Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …


Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies / Revue de l'Association Internationale de Sémiotique

Editor-in-Chief: Danesi, Marcel

6 Issues per year

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.183
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.283

CiteScore 2017: 0.23

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.228
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.634

Agenzia Nazionale di Valutazione del Sistema Universitario e della Ricerca: Classe A

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 2011, Issue 183


Post-modernism, post-structuralism, post-semiotics? Sign theory at the fin de siècle

Roland Posner
  • Professor emeritus of linguistics and semiotics and Director of the Research Center for Semiotics (RCS) at the Technische Universität Berlin.
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2011-03-17 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2011.002


The contribution describes the differences between modernism and postmodernism as historical periods of the twentieth century and establishes comparable differences between structuralism and post-structuralism as semiotic approaches. Like modernism, structuralism rejects traditional modes of thought, attempts to reconstruct academic disciplines on the basis of a few fundamental principles and strives to work with reconstructed terminologies and axioms. Like post-modernism, post-structuralism is characterized by the necessity of finding ways to continue research based on the fragmentary results left by structuralist projects. In the beginning of the twentieth century, structuralism itself had responded to materialism, atomism, historicism, and naturalism by introducing its own methodology built around the dichotomies of signified and signifier, paradigm and syntagm, synchrony and diachrony, langue and parole. Rather than rejecting this apparatus, post-structuralism explicated the paradoxes behind these dichotomies and tried to overcome them by under-mining the first concept of each pair. This change of perspective foregrounded the material, processual, and intertextual character of signs as well as the sense-producing function of interpretation. Rejecting rigidly fixed methods as well as general theories, and waiving the distinction between object-signs and meta-signs in favor of their joint reflection, post-structuralist semiotics became an alternative to conventional practices of academic sign analysis and now approaches the status of an art.

Keywords:: contemporary semiotics; modernism; structuralism; post-modernism; post-structuralism; semiotic methodology

About the article

Published Online: 2011-03-17

Published in Print: 2011-02-01

Citation Information: Semiotica, Volume 2011, Issue 183, Pages 9–30, ISSN (Online) 1613-3692, ISSN (Print) 0037-1998, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2011.002.

Export Citation

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Matthew M. Haigh
Social Semiotics, 2013, Volume 23, Number 1, Page 47

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in