Abstract Peirce’s Syllabus is examined and used to interpret metaphoric iconic stereotypes applied to Indigenous people: “noble savage,” “bloodthirsty savage,” “domestic dependent nation,” “vanishing race,” “Indian tribe,” and “ecological Indian.” Efforts on the part of the Indigenous to replace the these stereotypes with different icons such as “Native American,” “First Nations,” and, most recently, “water protectors,” are also examined. The usefulness of representamen categories from Peirce’s Syllabus, “rhematic,” “Argument,” “dicent,” “indexical,” “qualisign,” “legisign,” and “sinsign,” is demonstrated. Greimas’ observations about the functions of modalities are brought in to explain how graphic images and portraiture, fictional and memoir narratives, legal discourses, and popular media representations implement various sections of the Syllabus. Putting Peirce’s Syllabus into action confirms its ability to perform dynamic, diachronic, and diagrammatic functions.

Résumé La sémiotique a inventé ou utilisé plusieurs modèles logiques pour représenter la structure élémentaire de la signification. Le carré sémiotique est sans doute l’un des plus célèbres de ces modèles. Il faut se demander, devant l’importance des phénomènes triadiques, si les modèles dyadiques sont (toujours) adaptés à leur description ou s’il ne faudrait pas se tourner (aussi) vers des modèles triadiques. Or, les modèles triadiques de la structure élémentaire de la signification nous apparaissent bien moins nombreux. À notre connaissance, seule la sémiotique de Peirce et le templum de Boudon occupent cet espace autrement laissé vacant. Nous voulons ici à la fois présenter et exemplifier le templum et le compléter, en nous inspirant du carré sémiotique, pour le faire évoluer vers un « prisme sémiotique ». Nous proposerons également d’autres modèles logiques, comme le pentalemme et le cube sémiotiques. Au passage, nous étudierons plusieurs questions et problèmes – dont la décidabilité – entourant les modèles logiques. Nous ferons quelques applications sommaires de certains modèles, sur le temps, l’espace et la transcendance principalement.

Abstract The article focuses the possibility of elaboration of a cross-disciplinary methodological approach to formation of the semiotics of power. Four possible forms of relation of semiotic research to the problem of power are revealed upon the basis of Drechsler’s typology. The approaches of Mandoki and Siefkes to formation of the methodological basis of the semiotics of power are analyzed and compared. The author designates the perspective directions of a further research and formulates methodological prerequisites for realization of the specified directions.

Abstract For the better part of the past decade, global social movements have drawn popular attention to the power of image production and acts of representation, particularly the ways ubiquitous cameras challenge the exercise of power This essay lays out a theoretical schema for interrogating a broader “politics of visibility” at work in the early twenty-first century, most readily apparent through the activities of smartphone-enabled and visually-savvy activists. As new media technologies have opened up new strategies of representation, these modes of representation have been incorporated into existing media practices that delimit the ways in which the consequentiality of various movements and political projects can be understood. Theoretically revisiting the concept of visibility, this essay critiques the relationship between technology and the production of knowledge in media studies before arguing that the visibility of an event presages a consequentiality partially determined by the ways in which it is rendered perceptible and thus, intelligible.

Abstract This article aims to examine the relationship between image and narrative by means of Peirce’s first trichotomy of qualisign-sinsign-legisign or, for the purposes of the current argument, image-diagram-metaphor. It is argued that narrative, as an extended metaphor, can be examined in three modes: in the image; schematically, in the imagination; and allegorically or in a thought experiment, through hypothetic interpretation. The article outlines two kinds of diagrammatic reasoning emphasized by Peirce: corollarial deduction in which the image is ‘literally seen’ and the reasoning steps are manifest in its conclusion; and theorematic deduction where the conclusion in a diagram is subject to a hypothesis which transforms the image into something new. Demonstrating the breadth of diagrammatic reasoning with reference to the 2018 film,The Shape of Water, the article seeks to explore how allegory and diagram are mutually cooperative, based on three ontological modes: the expressive, the cognitive, and the symbolic. Its primary focus, then, is not so much on the story events of the narrative, as the way that they are visualized and characterized as the fairy story unfolds. It is suggested that the interpreting activity involved in allegory and diagram ties interpretation to metacognition, ultimately (re)recognizing the image inThe Shape of Waterin an attempt to ascertain the meaning of love.

Abstract Telos is in vogue in biosemiotic researches, which present the teleological solution as anti-Darwinian, while it is more often, for biologists, only ante-Darwinian. The assimilation of structuring contents to a “function”, and of the function to a “goal”, in an irreversible temporality, is the most frequent basis of this methodological creepage. The teleology is based on a projective and ascending epistemic orientation, to which we can oppose a retrojective, descending and achronic one, including modal and sensitive interactional semiotics. For semiotics, the challenge lies in the nature of its relationships with other disciplines, particularly biology. Indeed, we see that the temptation is great for semioticians to dwell precisely in the shadows and shams of other disciplines, and to call “sign” or “semiosis” what other sciences seem to have still some trouble to explain, with the risk of only confronting problems that will soon be obsolete. We propose here the theoretical and methodological principles of structural biosemiotics, and precisely attentive to the problems that biologists face, solve and renew.

Abstract Charles Peirce provided a few, but interesting we believe, remarks about metaphor. Aristotle on the other hand developed a theory of metaphor that, to this day has been, and still is, influential (even though his theory, especially within recent years, also has been heavily criticized, e.g., by Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980.Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press). Factor, Lance R. 1996. Peirce’s definition of metaphor and its consequences. In Vincent Colapietro & Thomas Olshewsky (eds.),Peirce’s doctrine of signs: Theory, applications, and connections, 229–235. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter, as one of very few scholars, makes a comparison between Peirce and Aristotle. Factor claims that Peirce’s definition of metaphor and its consequences undermine and overturn Aristotle’s theory. We do not believe that Factor is right; and this is due to Factor’s misinterpretation of key elements within Aristotle’s theory. We rather believe that Peirce and Aristotle, in fact, have central ideas in common concerning metaphor; perhaps, in particular, when it comes to the function of metaphor. Hence, both see, for example, metaphor as a cognitive mechanism. The article tries to develop this argument.

Abstract The iconic and diagrammatic features of abduction, as expressed in Peirce’s works after 1890, allow one to re-read the Kantian concept of schema. By means of this new reading, it is possible to consider the dynamics between legality and creative acts, which, according to Emilio Garroni, keep cultures alive. This process can be analysed by a semiotic theory that could combine the features of Kant’s Aesthetic Judgment (as an answer to schema’s problems) and Peirce’s last theory of abduction. In this way, it becomes possible to go beyond the simple subsumption, through Reflective Judgment, of sensible intuitions under a concept. Thus, creativity becomes the process, both mental and cultural, whereby a new regularity come from the background of the previous one as a result of the free play of our faculties (Musement), which sets links between universes of experience apparently very distant one from another.

Résumé Cet article se propose d’envisager le signe iconique à l’aune du modèle néosaussurien du signe et de la sémiosis qui se dégage des Écrits de linguistique générale. Après avoir exposé ce modèle à partir des propositions que François Rastier tire des textes autographes de Saussure, cette contribution transpose le cadre à la description du signe iconique, en réinterrogeant certains éléments de la conceptualisation que donne le Groupe µ de ce type d’énoncé visuel. Une brève analyse de la toile Le retour à la nature de Magritte permet d’illustrer et de valider la transposition théorique du modèle néosaussurien du signe et de la sémiosis. Cette démarche ouvre la possibilité de procéder à l’interprétation des images selon la théorie morphosémiotique développée par la sémantique de Rastier.

Abstract The paper starts from the premise that the epistemological requirements of the semiotic discipline have led it to overlook the variation (geographical, chronological, social) of the subjects it deals with. After reviewing the historical and methodological reasons for this setting aside, this paper outlines a general theory of semiotic variation. For this, it distinguishes two families of variation – the variation of practices and the variation of attitudes – and three axes of variation: the spatial axis, the time axis and the social axis. It also highlights the two types of forces that govern the variation: centripetal forces and centrifugal forces. The paper concludes with the epistemological impact that the concern about variation may have on semiotics and disciplines that, such as sociology and anthropology, have made variation their subject.