What is the main challenge for contemporary semiotics?

Acquiring a comprehensive understanding, if not intellectual mastery, of the various aspects of language and meaning is the challenge.

Semiotics is a scientific field that covers the signification process of humankind. For many years, semiotics, namely semiology, has been conducted a wide range of research by scholars in the late 19th and early 20th century. After those years, in the science world, semiotics completed the institutionalization of itself in the 1960s-1970.



Moreover, the aim of many researches which is frequently defined as a structuralist supposed a formalization of the conceptual tool used by semioticians. For example, Juri Lotman says that the abilities of mathematical disciplines to serve a metalanguage also in the description of the phenomena of art is evident. But after that, a failure came in sight during the decades of the semiotic scientific process. This failure was related to seemingly independent that included several crucial trends for semiotics. These trends include in particular:

  • The attempts to formalize semiotics have been criticized by poststructuralists;
  • The rapid advancement of Peircean semiotics;
  • The lower semiotic threshold is placed at the origin of life because of the rapid growth of biosemiotics;
  • The development of several applied fields of semiotics (like commercial semiotics) has led to the development of several applied fields of semiotics;
  • There are attempts to develop experimental semiotics.

As a result, many approaches for contemporary semiotics differ in the context of signification. In the above, you can see any kind of causes and developments. On the other hand, since the 1970s, The field of semiotics, as a discipline, has significantly widened its boundaries, both visible and invisible. Its potential general models and conceptual systems are still in the process of being formed.

References

Kull, K. and Velmezova, E. (2014). “What is the main challenge for contemporary semiotics?”. Sign Systems Studies, Issue: 42(4), p. 530-548.