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 2016, Issue 213


Semiotics of precision and imprecision

Bujar HoxhaORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3740-0916
Published Online: 2016-09-16 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2015-0077


The fact of the multi-dimensionality of semiotics is an issue that offers more possibilities: either seen in the sense of their precise foreseeing, providing for, or discussing a scientific phenomenon, or otherwise, seen in the shape of its multiple formations, such as in the case of overcoming its rules. My aim in this paper is to make an attempt at proposing an hypothesis that may be overcoming another one, thus expressing ambiguity instead of precision, a metaphor instead a mono-semantic lexeme, or a complex instead of a simple phenomenon (thus, naming the different semiotic realities). This can be performed by representing at least some of the approaches to semiotics as a discipline: either seeing it as an expression of clearing redundancies through oppositions, through processes of representation, or through life processes. Starting from language-based semiotics, through scholars like Saussure and Jakobson, as well as through the Greimasian and Peirceian schools of semiotics, I have tried to exemplify what I have called semiotics of precision, on one hand, and what I have called a semiotics of imprecision, on the other. In the frames of such an exemplifying of these two approaches, I have tried to focus on the dichotomy between seeming and reality.

Keywords: semiotics; precision; imprecision; signification; passions


  • Beker, Miroslav. 1986. Suvremene književne teorije. Zagreb: Sveučilišna Naklada Liber.Google Scholar

  • Chatman, Semyor. 1978. Story and discourse. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1984. Sintaksičke strukture. Novi Sad: Dnevnik, Knjizevna Zajednica Novog Sada.Google Scholar

  • Eco, Umberto. 1962. Opera aperta. Milan: Bompiani.Google Scholar

  • Eco, Umberto. 1968. La struttura asente. Milan: Bompiani.Google Scholar

  • Eco, Umberto. 1975. Trattato di semiotica generale. Milan: Bompiani.Google Scholar

  • Eco, Umberto. 1979. A theory of semiotics, Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

  • Eco, Umberto. 1994. Sei passeggiate nei boschi narrativi. Milan: Bompiani.Google Scholar

  • Eco, Umberto. 1995. Apocalittici e integrati. Milan: Bompiani.Google Scholar

  • Greimas, A. J. 1973. On meaning. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

  • Greimas, A. J., & Jacques Fontanille. 1993. The semiotics of passions: From state of affairs to states of feelings. Minneapolis & London: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

  • Innis, Robert E. (ed.). 1985. Semiotics: An introductory anthology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

  • Jameson, Fredric. 1987. Foreword. In A. J. Greimas’, (eds.), On meaning: Selected writings in semiotic theory, Paul J. Perron & Frank H. Collins (trans.), vi–xxii. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

  • Morris, Charles. 1975. Osnove teorije o znacima. Beograd: Beogradski izdavački zavod.Google Scholar

  • Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1966. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce, 8 vols., C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. W. Burks, (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Reference to Peirce’s papers will be designated CP followed by volume and paragraph number.]Google Scholar

  • Rauch, Irmengard. 1999. Semiotic insights (the data do the talking), Marcel Danesi, Umberto Eco, Paul Perron, & Thomas A. Sebeok (eds.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar

  • Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1959. Course in general linguistics, Charles Bally & Albert Sechehaye (eds.). New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar

  • Shakespeare, William. 2002. The complete Pelican Shakespeare, Stephen Orgel & A. R. Braummuller (eds.), 2nd edn. Middlesex: Penguin.Google Scholar

  • Shannon, Claude E. & Warren Weaver. 1949. A mathematical model of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar

  • Tarasti, Eero, 2000. Existential semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2016-09-16

Published in Print: 2016-11-01

Citation Information: Semiotica, Volume 2016, Issue 213, Pages 539–555, ISSN (Online) 1613-3692, ISSN (Print) 0037-1998, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2015-0077.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in