Semiotica 2020 (233):159-177 (2020)

Martin Švantner
Charles University, Prague
In this study I compare the work of two scholars who are important for contemporary research into the history of semiotics. The main goal of the study is to describe specific rhetorical/figurative forms and structures of persuasion between two epistemological positions that determine various possibilities in the historiography of semiotics. The main question is this: how do we understand two important metatheoretical forms of descriptions in the historiography of semiotics or the history of sign relations? The first perspective is semiology and its corollary, “structuralism,” as presented in Michel Foucault’s The Order of Things. This perspective prefers to consider history as a set of ruptures. The second position explores the possibility of the historical development of semiotic consciousness as presented in the works of John N. Deely. The main aim of this study lies in the exploration of these two different epistemological bases – divergent bases for developing specific understandings of interconnections that hold between between semiotics, semiosis and historical processes. A goal of this paper is to demonstrate the limits and advantages of these two paradigmatic positions. The positions in question are “meta-theoretical” in the following senses such that: the historical episteme is taken to be an a priori determinant of all sign-operations in a given era and is also the semiologic grid through which Foucault approaches every mode of scientific knowledge ; the quasi-Hegelian development of semiotic consciousness based on a conception of the sign considered as a triadic ontological relation. The latter is Deely’s guiding meta-principle, through which the history of semiotics can be articulated, examined and evaluated.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1515/sem-2017-0108
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 50,118
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

We Have Never Been Modern.Bruno Latour - 1993 - Harvard University Press.
Critique of Pure Reason.Immanuel Kant - 1991 - In Elizabeth Schmidt Radcliffe, Richard McCarty, Fritz Allhoff & Anand Vaidya (eds.), Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. Blackwell. pp. 449-451.
Peirce's Theory of Signs.T. L. Short - 2007 - Cambridge University Press.

View all 43 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

John Deely’s Influence on Prague Semiotics.Martin Švantner & Michal Karľa - 2018 - American Journal of Semiotics 34 (1):241-247.
Analogy and the Semiotic Animal.Christopher S. Morrissey - 2016 - American Journal of Semiotics 32 (1-4):49-78.
Semiotics of Cultural History.Peeter Torop - 2017 - Sign Systems Studies 45 (3/4):317-334.
Basics of Semiotics.James Bernard Murphy - 1991 - Review of Metaphysics 44 (4):836-837.
With John Deely in Semio-Philosophical Research.Susan Petrilli & Augusto Ponzio - 2018 - American Journal of Semiotics 34 (1):163-187.
Deely’s Extension of Peirce’s Thirdness.Donna E. West - 2018 - American Journal of Semiotics 34 (1):39-64.
Theses on Semiology and Semiotics.John Deely - 2010 - American Journal of Semiotics 26 (1/4):17 - 25.
Theses on Semiology and Semiotics.John Deely - 2010 - American Journal of Semiotics 26 (1/4):17-25.


Added to PP index

Total views
5 ( #1,091,909 of 2,324,561 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #177,812 of 2,324,561 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes