The epistemological turn in semiotic strategy:

From signs in the natural/cultural world to the

semantic institutions of academic discourses*
YOU-ZHENG LI

Abstract
This paper attempts to state that the semiotic movement will obtain a new
momentum in the globalization era if a more desirable strategy could be
widely adopted. First of all, it should equally include both EuropeanAmerican and non-European-American academic/cultural traditions; it
should be also engaged in the current remoulding process of all social/
human sciences; especially, semiotics will hopefully become one of the theoretical bases for reorganizing and reforming the entire humanities. Signs
have been thecentral conceptual units used for the study of meaning in semiotic history. While for the past decades the study of meaning has expanded
more and more to the scope of the structure and formation of the entire humanities. Accordingly, our concern with the progress of semiotics today is
closely linked to the general endeavor to promote the development of human
sciences. In essence semiotics can be regarded today as one of the main
gateways to the epistemological and methodological modernization of
human sciences across all cultural traditions. Regarding this goal, the main
object-domain of semiotic operation will be naturally shifted from the
actual world (where signs appear) to the academic discourses (where multiple semantic units appear). The cross-cultural semiotics will certainly further strengthen this tendency.

1. Preface
In the past decades, there has existed a competition for using the term semiotics. At present the term, semiotics has already become a universally
acceptable designation of all types of semiotic studies without emphasizing any particular semiotic aspects. On the other hand, however, there indeed exists a division among dierent semiotic studies in terms of its operative modes: broadly, a) general or theoretical semiotics; b) disciplinary
Semiotica 1621/4 (2006), 175193
DOI 10.1515/SEM.2006.076

00371998/06/01620175
6 Walter de Gruyter

176

Y.-Z. Li

or applied semiotics (literary semiotics, music semiotics, etc.); and c) semiotic activities (applying semiotic methods to dierent cultural and social projects). Within the IASS, the three types of semiotics coexist in a
mutually communicative way. It is widely recognized that the major
achievements in semiotic studies for the past decades have been attained
in type b), while type a) has been seriously engaged in the key forum of
epistemological and methodological problems in social and human
sciences. The present paper attempts to discuss a strategic shift of general
semiotics owing to its global and cross-cultural development in the new
century. Global semiotics or globalization of semiotics indicates a comparative turn of the present semiotic studies. As a result, global semiotics
could be equivalent to comparative semiotics, which leads to a new reflection on general or theoretical semiotics. In our current discussion, the
terms semiotics, general semiotics, and theoretical semiotics could be
used alternatively.
The semiotic movement will obtain a new momentum in the globalization era. It will be connected to both Euro-American and non-EuroAmerican academic/cultural traditions; it will be also engaged in all
social/human sciences. In fact, semiotics will become one of the theoretical bases for reorganizing and reforming the entire humanities. Signs have
been the central conceptual units used for the study of meaning in semiotic history. For the past few decades the problem of meaning has expanded more and more to include the structure and formation of the
entire discourse of the humanities. In other words, our concern with the
progress of semiotics today is closely linked to our endeavor for the renovation of the human sciences. Therefore semiotics can be regarded as a
main gateway to the epistemological and methodological modernization
of global human sciences. With respect to this objective, the main objectdomain of semiotic operation will be gradually shifted from actual world
to academic discourses.

2.

2.1.

Three dimensions in global semiotics and semiotics as multicomparative studies

Three dimensions: The geographical, the cultural, and the academic

An expanded conception of semiotics in the era of academic globalization

can be conceived of in terms of three dimensions emerging in human history: geographical expansion, cultural communication, and the reorganization of academic institutions. The conception of semiotic globalization involves these three dierent dimensions. First, it is a geographical

The epistemological turn in semiotics

177

expansion of the established scholarship of Euro-American semiotics to

the non-Euro-American areas. This is the basic part of the present international semiotics activities: the one-sided spread of the Euro-American
semiotic science to other areas. At the cultural dimension, it indicates a
more complicated but perhaps richer aspect: a necessary desirability for
intellectual interaction and engagement of dierent semiotic traditions.
The third dimension means the intellectual interaction between the traditional semiotic heritages and the theoretical structures of modern human
sciences. The three dimensions of global semiotics can be also described
as dierent practices at the sociological, cultural, as well as the academictheoretical levels, respectively. In this sense, semiotic globalization is connected to a comprehensive program for reorganizing the current topography of human sciences of mankind. In fact, the above three dimensions of
the international semiotic movement are already implied in the usual terminological expressions: the interdisciplinary and cross-cultural theoretical practice. The pursuit and realization of these theoretical goals are
closely linked to the academic objective in the globalization of semiotics.

2.2.

Semiotics as the multi-comparative studies

As a result, semiotic operation is comparative in nature. The comparative

methods can be applied to dierent academic aspects such as areas, disciplines, schools, and cultural traditions. Globalization is equivalent to the
topographic expansion of any kind with respect to its spatial integrity.
The above three types of the conception of semiotic globalization should
be formulated in an operative term: the comparative practice in a broad
sense. Any comparative scholarly operation means an intellectual procedure performed, beyond the single-disciplinary framework, in combination with other disciplines formed at dierent cultural and academic
contexts. Globalization of semiotics is therefore reduced to a general
comparative semiotics that is innately contrary to any disciplinarycentrist semiotics.
Furthermore, comparative studies mean dialogue between scholars
with dierent backgrounds: the necessity for establishing the common
ground for carrying out the meaningful communication among dierent
types of academic discourses that are determined by dierent scholarly
constitutions and institutions. Semiotic globalization means the expanded
dialogue and cooperation among agents with dierent disciplinary trains
and cultural backgrounds. The concept of the sign provides a common
denominator for communication among dierent scholarly languages,
while dierent cultural and academic traditions will make the formation

178

Y.-Z. Li

of a common denominator in semiotic communication more dicult and

accordingly increase intelligent intricacies for inquiry. In this sense, the
Euro-American semiotic centrism could exhibit its operative limitation in
comparative studies. We cannot directly apply the conceptual reservoir
and patterns established in the Euro-American academic traditions into
non-Euro-American subjects. Therefore in global semiotics there exists
two dierent processes: the spread of the Euro-American knowledge to
other areas of the world and the latters further creative study in a comparative term. Global semiotics means a double eort for each part: to
study the original theory originating from the Euro-American theoretical
sources and to creatively operate on cross-cultural projects at dierent
comparative levels.

3.

3.1.

Theoretical identity of semiotics and the semiotician as the

interdisciplinary mediator
Interdisciplinary pluralism versus philosophical centrism

A more significant implication involving semiotic globalization is related

to two aspects: a) what is the more desirable pattern of the present day
semiotic studies; and b) how to use the term semiotics as an intellectual
organizer to perform academic activities. Regarding the first, the most
important question is epistemological in nature: should general semiotics
or semiotic theory be theoretically based on a philosophy or interdisciplinary directed by character? From an epistemological point of view,
the interdisciplinary-directed and the philosophy-centered theoretical constructions in semiotic theoretical studies are mutually contradictory with
each other. In fact, there is a self-contradiction for the theoretical use of
the term in the latter. Many theoretical consequences in semiotic studies
come from non-philosophical disciplines such as linguistics, anthropology,
historiography, psychology, and others. Furthermore, the philosophical
centrism of semiotic theory must involve dierent philosophical schools
that dier from each other in dierent ways that would involve semiotic
discussions into traditional philosophical disputes. The above distinction
is further connected to the dierent interpretations of the nature of
knowledge in general and that of the humanities in particular. This distinction is also related to the dierent opinions about the status quo of
the current humanities: Is their present state naturally or historically justified or something that should be more thoroughly reformed? The interdisciplinary character of semiotic theory is contrary to any philosophical
reductionism. Therefore the semiotic way of thinking must become less

The epistemological turn in semiotics

179

philosophically centered. This fact will profoundly change the traditional

way of theoretical practice in the humanities. In addition, the crosscultural development of semiotics will further strengthen this tendency of
the new theoretical construction. One of the reasons, among others, lies in
that the constitutions of the western and nonwestern philosophies are essentially divergent. This divergence can be positively used to promote the
development of semiotic theory in its interdisciplinary-directed practice.
Understand that the last question is related to the question of how to
properly or productively grasp and use the term semiotics. In this sense,
semiotics can be operatively used as a general name for academicorganizing strategy. By justifying the status quo of the social and human
sciences, the present way of semiotic studies is naturally a mere part of
the former. In order to reform or modernize the humanities, (general) semiotics is interpreted first as a tool for reorganizing the humanities. With
such an expanded function (general) semiotics should readjust its traditional structure and function. We may try to regard semiotics just as
what most semioticians have actually practiced until now. Or, is its identity defined in comparison with all other existing disciplines currently performed in the academia? But global semiotics will strengthen a desire
for forming a new type of meta-theoretical practice to treat a general
theoretical problem facing current semiotic studies: this is the multiinterdisciplinary-directed theoretical practice in human sciences. In this
sense, semiotic theory should be linked to the entire theoretical structure
of the humanities or human sciences, and to participate in the current reformative process of the latter. This desideratum will be further requested
when semiotics is expanded to the non-western academia. In other words,
the traditional philosophy-centered semiotic theory should turn to be the
present interdisciplinary-directed one. On the one hand, the task of semiotics is much more expanded, and on the other, its scientific significance
could be much more enhanced as well, for it now becomes the central
part of modernization of entire human sciences. Semiotics lives in and is
merged with the entire humanities.
Here the above-mentioned task becomes doubly significant in confrontation with the strategic reflection in global semiotics. As the non-western
humanities will enrich and complicate the composition of the western as
well as the global humanities, the practice of non-western semiotics will
make the identity of general semiotics richer and more changeable in future. When we accept that semiotics is a useful tool for promoting dialogue between the western and nonwestern humanities, the question
about what is the more acceptable content and function of semiotics becomes more relevantly necessary for our consideration. The regular scholarly project is mostly organized in disciplinary-central contexts, while

180

Y.-Z. Li

semiotic inquiry is always faced with the entire situation of rapidly

changeable interactions of traditional disciplines. The semiotician is not
only a regular operator along the fixed procedure in the disciplinary
framework; he is also a creative adventurer on interdisciplinary-boundary
areas.

3.2.

The mediator for the multi-interdisciplinary theoretical dialogue:

Professional pursuit and intellectual freedom

Therefore we can see a basic contrast between two kinds of scholars: the
disciplinary-specialist and the interdisciplinary-mediator. In other words,
there is a problem of relationship between semiotics and other regular disciplines. In general, semioticians tend to have a special interest in theoretical interaction of dierent scholarly systems. We may say they are the
specialists dealing with the multi-disciplinary-relational problems in the
academic network. If so, the IASS should make a greater use of its academic image and resources to organize international semiotic activities in
a pluralistic way. In terms of this new interpretation of theoretical and
applied semiotics, the former is closer to the study of the interrelationship
and interaction of all discipline-rooted theories, especially those originating from the humanities. A theoretical semiotician, besides being perhaps
specialized in disciplinary details of definite fields, is also specialized in the
intellectual relationship of epistemological and methodological theories
implied in various disciplines. No any other kind of scholars can be more
suitable than semioticians for playing a mediating role in the common enterprise for reorganizing the theoretical topography of social and human
sciences in the world. In conclusion, the disciplinary-centrist scholarship
and the interdisciplinary scholarship are mutual-complementary in our
expanded academic contexts. In certain sense they both belong to the different strategic levels respectively: the single-disciplinary-methodological
one and the interdisciplinary-epistemological one. The latter is the user or
applicant of the former in a broad sense. Semiotics is a new means of
learning about the multiple academic-theoretical relationships.

4.

Western basis: The European-American experience

Semiotics can be conceived as more or as less promising according to its

dierent perspectives. The dierence has nothing to do with the status
quo of semiotics, while it is related to ones conception of the semioticsrelated knowledge. The fact that one accepts a more grand profile of

The epistemological turn in semiotics

181

semiotics could be due to the stronger devotion one has for a greater academic ambition. Semiotics as thinking about signs has a long history, and
its fruitful results have already been deposited in various scientific
achievements across history. The thought of signs has played its active
role in prescientific stages, promoting the progress of sciences and technologies in history. While it is only in modern times that semiotics has become a significant academic stream following the all-round development
of natural, social, and human sciences since the end of the nineteenth century. The fact that semiotics becomes an international movement with the
establishment of IASS in the 1960s was owing to the remarkable postwar
development of social and human sciences, among which French structuralism played a determinative role. It is noteworthy that all modern semiotic masters, such as Saussure, Peirce, Husserl, Morris, Hjelmslev, Benveniste, Barthes, Metz, Chomsky, Greimas, and many other contemporary
practicing semiotics scholars have cherished intellectually and academically more ambitious goals beyond their own respective specialties. This
common tendency becomes the very source of and inspiration for their respective semiotic adventures. So why did each of them choose semiotics
as a lifelong mission? Because it is logically linked to such a huge intellectual ideal connected to the future development of entire human knowledge. Therefore as the followers of the same line of semiotic adventure we
should be inspired by the same kind of intellectual enthusiasm when we
are involved in the global semiotic practice in the new century.
Besides, with respect to the contemporary history of semiotics we have
to recognize the huge contribution of French structural movement that
has been the main reason why semiotic thought in the post-CulturalRevolutionary China has steadily spread. Not only the structural semiotics but also other related post-War French ideas have exercised a strong
influence in Chinese human sciences. Among many factors involved, its
comprehensive intellectual horizon and its interdisciplinary strategy
would be the most relevant factor to the intellectual development in
China. At the same time, as students of the current French thought, we
Chinese are clear about the both positive and negative experience gained
from French structuralism. What we emphasize in this respect lies more
in its operative strategy than in its temporary conclusions. The current
French thought provides us with very fruitful and instructive documents
for further study. With a tendency to overview the entire panorama of
the humanities the structural movement discloses, most instructively, the
flaws implied in the internal logic of the humanities that can become a
profitable starting point for further investigation. On the other hand, the
richly formulated discourse of the French humanities provides the impressive example about the epistemological relationship between the

182

Y.-Z. Li

humanities and reality at its various levels. These two intellectually serious flaws in human sciences, the internal-logical weakness and their serious disconnection with reality, are exhibited more clearly and more instructively in the structural movement than in many other modern
schools. So the French way of semiotic thought becomes a relevantly
stimulating source for Chinese semiotics because of its broader intellectual panorama and its pertinent reflection on the multi-relationship between thought and reality.1
Accordingly, semiotics should be regarded as the most relevant intellectual tool in dealing with the renovation of the present world of the humanities; the vision could be further widened when the latter includes the
nonwestern part. In my opinion, semiotics has become the very leading
epistemology and methodology for western-nonwestern academic dialogue in the humanities. Why is semiotics especially related to human
sciences? First, we have already much more practically reliable or objectively stable knowledge about natural and social sciences. It is the humanities that innately lack the common denominator concerning meaning and
value for communication among dierent intellectual traditions or streams
of thought. For the purpose of attaining mutual understanding and
peaceful coexistence of dierent human beings in the globalization era,
we have to find or create a common denominator for meaningful communication among dierent beliefs and thoughts. Semiotics has proven itself
to be the most eective means for attaining this great purpose. Thus, semiotics is linked to all practices concerning the improvement of the global
humanities. Its interdisciplinary strategy can be performed at two levels:
the disciplinary-central level and the interdisciplinary level. The interdisciplinary operation at two levels: the disciplinary-central level and the
interdisciplinary-directed level. This semiotic operation at the above two
levels across academia will strengthen the process of reorganizing or modernizing human sciences. The interdisciplinary-directed semiotics will also
further shift the disciplinary-framed scientific projects to the questioncentral projects. This will help us to consider our scholarly programs
without being restricted by the established disciplinary patterns, thus
making them more relevant to the new epistemological desiderata regarding scholarship and reality alike.

5.

The Chinese potential: The implicated meaning of Chinese semiotics

to global semiotics

The international or global significance of Chinese semiotics lies in that

its development would also influence the constitution of the existing

The epistemological turn in semiotics

183

Euro-American semiotic traditions someday in future. The development

of Chinese semiotics will enrich the presentation of the above-mentioned
problems implied in human sciences in general because of its intellectual
ambition to become a global movement.

5.1.

The special features of Chinese semiotics

Among all non-European-American semiotic practices the Chinese one

indicates a very important character, as I have discussed many times before. We will describe current Chinese semiotic studies with regard to
three aspects:
a)
b)
c)

The regular type of the activity like what we see in the West;
The theoretical potential in various existing disciplines which is related to the semiotic thought;
The theoretical and practical potential in the traditional Chinese and
Chinese-western comparative studies

Point a) has been still developing and is not yet influential in the present
Chinese academia. But we shouldnt estimate the significance of Chinese
semiotics merely in terms of this straightforward observation that cannot
be regarded as the proper representative of Chinese semiotics. By contrast, b), in my opinion, is much more important than the a). Not only
because the potential is easily realized to be actualized but also because
the theoretical agents in this part indicate a more creative and more profound intellectual possibility. We could even expect more from this part
with respect to its huge potential to promote Chinese semiotics. Probably,
however, the most stimulating aspect of Chinese semiotics is exhibited in
c). If b) can provide more theoretical knowledge required for semiotic
studies, c) is prepared for a more original intellectual creation not only
for Chinese semiotics but also for global semiotic adventures in future.
Because c) will be even more capable of joining the theoretical dialogue
with the western humanities through mediation of Chinese semiotics.

5.2.

Chinese semiotics as one of the main developments of current

interdisciplinary-cross-cultural semiotic practices

It is obvious that Chinese classical scholarship as such could actually contribute to the global semiotics and humanities at present. But the semiotic
transformation of the Chinese classical discourse can lead to this heterogeneous dialogue possible. The process is a suciently interdisciplinary

184

Y.-Z. Li

interaction between the Chinese and Western traditional academic discourses. The Chinese tradition consisting of philosophical, historical, literary, and artistic discourses provides a dierent kind of intellectual
source that can complement, enrich, and even impact the knowledge of
the Western humanities as long as the former has been suitably translated
to a universally intelligible language first. Unfortunately the value of the
latter can hardly indicate itself at its original expression plane. That is
why the present China studies in the West are less productive at the level
of theoretical studies because of their conservative methodology. Chinese
semiotics set in cross-cultural semiotics will produce a double impact on
the global humanities: to make the Chinese traditional scholarship more
commensurable and communicable with the western humanities and to
expand in turn an intellectual inspiration to global semiotics.

5.3.

Chinese semiotics and de-philosophical-centrism

Chinese semiotics in the sense of c) once again proves significance and even
a necessity with respect to the desired interdisciplinary direction of semiotic operation. The philosophical-directed semiotic theory would hamper
the development of Chinese semiotics. Despite using the same term philosophy, Chinese and western philosophies are widely divergent in constitution and function. The involved negative impact would be even doubly
increased for Chinese-Western comparative semiotics because the latter
must be related to both interdisciplinary and cross-cultural operation.

6.

Semiotics as a general designation of the inquiry into relational

structure of dierent disciplinary theories in global human sciences

In its global meta-theoretical sense, far from being a mere singly identified discipline, semiotics could become a general conductor for the
symphony of human sciences, with a special attention upon the pluralrelational problems of all their theoretical resources. The existing disciplines have been naturally and practically formed in history. As long as
they are needed in the academic market they have a rationale to continue
existing that way. The existing way of doing scholarship can, of course,
satisfy the intellectual interest of the professional-directed educators. But
a new type of intellectual interest directed towards the relational problems among dierent theoretical resources of various disciplines can
only arise after its getting rid of professional restriction. Semiotics, or
general semiotics, could be regarded as a special discipline about the

The epistemological turn in semiotics

185

relationship among theories from various disciplines. Semiotics therefore

becomes a study of the relationship of dierent disciplinary theories.
This position presents itself as a typical rational/empirical character
intellectually directed towards various domains of reality. Any type of
science is directed toward some kind of reality rather than to fiction. So
scholarly semiotics is a science rather than an art. The distinction between
the scientific operation and the artistic operation is also based on academic rationalism that is in contrast with the so-called post-modernism
or epistemological nihilism. Why is semiotics more capable of treating
interdisciplinary and cross-cultural scholarly subjects? Because interdisciplinary and cross-cultural semiotic communication first indicates a
necessity for establishing a suitable semantic and grammatical means for
bridging dierent traditional discursive channels. For example, we must
create the common units at the expression plane for communication between some heterogeneously formulated discourses. Either regarding
western interdisciplinary academic discussions or concerning the westernnonwestern academic discussions, we cannot use the terminology of one
discipline to suciently express the discursive system of another disciplines. That is why we cannot reduce theoretical principles of linguistics
or anthropology to a philosophical one. Similarly, we cannot reduce Chinese philosophical discourse to the western philosophical one either. The
present comparative studies of all kinds suer from the lack of such semantic commensurability. In addition, a more epistemologically directed
semiotic inquiry involves the necessity for a communicational grammar
or code to make dialogue, comparison, or combination possible between
dierent theoretical discourses of various disciplines.
Without much tracing back to the historical development of semiotic
thought, we emphasize how to creatively make use of the term semiotics
or general semiotics instead. The term semiotics is far from being a sucient designation for all relational studies in dierent disciplines of human
sciences but it is at least a right name for the most crucial type of the relational studies: the multiple semantic commensurability of dierent academic discourses at interdisciplinary and cross-cultural levels in human
sciences. In this regard no any other academic titles could be more suitable than semiotics for being used this way.

7. The expanded object-domain of semiotics: The pan-semantic

institutions of academic discourses
As we pointed out before, in western semiotic history, the sign is the basic
concept to unify the semiotic way of thinking involving nature, culture,

186

Y.-Z. Li

logic, and language. In fact, logic and linguistics were the main disciplines
to promote the semiotic way of thinking until its modern development,
primarily represented by Saussure and Peirce. No doubt, modern semiotic
scholarship formed on the two types of signs remains to be the very foundation of global semiotic development in future. However, the new situation in semiotic globalization requests a strategic expansion that leads to
a double-structure of the semiotic elementary objects: signs in natural,
cultural, and linguistic worlds on the one hand, and semantic institutions
in academic discourse on the other. The strategic turn accords with the
scholarly expansion from the traditional sign-discipline to the semantic
mechanism of global human sciences.
The global development of semiotics leads to the reformation of
semiotic/semantic units. Semiotics of discourse and the semantic analysis
of artistic institutions in the current western semiotics will play a more
and more expanded role for cross-cultural semiotics. In result, following
further operation at interdisciplinary and cross-cultural levels, we will
have an expanded semiotics centered on multi-formed semantic institutions, including the traditional learning of signs, as the main object domain of semiotic studies. The so-called semantic institutions, which are effective in forming the semantic constitution of the academic written texts
involves three dierent levels: the social-cultural conditional, the external
academic institutional and the internal academic institutional. What we
discuss here belongs to the last one, namely the semantic institution in a
narrow sense.
After all, the semiotic-semantic units must be enlarged to the much
more expanded domains of the semantic mechanism which determine the
types of academic discourses, especially those in human sciences.

7.1.

The traditional semiotic pattern as the study of signs

Despite the universal manifestation of signs in dierent cultures the conception of semiotics as the thought of signs is rooted in the western philosophical traditions. When structural linguistics emerges, the concept sign
is generalized and taken as a general term with the double aspects: the linguistic and the philosophical (prescientific). This double identity of sign is
further expressed in the present two dierent directions: the French one
and the American one. In a broad sense the former is more related to
human/historical sciences and the latter is more to natural/social sciences.
The both semiotic movements share the same traditional term sign but
with dierent interpretive implications. Both are important for our further studies of semiotics. But the semiotic development of the past four

The epistemological turn in semiotics

187

decades urges a necessary reconsideration of the dominant role of this

central concept used in semiotics today. Does the sign remain an eective
basic unit to unify the semantic and pragmatic expressions now? Sign is
used as the basic unit to deal with semantic analysis while the semantic
analysis involves multiple types of expressive and interpretive mechanisms in the both social/cultural world and academic discourses. A
proper semantic unit could be larger and more complicated than what
described by the linguistic or natural unit; it will be an organizational system with signs as constituent units. But the complexity of the semantic
mechanism makes the basic constituent units less independent and less
eective in shaping the semantic organization of academic discourse. A
semiotics of academic discourse requires a more suitable set of units
to describe the semantic mechanism, such as the linguistic, logical, expressive intellectually and historically preconditional, pragmatic, and
political-ideological-procedural. All such added factors could be said to
be hermeneutic in nature. In other words, an academic semiotics must be
a semiotic-hermeneutic procedure. Therefore interpretative units could be
more related to the organizational units than to the natural (both linguistic and physical) units. We call these organizational units semantic
institutions whose original mode is what we originally learn from film semiotics. The request for this expanded semiotic unit is especially due to
the involvement of cross-cultural semiotic practice that discloses more
complicated factors with respect to academic-semiotic communication.

7.2.

The general concept of semantic institutions in academic discourse

This paper doesnt attempt to elaborate on the scholarship of academicsemiotic institutions as such. Instead, it intends to indicate an emerging
necessity for an epistemological shift of the basic conceptions in the present global semiotic development. In brief, we may employ a binary scholarly strategy: the scientific and semiotic; namely that distinguishing between the semiotic scholarship and scientific scholarship in a general
sense. Dierent from the nature of general knowledge of nature and society, theoretical semiotics today is first of all a study of meaning of academic discourses as well as a study of relationship among disciplinary
theories. In a deeper sense, semiotics is the study of how to understand
the multiple semantic institutions of knowledge. Because of this, semiotics
has dierent degrees of involvement in various types of knowledge: for
example, at present it has little involvement in natural sciences, more involvement in social sciences, and the most involvement in human sciences.
The last category of knowledge is characterized by its traditional blurry

188

Y.-Z. Li

formulation and arbitrary way of reasoning. Precisely, semiotics is especially about the study of the theoretical-operational institutions with respect to the semantic and pragmatic constitutions of the humanities.
Therefore, the institutional analysis of semantic mechanism of scholarly
discourse will essentially expand and deepen our understanding of problems of constitution of meaning in the humanities. Such a scholarly position makes semiotics much more related to the conditions of the current
human sciences than to their historical origins. Compared with its present
great achievements the historical source of semiotic thought becomes to
be less relevant than before in characterizing the feature of semiotic operation. Rather than being directed toward its earlier story the current semiotic strength is firstly linked to its present academic context, especially to
its desirable academic future. In my opinion, regarding the development
of semiotic theory, the studies of the present semiotic situation is much
more relevant than its historical perspective. The above-mentioned three
dimensions of semiotic globalization could be further reduced to the
corresponding institutional analysis at three levels: sociological-political,
cultural-historical, and academic-disciplinary.

7.3.

Institutional semantics and the disciplinary-directed/

interdisciplinary-directed theoretical interaction

This non-philosophical-fundamentalist and interdisciplinary-theoretical

approach might not be in accord with the codes and rules of the existing
academic system across the world. A deeper epistemological and methodological challenge of semiotics to the present human sciences lies in its
tendency to anatomize and reorganize the external and internal academic
institutions. The concept institution here can be taken in both the hard
and soft aspects, referring respectively the related social-economiceducational system and the related intellectually operative system. The
latter is the topic discussed here. Of course, it doesnt mean that a semiotic imperialism tends to encroach on the existing academic world, but
means that it tends to organize a separate academic program beside or
beyond the regular academic system. It will promote a more reasonable
and eective cooperation with the traditional academic world characterized by its disciplinary compartmentalization. Semiotics will first learn
from various disciplinary-specialties and then try to reorganize them or
creatively reuse them at another level of practice. Semiotics is a synthetic
practice to make use of specialized knowledge created by specialists.
Without tending to replace or degrade various disciplinary specialties, semiotics learns from all kinds of disciplinary knowledge. But beside this,

The epistemological turn in semiotics

189

semiotics proposes to start or to continue an interdisciplinary research of

the disciplinary-organized knowledge, in which semiotics has to reanalyze
and reorganize the disciplinary-specialized knowledge in various newly
created contexts. If so, the semiotic is complementary, rather than oppositional, to the regular system of knowledge. The object and material of semiotic studies come from the disciplinary knowledge embodied in modern
scientific progress. In fact, without weakening the degree of specialty of
various disciplines, semiotics can even help advance and improve the specialized knowledge through promoting the horizontal communication
among various disciplines. The holistic practice can strengthen rather
than weaken the specialization of disciplinary practice. As we said, there
are two concepts of semiotics: as the established discipline formed in
the academic history and as the interdisciplinary inquiry beyond the
existing systems. The two kinds of semiotics, namely the relatively regular one (including both applied semiotics and theoretical semiotics) and
the relatively irregular one, could coexist interactively, just as the case
with the coexistence of semiotics and other regular disciplines. Once
again, the conception of semiotics as the theoretical-institutional analysis
hints that a general semiotics is logically linked to the structure of the
entire humanities. Its scientific task will be multiply expanded accordingly. Moreover, this epistemological turn also accords with the methodological transformation from the disciplinary identity to the problemidentity.

8. Several practical problems in global semiotics

The inspiring objective of global semiotics is made possible only in the internet era. How to reorganize IASS programs on the internet condition is
a new task for us.

8.1.

Internet communication

The successful experience of IASS for the past four decades makes the
IASS a very useful and comprehensive model for organizing multipleinterdisciplinary scholarly communication in the world. The framework
of IASS today, however, has to be readjusted to more eectively develop
its programs at the era of global semiotics. For this purpose, first of all, it
should make eorts to establish an eective international dialogic stage
for multi-dimensional communications among scholars from all areas
and dierent fields. An IASS dialogic stage or platform should provide

190

Y.-Z. Li

the possibility for the sucient expression of all dierent semiotic interests and approaches. The diculty rests in two practical levels. First, in
contrast with western semiotics, not all non-western semiotics have
formed their ocial institutions for regularly organizing their semiotic activities. Second, because of the financial restrictions, only a small percentage of non European-American members are able to go to international
activities each time. These two aspects become the main barriers for the
IASS to really realize its ideal in semiotic globalization. In this case, the
strengthening and increase of international-directed online publishing
centers in links with IASS could be one of the eective measures to promote various programs in the semiotic globalization.

8.2.

English as universal language

In our era of internet, the online communication should be a more useful

and more eective channel to organize IASS communication across the
world. For this purpose, we first of all have to solve the problem of language commonly used among members. At present, English is the only
universal language capable of being read, or passively accessible, by most
scholars in the world. But in non-English-speaking area only a few percentage of scholars can express themselves satisfactorily in speaking and
writing English. This phenomenon becomes a major practical obstacle in
IASS communication.
First, in world context we should distinguish between the prestige or
right of a national language and the linguistic necessity in verbal communication in international contexts. Members from dierent countries go to
IASS activities not for the purpose of exhibiting their own national pride
but for introducing their thoughts eectively to international colleagues.
Each language in the civilized world has its merit in its own cultural tradition and social life, but not every language can be used internationally.
In globalization era, there exists a general split between the domestic language used for original way of thinking and domestic communication and
English used for international communications. So every scholar is requested to employ two kinds of languages ones native and English
facing both domestic and international situations. The reason why it
is English, rather than other languages, accepted as a universal language,
is a problem occasionally caused by history. The ideological implication
of the historical fact should be reasonably distinguished from the practical utility of the chosen language in the current practical world. According to this functional point of view, the benefit of any non-Englishspeaking scholars lies in using English as a linguistic tool in order to

The epistemological turn in semiotics

191

eectively realize the true purpose: suciently eective communication

among international colleagues. A feeling of linguistic nationalism here
is completely irrelevant or contrary to the purpose of academic practice
for everyone. So there are two dierent requests and two criteria involving our language problem that shouldnt be mixed as they are often done
today. As an international organization, the IASS is faced with this practical barrier about the eective communication tool: how to provide a linguistic service to most IASS members. Particularly regarding the promotion of the online publication and forum of IASS, an English translation
service becomes an urgent request, for many members, including some
distinguished European scholars, cannot master English to a degree of
satisfaction. Among them, however, many are excellent semiotic thinkers.
We shouldnt miss their contribution to IASS communication merely because of this linguistic-technical barrier. In comparison with the large expense in organizing international activities in other aspects, the cost of a
regular English translation service for online publications is relatively limited. With this service, IASS can really strengthen its function as an international organizer of semiotic communications across the world. The language problem becomes especially important for IASS because it is the
unique academic organization in the world that involves all disciplines
and all cultures into a common family.

8.3.

The double role of a single player: The organizer and the scholar

A scholars academic prestige could be measured by two separate criteria:

the achievement either in ones specialty or in ones organizing activity.
The latter shouldnt be mixed with the former; namely an organizer
should be neutrally concerned about how to maintain the academicorganizational eciency and fairness to serve all dierent semiotic approaches without intellectual discrimination or partiality. Therefore
members with an organizing duty shouldnt have in mind to make their
own individual scholarly position influence the intellectual direction of
IASS organization and activities. For example, the lasting divergence between the American line and the French line in doing semiotics shouldnt
become a factor to determine members attitude and policy in dealing
with IASS programs. The traditional divergence between the western
and nonwestern semiotic scholarships should be treated in this way as
well. The IASS should maintain and follow a true academic democracy
in our family. Without this academic democracy, the semiotic globalization can never develop itself eectively. Therefore, semiotic globalization,
because of the multiplicity of its tasks, urges a change of academic-ethical

192

Y.-Z. Li

attitude prepared for meeting with the elaborated theoretical challenge in

our time.
Ones achievement in his organizing job should be separated from his
scholarly work involved in the same concrete program. The point is that
one player with the double role should cherish the equal or balanced enthusiasm for his two dierent aims. There are two kinds of achievements
in IASS practice for each member: the one for the collective success of
IASS as a whole and the other for the individual success in scholarly activities. The latter is linked with ones other items in his professional practice and the former with ones chosen commitment with IASS mission.
A semiotic organizer plays a double role as academic organizer and as
scholarly specialist alike. The idea involves the substantial development
of semiotic globalization. If we do not solve this problem at the organizing level we can hardly attain our goal at the scholarly level either. Lets
describe it as the stage builder and as the role-player on the stage in the
following metaphor:
The A-role: Practice for building up the stage: A-role as an organizer
The B-role: Practice for performing on the stage: B-role as a specialist
A and B are practiced by a single person but should be separated in ones
mind and conducted all the time during any academic cooperative project. For the A-process, every semiotic organizer should share the same
idea and objective together with all other semiotic organizers. The collective eort of the IASS at semiotic organizing activities would reject any
organizer using his A-role to profit his B-role. Without the clear separation of these two roles in ones mind and behavior during a collective program the progress of global semiotics will be systematically obstructed.

8.4.

Ethical attitude and academic reorientation

Therefore, semiotic studies of academic semantic institutions not only involve the analysis of epistemological structures and functions of the humanities but also involve that of the ethical choice in the related socialhistorical-political-cultural systems. An ethical (motivational)/internal
(scholarly)/external (sociological) triple-institutional analysis will open a
rather productive and promising perspective for semiotic development at
the globalization era.
The profit of specialists is based on the specialized knowledge rooted
in the academic system that becomes the basis for the professional
achievements. While the semiotic approach tends to decentralize the social value or professional protectionism of scholarly specialty, there could

The epistemological turn in semiotics

193

be dierent approaches to the similar topics beyond the existing professionally specialized scholarship. The specialists would be unhappy about
this competition of a stranger whose approach is beyond his own knowledge. The disciplines are formed in connection with a number of institutional privileges such as the position, title, income, honors, control of
publications and conferences, and academic/social influences. All of such
factors support their utilitarian motivation to do scholarship. This motivation is contrary to the spirit of the Enlightenment or the classical pursuit for truth that is totally negated by a current extreme relativism. The
pursuit for common truth and the pursuit for individual profit has become the crucial divergence related to the present semiotic exercise. Without an academic idealism in mind, a scholar has no reason to be open to
the interdisciplinary approach of semiotics that must increase the cost of
his academic and intellectual investment and will weaken his competition
in the academic market. In this sense, the direction of intellectual adventure involved in global semiotics is related to ones ethical attitude as well.

Notes
*

This paper was originally presented at the IASS Congress on Global Semiotics in Imatra,
Finland on June 14, 2005.
1. While writing this paper I heard the sad news of the death of Paul Ricoeur. As the earliest Chinese introducer of his thought to China, I wrote a short essay about my personal
contact with him over the past twenty-five years and my evaluation of his intellectual
heritage. He is one of the few western philosophers indicating an intellectual tendency
for interdisciplinary and semiotic research. As early as when I translated Levi-Strauss
La Pensee Sauvage in the late Seventies, I have mentioned to Chinese readers about Ricoeurs deep sympathy with structural semiotics. When I finished my translation of his
Main Trends in Philosophy in early 80s, I tried to arouse the attention of readers to the
interdisciplinary orientation in philosophizing. Of course, from a semiotic point of view,
Ricouer has not done enough along this line, but already done much more than many
other philosophers.
You-zheng Li (b. 1936) is Special Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Comparative
Civilization Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, China 3liyouzheng@gmail.com4. His research interests are epistemology of cross-cultural semiotics and semiotic/
hermeneutic studies of the classical Chinese humanities. His publications include Epistemological Problems of the Comparative Humanities (1997); An Epistemological Analysis of
Contemporary German-French Ethics: Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, Ricoeur, Freud, Lacan
and others (in Chinese) (1998); A Semiotics of History (in Chinese) (2003); A Hermeneutics
of Confucian Ethics (in Chinese) (2004); and Introduction to Theoretical Semiotics (in Chinese) (expanded edition, 2006).