit from new sections dedicated to core topics of semiotics as a whole, such as a section on the nature, types, and models of signs. Another section could be added for sign systems and their underlying structures (like paradigmatic and syntagmatic axes), codes, and texts. Some of these points are currently spread around the discussion of individual theorists while others are not mentioned at all.

The sections "Formulations and subfields" and "Current applications" could be reorganized to have one section focusing on the core branches (syntactics, semantics, pragmatics) and another on the applications in particular fields, such as biology, anthropology, and literature. Since this is an article and not a list, it would be better to explain the topics in prose rather than lengthy lists. Another improvement could be having sections dedicated to the definition and methods of semiotics.

There are more things to consider, but they can be addressed later since the ones mentioned so far will already involve a lot of work to implement. We were hoping to get some feedback on these ideas and possibly other suggestions. For a more detailed discussion, see User_talk:Phlsph7#Semiotics. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Why has this photo been removed from this article? I am not able to find out when this was done. I have always used that photo to try to illustrate and make people get some idea of what this "semiotics" is about.

Øyvind Teig (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Øyvind Teig and thanks for your comment. The association of blue with cold water and red with hot water is a symbolic or conventional relation. Symbols are discussed in the subsection "Types and sign relations", with an image related to language since this is the most influential symbol system. In principle, we could also use an image on the red-hot & blue-cold symbolism, possibly to accompany the paragraph on non-verbal communication. However, the image you suggest doesn't seem to be ideal to visualize this point since the faucets are very small and both are apparently connected to the same pipe, leaving the reader more confused than enlightened. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Being connected to the same pipe is the point: The colors seem to indicate some difference between the faucets, but that's misleading. But I agree that the image isn't great. The faucets are small, and we'd have to explain what idea the photo is supposed to illustrate. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I also agree, but wouldn't a text similar to mine suffice? The point is that once a reader discovers the problem of the motive, he'll remember it, and immediately attach that strange wisdom as something like "what was it, faucet colour codes was it, semiotics was it!" Being so strict on the means here maybe we do throw the baby out with the bathwater's article's purpose :-) Øyvind Teig (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion. Several semiotic questions could be exemplified by the image: The colors on the faucets were intended as signs when they were produced, but probably not when they were installed. Users may still interpret them as signs but may be surprised when the water doesn't have the expected temperature. So yes, the image might be useful. Or maybe not, because it would require too much explanatory text. And the faucets are pretty small – I think the image should be cropped to focus on the relevant parts (faucets and pipe). — Chrisahn (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter, but the image was removed in this rewrite of the article (found via WikiBlame). — Chrisahn (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, since it's actually you @Phlsph7 who removed it on that rewrite, maybe you should be the one to consider undoing this photo. I was happy with it as it was. And I miss it! I was also happy with the explanation it had. Some time a photo speaks for itself, which this one does, in the context. But the rather long explanation doesn't in my opinion make the photo or the point unpresentable. Here is the part that was removed:

(I have not studied the rest of that rewrite, which seemed substantial and probably on time.) Closing now - Øyvind Teig (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Why do you want to present a counterexample? If we want to explain colors as a semiotic code, wouldn't it be better to present a positive example? For any example or counterexample, the image should be as straightforward as possible. The need to zoom in to see the color of the faucets and the difficulty of visually following pipes along several turns make the image not particularly accessible. We also have to be careful about including personal speculations in caption, like the claim that "The two faucets probably were sold as a coded set". Phlsph7 (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the faucet selling info is not necessary and that the accompanying text should be to the point. Again, in my opinion counterexamples often are good pedagogical tools. I think that some times they unexpectedly open my eyes, which makes me remember better and then it helps the understanding. Øyvind Teig (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

A section on Computational and algebraic semiotics would be good.Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

There is already a paragraph discussing the relation between semiotics and computation. I added a sentence there to mention the term. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I had seen that but considered it somewhat telegraphic. Interesting issues such as the use of morphisms between signs in systems are not discussed here or on the other page, see as an example. The formal relationship between signs is of course fascinating. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)