Handbook of Semiotics

History of Semiotics

History of Semiotics In spite of the increasing number of contributions to many of its branches, it is still true that "the history of semiotics as a whole yet remains to be written," as Morris observed (1946: 335; cf. Deely 1982: 7, Schmitter 1983: 3). One of the problems of semiotic historiography is the uncertainty of its field. While semiotic ideas on the nature of signs and meaning were developed in antiquity and the Middle Ages, a general theory of signs under the name of semiotics did not arise before the period of modem semiotics. The classics and the major schools of semiotics since Peirce will be introduced in chapters of their own. A historical survey is also part of the chapters on signs and meaning. 1. Historiography of Semiotics The delimitation of the field of semiotics in relation to other sciences is one of the central concerns in the current efforts at constituting a history of semiotics. The terminological history shows that the history of the theory of signs does not coincide with research that has traditionally been associated with the label "semiotics." 1.1 Scope and State of the Art of Semiotic Historiography What belongs to the history of semiotics? Progress in the historiography of the theory of signs presupposes answers to the delimitation of its field. 1.1.1 ROOTS OR GOLDEN LEGEND? According to Todorov (1977: 15-31; cf. also Morris 1946: 335), four traditions have contributed to the "birth ofWestem semiotics," semantics (including the philosophy oflanguage), logic, rhetoric, and hermeneutics. But what about the histories of other subjects of the semiotic field such as linguistics, aesthetics, poetics, nonverbal communication, epistemology, or even biology? Trying to incorporate the histories of all disciplines related or belonging to the semiotic field would have the undesirable effect of making the history of semiotics coextensive with the history of philosophy or even of science in general. On the other hand, the history of semiotics cannot be reduced to research which has explicitly been placed under the heading of semiotics (cf. Schmitter 1983). There is a much older tradition ofimplicitly semiotic studies concerned with the nature of signs and communication. It is therefore not a "fictitious genealogy" or "golden legend," as Bouissac claims (1976b: 371-72), to begin the history of semiotics with the ancient theories on the nature of the sign. 1.1.2 DELIMITATION OF THE FIELD The delimitation of the scope of semiotic historiography has been discussed in papers by Bouissac (1976b), Romeo (1979b), Trabant (1981b), Schmitter (1983), Rey (1984), and 1. HISTORIOGRAPHY OF SEMIOTICS • 11 Dutz (1986), and in the contributions by Eco, Dascal, Malmberg, and Sebeok to Borbe, ed. (1984). Different interpretations of the scope of semiotic historiography are often a mirror of different views of the scope of semiotics. Trabant therefore argues that "an 'objective' history of semiotics is not possible, but that there will be different histories of semiotics" (1981b: 41). Eco (1984a) discusses the outline of three possible directions for the future of semiotic historiography , one following a restricted, the second a moderate, and the third an encyclopedic approach to the history of semiotics. While the first approach restricts its attention to authors who have explicitly dealt with the theory of signs or even with "semiotics," the second also takes into account implicit or even "repressed" theories of semiotics. In this tradition, semioticians have endeavored to broaden the historical background of semiotics by focusing on "neglected figures of semiotics" (cf. Deely 1986b: 267 and Deely, ed. 1986: 219ff.). Eco points out that this approach "involves an impressive re-reading of the whole history of philosophy and maybe of many other disciplines" from a semiotic point of view (1984a; 80). The third, the encyclopedic, approach, according to Eco, "should consider not only theories but also practices" (ibid.). Aspects of this third historiographic dimension of semiotics are discussed in various chapters of this handbook, such as Theology , Theater, Gesture, Sign Language, and Universal Langauge. The pluralistic position adopted in this handbook presupposes a broad scope, but excludes the more specific histories of its branches, such as logic or the history of linguistiCS. Other restrictions , besides those imposed by space, are due to the presently still underdeveloped state of the historiography of semiotics. In particular, the semiotic traditions of India (but see Rey 1973: 45-62), China, and Islam are excluded for these reasons. 1.1.3 STATE OF THE ART IN THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF SEMIOTICS Outlines of the history of semiotics since its origins are...