Talk:Semiotics

• 2012
• 2013
• 2014
• 2015
• 2016
• 2018
• 2019
• 2020
• 2022
• 2023

Semiotics and communication

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)

Leibniz

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)

Changes to the article

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)

Removal of photo of sink with wrongly colour coded taps

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.

Not hot and cold water even if the blue and red colours seem to indicate it

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:

Color-coding hot- and cold-water faucets (taps) is common in many cultures but, as this example shows, the coding may be rendered meaningless because of context. The two faucets probably were sold as a coded set, but the code is unusable (and ignored), as there is a single water supply.

(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)

Computational semiotics

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)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Semiotics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominators: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) and Remsense (talk · contribs) 16:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Freedom4U (talk · contribs) 00:00, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take up this GA review in the next few days. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 00:00, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Freedom4U and thanks for reviewing this nomination! Phlsph7 (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Article is stable, images are appropriate and tagged (although I miss the photo of the sinks that used to be in the article), no copyvio in spot check, and all material has inline citations.

Hey Freedom4U, just checking whether you have more comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry about the wait, I'll finish the review tomorrow. The battery in my laptop where I've downloaded all the books died so I've been waiting for a replacement. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 18:30, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about the battery, that can be frustrating. Regarding the spotchecks, I can't quote full pages of text here, but I should be able to add shorter quotes below to cover at least the main points of each passage if your laptop is still not working. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey Freedom4U, just following up regarding additional comments you might have. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey Freedom4U, it has been one month now since the review started. How should we proceed? Phlsph7 (talk) 07:25, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I'm really sorry about the delay, I'll try to get the rest done tonight. My laptop is still out of order, so I'm borrowing a friend's computer. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 15:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Phlsph7 Sorry again about the delay in getting this done. I'm ready to pass this awaiting source 85. Cheers ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 16:05, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I adjusted the caption and added a new source. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks for bearing with me ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 17:41, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Spot check

• 9 - Apart from its interdisciplinary applications, pure semiotics... This sentence constructs a distinction between interdisciplinary and pure semiotics, but the distinctions used by Nöth (1990) are Morris's pure/descriptive/applied semiotics or Moles's theoretical/applied semiotics. In addition, Nöth doesn't accept "pure semiotics" as an uncontested term, but the article is using it uncritically. I'm also curious why Morris isn't attributed here—while I think the choice can definitely be justified, both sources choose to attribute the divisions as his invention.

  The point of this sentence is primarily to mention the threefold distinction between syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics. I dropped the introductory phrase to avoid implying an additional distinction. The section "Core branches" already mentions Morris as the source. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  Changes look good and the Morris attribution is nitpicky anyways. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 14:55, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• 21 (and 22 since 21 is a footnote) - Both Danesi and Nöth decide to attribute the sense and reference to Frege, which I think the article should follow, especially since it puts the terms connotation/denotation and intension/extension terms in context as concepts that are theoretically separate. Likewise, This distinction is also known by the terms connotation and denotation as well as intension and extension., as it is phrased, is an oversimplification that loses precision, since Nöth writes that to compare them (or treat them as synonymous) is to "neglect many theoretical differences".

  The German terms for the distinction between sense and reference were introduced by Frege, but the distinction is very common today and not limited to discussions of Frege's philosophy. For example, Nöth explains first the distinction itself In this chapter, the term meaning will be used in a very broad sense, covering both of the two more specific dimensions of sense (or content) and reference (object or denotatum). and mentions Frege's role only on a later page. I added a passage to the footnote to explain Frege's role. Nöth lists the other terms as synonyms in his table. He says that the table is a simplification because it ignores relational aspect of meaning, not because the terms do not align with each other. I add a slight reformulation to not imply that everyone treats them as exact synonyms. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  Looks better now. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 14:58, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• 23 - Verified, although I would suggest removing or extensional since both Davis and Nöth give referential as the general category that include extensional/intensional theories as subcategories.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• 34 - Verified.
• 40 - (1) For Saussure, the sign is a relation that connects signifier and signified, functioning as a bridge from a sensory form to a concept. The sources do not say this. The sign for Saussure is the unified whole or unity of signifier and signified (i.e. that signifier and signified are constiuent parts of a sign), not the relation between them. As stated by Chandler, the relation between them is given a separate name, signification. (2) As stated by Chandler and Nöth, Saussure excludes reference as a feature of signs. ...does not directly concern the external objects to which signs refer should be replaced with something along the lines of ...does not concern external objects (which is basically Nöth's construction). (3) Focusing on language as a general model of signs... Not sure this phrasing best represents the references. Saussure was a linguist focused on linguistic signs, but as Nöth writes, the application of his sign model on nonlinguistic signs happened after him.

  (1) From Iskanderova 2024 p. 13: The sign, then, serves as the bridge that unites the signifier and the signified into a cohesive and meaningful unit, as depicted in Fig. 3.2. Stated differently, the sign is the relationship between the concept and the representation of that concept. That something is a relation does not mean that it is not a unified whole.

  (2) Slightly reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  (3) From Nöth 1990 quoting Saussure: signs that are wholly arbitrary realize better than the others the ideal of the semiological process, that is why language, the most complex and universal of all systems of expression, is also the most characteristic; in this sense linguistics can become the master­pattern [patron général] for all branches of semiology although language is only one particular semiological system.

  Thanks for the clarification ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 15:09, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• 46 - I'll come back to this, can you clarify what pages were cited in Nöth? I assume its not the entire range between page 42 and page 434.

  It's a typo that is supposed to be 42–44. I fixed it. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification. The passage looks good. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 15:06, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• 52 - Verified.
• 68 - The second sentence is verified, although the first sentence needs a reference.

  It is discussed at the beginning of the chapter. I added the page numbers. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  Source verified ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 15:07, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• 85 - This citation is insufficient as it can't verify the claim without being synthesis.

  I think it covers the main phrase about models of communication. I added an additional source to be more explicit about the part on encoding and decoding. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  I still don't think often including is explicitly substantiated in the references. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 15:38, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  I focused the caption on code models of communication of communication instead to avoid the problem. Reboul 2017 code models of communication ... see communication as a form of information transfer in which the sender encodes the message ... the recipient ... will then decode it; from Chandler & Munday 2011: encoding–decoding model ... Any *model representing communication as a process of encoding and decoding *messages. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• 86 - Verified.
• 99 - Both uses verified.
• 100 - While traditional semiotics focuses on human communication and culture... Brier differentiates between Peircian semiotics that considers nature at large and Saussurian semiotics that doesn't. That biosemiotics integrates the findings of biology and semiotics is verifiable, but the sources cited here don't seem to contrast a "traditional semiotics" against a biosemiotics.

  I added a source so this point is covered more explicitly: From Winner 1989: Thus human agents in society are always the focus of the semiotic process ... Semiotics is thus by its nature an integrative and interdisciplinary field pertaining to all aspects of human communication ... Semiotics clearly encompasses the study of all human communicative mechanisms I adjusted the text to better reflected this source. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  Looks good. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 15:12, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• 109 - Verified.
• 136 - Verified.
• 137 - Verified.
• 140 - Verified. I think this sentence would be better off not including ...including their practical functions, historical heritage, and social significance because it derives from one view that was presented among several others. Perhaps this space could be better used describing the other sections in Nöth's chapter on architecture.

  Reformulated to also mention other aspects. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  Reads better. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 15:17, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• 150 - Verified.
• 170 - Verified.
• 180 - Verified. Maybe not the best source, but that's outside the scope of GA.
• 193 - The source doesn't discuss whether Wolff focus[ed] on how knowledge depends on sign activity. Otherwise verified.

  I guess it depends on how we interpret the sentence According to Wolff (§§ 292 and 952), "a sign is that entity from which the present, the future, or the past existence of another entity can be recognized." To avoid this difficulty, I focused the discussion of Wolff on the different types of natural signs instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  New construction works. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 15:45, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• 203 - Verified.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Beta Beta Beta (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that semioticians examine the meanings of all kinds of signs, including words, footprints, disease symptoms, and emojis?

• Source: Danesi, Marcel (2020). The Quest for Meaning: A Guide to Semiotic Theory and Practice (2nd ed.). University of Toronto Press. pp. x, 144. ISBN 978-1-4875-0485-4.; Sebeok, Thomas A. (2001) [1994]. Signs: An Introduction to Semiotics (2nd ed.). University of Toronto Press. pp. 53–54. ISBN 0-8020-3634-1.

• • ALT1: ... that semioticians interpret the waggle dance of honey bees as a text? Source: Danesi, Marcel (2020). The Quest for Meaning: A Guide to Semiotic Theory and Practice (2nd ed.). University of Toronto Press. pp. 96–98. ISBN 978-1-4875-0485-4.
  • ALT2: ... that semiotics studies the meaning of both linguistic and non-linguistic signs? Source: Chandler, Daniel (2022) [1994]. Semiotics: The Basics (4th ed.). Routledge. p. 37. ISBN 978-1-00-056294-1.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Berta Bock

Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 39 past nominations.

Phlsph7 (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2026 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I did know that! But then, Saussure and Kristeva were my bread and butter back in the day. Article is new enough. Hook facts are cited. No close paraphrasing found; the tool only gives a backwards copy. Should be good to go!  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

COI Edit Request

I am Paul Ernest; I have published in this area; proposing text for independent review.

Hello Rnest2002 and thanks for the suggestion. Semiotics is a very broad topic and the purpose of this article is to provide a concise overview of the most important points. The detailed discussion of different theories about sign use in mathematics you suggested is a minor topic and too specific for this overview article, see WP:PROPORTION. Instead, I added a sentence to the section "Others" to mention the topic in a way that is better suited to this type of overview. Maybe there is a child article on a more narrow subject where this topic could be discussed in more detail. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Rnest2002 for your contribution and letting us know of your potential COI. I agree with Phlsph7, this content is too specialized for the overall article on semiotics. But it looks like good material for a section in the article Language of mathematics or perhaps a short standalone article on Semiotics of mathematics. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:42, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Mathematics

Mathematics is a domain in which sign use is particularly consequential, since its objects are accessible only through the notations, diagrams, and inscriptions that express them. Semiotic inquiry into mathematics developed along two partly independent lines: a philosophical and cultural analysis of mathematical writing, and a research programme within mathematics education.

The philosophical line was initiated by Brian Rotman, who analysed mathematics as a sign system rather than as a description of an independent realm. Rotman distinguishes agencies within the mathematical subject, notably the Person, who reflects on mathematics from outside it in what he calls the metaCode, and the Mathematician, who interprets and manipulates signs within the Code; on this account a proof is a thought experiment structured as an address between these agencies rather than a report of contact with abstract objects. He applied the approach to the semiotics of zero and to the relations between mathematics, writing, and the body. Zero has remained a focus of such analysis, examined as a sign in its syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic dimensions.

Within mathematics education, several frameworks emerged. Raymond Duval's theory of registers of semiotic representation holds that mathematical processing always substitutes one semiotic representation for another, and distinguishes treatments, which stay within a register, from conversions, which move between registers. Michael Otte developed a Peircean epistemology of mathematics, while Maria Bartolini Bussi and Maria Alessandra Mariotti analysed artefacts as tools of semiotic mediation after Vygotsky. Luis Radford treats learning as objectification, the process by which cultural objects become apparent to learners through spoken, written, and gestural signs, and Ferdinando Arzarello's notion of a semiotic bundle extends the analysis to gestures and other embodied signs. The onto-semiotic approach of Juan Godino, Vicenc Font and colleagues analyses mathematical objects as emerging from institutional practices.

Social semiotic approaches derived from Michael Halliday have been applied to mathematical writing, treating it as a discourse that constructs both a view of mathematics and the identities of its writers and readers. Kay O'Halloran develops this into an account of mathematics as a multisemiotic discourse, in which language, symbolism, and visual images each have their own grammar and combine through processes of intersemiosis. Paul Ernest proposed a theory of semiotic systems intended to cover both school and research mathematics. A semiotic system comprises three components: a set of signs, a set of rules for sign use and production, and an underlying meaning structure. The rules divide, after Charles W. Morris, into syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic types, while the meaning structure may itself be a previously constructed semiotic system, a case exemplifying Peirce's unlimited semiosis. Applying Halliday's ideational, interpersonal, and textual metafunctions to mathematical text, Ernest argues that mathematical signs refer neither to a Platonic realm nor to the material world but to other mathematical signs, constituting a socially constructed semiotic space. He models the learning of signs as a cycle of appropriation, transformation, publication, and conventionalisation spanning Vygotsky's interpsychological and intrapsychological planes, and has analysed mathematical signs in terms of their operativity and performativity.

The field was consolidated through a special issue of Educational Studies in Mathematics, subsequent edited collections, and a topical survey prepared for the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education.

Sources entries to add to the article's existing alphabetical "Sources" list.

References

• Arzarello, Ferdinando (2006). "Semiosis as a multimodal process". Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa. 9 (Número Especial): 267–299.

• Bartolini Bussi, Maria G.; Mariotti, Maria Alessandra (2008). "Semiotic mediation in the mathematics classroom: Artefacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective". In English, Lyn (ed.). Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 746–783.

• Duval, Raymond (2006). "A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics". Educational Studies in Mathematics. 61 (1–2): 103–131. doi:10.1007/s10649-006-0400-z.

• Ernest, Paul (2006). "A semiotic perspective of mathematical activity: The case of number". Educational Studies in Mathematics. 61 (1–2): 67–101. doi:10.1007/s10649-006-6423-7.

• Ernest, Paul (2008). "Towards a semiotics of mathematical text". For the Learning of Mathematics (Published in three parts). 28 (1–3): 2–8, 39–47, 42–49.

• Ernest, Paul (2023). "Semiotics of mathematics: The operativity and performativity of mathematical signs". In Biglari, Amir (ed.). Open Semiotics. Volume 1: Epistemological and Conceptual Foundations. Du Sens. Paris: Éditions L'Harmattan. pp. 469–488. ISBN 978-2-14-030525-2.

• Ernest, Paul (2024). "Nought Matters: The History and Philosophy of Zero". In Gobets, Peter; Kuhn, Robert Lawrence (eds.). The Origin and Significance of Zero: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Value Inquiry Book Series. Vol. 395. Leiden: Brill. pp. 306–342. ISBN 978-90-04-69155-1.

• Font, Vicenç; Godino, Juan D.; D'Amore, Bruno (2007). "An onto-semiotic approach to representations in mathematics education". For the Learning of Mathematics. 27 (2): 1–14.

• Morgan, Candia (1998). Writing Mathematically: The Discourse of 'Investigation'. London: Falmer Press. ISBN 978-0-7507-0810-4.

• O'Halloran, Kay L. (2005). Mathematical Discourse: Language, Symbolism and Visual Images. London: Continuum. ISBN 978-0-8264-6857-4.

• Otte, Michael (2006). "Mathematical epistemology from a Peircean semiotic point of view". Educational Studies in Mathematics. 61 (1–2): 11–38. doi:10.1007/s10649-006-6456-y.

• Presmeg, Norma; Radford, Luis; Roth, Wolff-Michael; Kadunz, Gert (2016). Semiotics in Mathematics Education. ICME-13 Topical Surveys. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-31370-2. ISBN 978-3-319-31369-6.

• Radford, Luis (2002). "The seen, the spoken and the written: A semiotic approach to the problem of objectification of mathematical knowledge". For the Learning of Mathematics. 22 (2): 14–23.

• Radford, Luis; Schubring, Gert; Seeger, Falk, eds. (2008). Semiotics in Mathematics Education: Epistemology, History, Classroom, and Culture. Semiotic Perspectives in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics. Vol. 1. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. ISBN 978-90-8790-595-8.

• Rotman, Brian (1988). "Toward a semiotics of mathematics". Semiotica. 72 (1–2): 1–35. doi:10.1515/semi.1988.72.1-2.1.

• Rotman, Brian (1993a). Ad Infinitum... The Ghost in Turing's Machine: Taking God Out of Mathematics and Putting the Body Back In. An Essay in Corporeal Semiotics. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-2128-8.

• Rotman, Brian (1993b). Signifying Nothing: The Semiotics of Zero. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-2129-5.

• Rotman, Brian (2000). Mathematics as Sign: Writing, Imagining, Counting. Writing Science. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-3684-8.

• Rotman, Brian (2024). "On the Semiotics of Zero". In Gobets, Peter; Kuhn, Robert Lawrence (eds.). The Origin and Significance of Zero: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Value Inquiry Book Series. Vol. 395. Leiden: Brill. pp. 292–305. ISBN 978-90-04-69155-1.

• Sáenz-Ludlow, Adalira; Kadunz, Gert, eds. (2016). Semiotics as a Tool for Learning Mathematics: How to Describe the Construction, Visualisation, and Communication of Mathematics Concepts. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

• Sáenz-Ludlow, Adalira; Presmeg, Norma, eds. (2006). "Semiotic perspectives in mathematics education: A PME Special Issue". Educational Studies in Mathematics. 61 (1–2). doi:10.1007/s10649-005-9001-5.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnest2002 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Peer review

Semiotics

I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I would be interested to learn what changes are required to fulfill the featured article criteria, but I'm also open to more casual improvement ideas.

Thanks, Phlsph7 (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

FAC PR sidebar

@Phlsph7: I have added this article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. Z1720 (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

BQ

Thanks for another extensive core article.

Hi BorgQueen, I appreciate you reviewing this article as well! Phlsph7 (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Lead: Semioticians typically adjust their research approach to their specific domain without a single methodology adopted by all subfields. — This sentence feels a little clunky. I'd suggest: As semiotics spans many subfields, semioticians typically adapt their research methods to the domain under study rather than following a single shared methodology. … or more concisely: Because semiotics spans many disciplines, no single methodology is used across all of its subfields. BorgQueen (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  I implemented the concise version. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Definitions and related fields: Semiotics has wide-reaching applications because of the pervasive nature of signs, affecting how individuals experience phenomena, […] — perhaps phenomena should be linked? BorgQueen (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Signs: For example, the reference of the term morning star is the planet Venus. — Actually, (take a look at morning star) it can mean other things as well. How about… adding "most commonly" or something similar? BorgQueen (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  Done. Initially, I wanted to solve the problem by talking about the "astronomical term morning star", but then I saw that the term is ambiguous even in astronomy. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Lede: Its main branches are syntactics, which addresses formal relations between signs — I am aware that "formal relations" is standard terminology within semiotics, but I think many lay readers won't immediately understand what formal means in this context (probably interpreting it as official or ceremonial). How about: […] syntactics, which addresses how signs are organized and combined or […] which addresses the arrangement of signs in relation to one another BorgQueen (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Done. I agree, that makes it more accessible. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Lede: Semioticians study how signs combine to form larger expressions, called texts. — IMO this sentence feels a little awkward. The issue isn't accuracy, but that it introduces "texts" in a way that may confuse lay readers. Outside semiotics, most people think a text means written words, while in semiotics it means any meaningful sign complex (a film, an advertisement, a mating ritual dance, a painting, etc), right? How about: Semioticians study how signs combine to form larger units of meaning, called texts. BorgQueen (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Because, they might wonder: larger expressions of what? BorgQueen (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Implemented. I hope that it's clear from the context that it is a technical term. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• History: Semiotic thought is also present in Buddhist philosophy. The Mahayana-sutra-alamkara-karika, a text from the 4th century CE, explored the spiritual role of semiosis, suggesting that the soteriological goal is to transform cognition in such a way that semiotic activity ceases. — "soteriological" will need a gloss per MOS:NOFORCELINK—but then I am not so sure if the lay reader would understand this sentence even with the help of a gloss. What do you mean by "[…] semiotic activity ceases" in this context? Is it perhaps like… nirvana? BorgQueen (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe you could call it "Nirvana for semioticians". One interpretation in the text calls it an "entrance to nirvana", but another seems to suggest that it is not yet nirvana. I reformulated the passage to make it more accessible, but it may still be somewhat challenging. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:24, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Looks much better now. BorgQueen (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• History: In ancient China, Mohism […] argued that public, intersubjective standards ground meaning. — I honestly have no idea what that could possibly mean. BorgQueen (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  I reformulated it. The point is that social conventions determine how to use signs correctly. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Phlsph7 better now, but: They suggest that the sign-activity in ordinary experience misconceives reality and that one can achieve a signless awareness that avoids this problem. […] understood sign use as the practical skill of drawing distinctions and argued the standards of correct sign use depend on shared social conventions. — you are using both past tense and present tense describing historical schools of thought in the same paragraph. Please pick one. BorgQueen (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Fixed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• History: […] investigated medical signs as indications of underlying diseases, establishing "semeiosis" or symptomatology […] — why does semeiosis have quotation marks? If that’s because it’s a foreign word, it needs to be italicized instead, per MOS:FOREIGN. BorgQueen (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Signs: Similarly, they can refer to many types of entities, including physical objects, events, or places, psychological feelings, and abstract ideas. — "Similarly" doesn’t add anything. BorgQueen (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Signs: They help people […] communicate ideas, and understand the world. — I feel "ideas" might be redundant here. What else would they communicate? BorgQueen (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  You are correct, but it fits the flow of the sentence better since each item in the list has the form "verb-object", continuing the parallel structure. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Signs: Semiosis is the capacity or activity of comprehending and producing signs. — Is "capacity" a correct term to use here? Capacity simply means the ability (or potential) to do it. If semiosis is the capacity, then every organism capable of using signs is engaged in semiosis even when it isn't interpreting or producing signs. BorgQueen (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  That what's our sources say, e.g. Danesi 2000. The term is more commonly used for an activity, so I put that meaning first. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Structural relations between signs: The signs in a sign system are connected through several structural relations, like the contrast between syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations. — "like" is a little informal for an encyclopedia, and "contrast between syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations" is a little odd because those are themselves types of relation. I'd suggest: The signs in a sign system are connected through several types of structural relation, including syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations. BorgQueen (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Structural relations between signs: Some sign systems use non-linear arrangements, such as traffic signs combining the shape of a sign with the symbol it shows. — Perhaps non-linear is not the most precise term here…? A traffic sign isn't necessarily a non-linear arrangement in the same sense that a spatially organized diagram is. Rather, different sign elements are combined simultaneously or spatially, rather than sequentially. How about: Some sign systems combine sign elements spatially rather than sequentially, such as traffic signs that combine a particular shape with a symbol. … or something along those lines. BorgQueen (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  I went with "non-sequential arrangements". Phlsph7 (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Definitions and related fields: Semiotic inquiry overlaps in various ways with linguistics and communication theory. — "in various ways" is too vague and can probably be safely removed, as the following sentences explain the overlap. BorgQueen (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  It's an introductory sentence since the paragraph discusses both linguistics and communication theory. If we removed it, we would have to add another sentence in the middle of the paragraph explaining why communication theory is discussed. It could be done but I don't think it makes much difference overall. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Phlsph7 oh, I meant the "in various ways" part, not the whole sentence. BorgQueen (talk) 09:50, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  Ah right, that makes sense. I removed it. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Proposing a new field of inquiry of signs, John Locke suggested the Greek term as its name. — do we have when? While people will get some rough idea when/if they click John Locke, MOS:NOFORCELINK. BorgQueen (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  I added a date. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Definitions and related fields section has: Semiotics has wide-reaching applications […] affecting how individuals experience phenomena, communicate ideas, and interact with the world and the very next section (Signs) says: They help people recognize patterns, predict outcomes, make plans, communicate ideas, and understand the world. — somewhat repetitive, and I am not necessarily saying the repetition is a problem, so long as it is unavoidable. Is it? BorgQueen (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  I reformulated it a little to minimize the reptition. The two passages serve different roles: the first one aims to illustrate that semiotics has many applications, while the second is about the nature of signs. In principle, the first one could be removed, but that might leave readers wondering why, or in what sense, semiotics has many applications. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Signs: For example, the word cat is a sign that stands for a small domesticated carnivorous mammal. — Is a cat always domesticated? Feral cats are still cats. BorgQueen (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think the term cat has different meanings, with the narrow sense limited to domesticated felines. I removed the term since it is not essential for our purposes. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Just made this rephrase. Please check and let me know if you object to it, in case I was missing something. BorgQueen (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  Looks good. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• As for File:Branches of semiotics.svg, I'm not sure if this image is helpful. The article text already explains that semiotics is divided into three branches and those are syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics. The image doesn't add anything, and certainly doesn't illustrate any ideas/relationships that are difficult to convey in prose. BorgQueen (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  It's not essential, but it helps illustrate the point and we currently don't have another image for this section. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• For example, semioticians study naturally occurring biological signs, such as disease symptoms, and signs based on inanimate relations, such as smoke as a sign of fire. — Is "naturally occurring" necessary? Artificially induced biological signs can still be studied semiotically. BorgQueen (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  You are correct in principle, but I think the expression helps illustrate how semiotics may differ from communication theory. Since it is just given as an example, we are not implying that artificially induced biological signs are excluded. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Models: He understands both signifier and signified as psychological elements that exist in the mind. — Whose mind? Saussure is talking about the mind of the language user, yes? BorgQueen (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I added the corresponding expression. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Models: File:Saussure's dyadic model of signs.svg has the alt text saying Diagram of a circle with the words "signified" and "signifier" inside — the diagram actually shows the two terms inside separate areas of the circle, so you could be more specific, like: Diagram of a circle divided into two parts labeled "signified" and "signifier". Also, the two arrows—what do they symbolize? BorgQueen (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  I changed the alt text and I added a short explanation of the arrows. Our source doesn't say more except that they represent the interaction. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• History: As a forerunner of semiotics in the medieval period, Augustine (354–430) drew on Stoic, Epicurean, and Christian ideas to develop one of the first systematic theories of signs. — Augustine belongs to late antiquity, not the medieval period… this phrasing reads as placing him in the medieval period. BorgQueen (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  The term "forerunner" was supposed to take care of that. I replaced it with "late-antique precursor" to make it more explicit and avoid misleading readers. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

GuineaPigC77

Greetings! This is a topic I don't know, but the structure of the article makes it accessible and learnable. Things are clearly explained with good examples and images.

Hi GuineaPigC77, it's been a while. Nice to have you back and thanks for the comments! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Lead paragraph 2: "which stands for a carnivorous mammal" -> "which stands for the carnivorous mammal" ?

  I think both can work. I changed it to "a kind of carnivorous mammal" to clarify. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Phlsph7 yes, grammar-wise both are correct. But I guess we can avoid unnecessary arguments with the clarified wording. BorgQueen (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  It's not much difference either way. I restored the original formulation since it is more concise. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Onomatopoeia is not mentioned - could this be potentially relevant for Types and sign relations?

  Good idea. I added a footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for another amazing article. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 01:24, 6 August 2026 (UTC)