The intersection between translation studies and semiotics has been addressed in numerous publications and approaches to researching translation. However, at least within translation studies, this intersection has been visible mainly in cases in which non-linguistic signs come into play, whereas genuine semiotic frameworks have proven to be too broad or abstract. This has led to a conceptual and ontological paradox: on the one hand, translation scholars have been struggling to move beyond linguistics, but, on the other hand, most of them still place a strong emphasis on lingual translation. As a result, ‘translation’ is no longer a precise term broad enough to include contemporary types of this activity. This paper is a proposal made to reconceptualize translation as a dynamic process of dialogue between relevant constraints. Situated between translation semiotics and translation studies, the theoretical model described here underlines the role of constraints as well as the universal semiotic nature of translation.

This article investigates the past-generating mechanism in Lotman’s semiotics by formulating a typology that distinguishes between two types of past-generating models – Marxian (as the repetitive compulsion of the past) and Benjaminian (as the redemption of the past) – and traces Lotman’s views and perspectives that resonate with these two models. Not only was Lotman acutely aware of the obsession with repetition in the history of Russia, he actively contemplated the possibility of breaking free from and renewing such repetition as well. While Lotman’s awareness of this was conceptualized as the inevitable persistence of a “dualistic structure” in the dynamics of Russian culture, his contemplation, on the other hand, was framed as an issue of transition from dualistic to ternary models. Defining the alternative approach of Lotman’s to the historical past as ‘the aesthetic approach’, this article examines his speculation on the specific cultural mechanism called ‘smuta’ as an exceptional example of Lotman’s interest in the “lost pathway” of the past. Through these explorations, the discussion illuminates Lotman as a thinker who, to use his own phrase, could see both “the allure and weakness of the Russian type of culture”.

The paper applies Juri Lotman’s theory of the semiosphere to utopian studies with the aim of identifying the principal components and mode of functioning of classic utopian discourse. Without questioning the ultimate result of any interaction within a utopian dialogic situation, which necessarily demonstrates the superiority of the ideal world (no-place/ou-topos) over the external world of imperfection (e.g. Europe or America), it is argued that the encounter between the utopian and non-utopian semiospheres offers an interesting starting point for a discussion of intercultural translation and dialogicity involving two different mechanisms of sign production. Contrary to its ‘real-world’ counterpart, where the sign production is governed by asymmetry, binarism, replacement, and diversification, the utopian semiosphere relies on the truthfulness of signs, all-encompassing semioticity, unifying enhancement, and homogeneity. The hyperbolization of the opposition between the ideal state and the external world is metonymically reflected in the construction of the utopian state itself, with its centre and periphery radically polarized and separated by the impassable internal boundary. Although typical representations of the external utopian boundary foreground its distinctly separative function, multiple acts of the intercultural exchange between representatives of the two semiospheres expose the boundary’s translatory function.

Within the field of conflict and violence studies, there exists a range of subtle yet profound forms of violence that often remain underexplored. This paper addresses the concept of semiocide, which refers to the destruction of culturally significant signs, stories, symbols, and narratives. Through unpacking of the theoretical foundations of semiocide, the study highlights its distinct nature and potential for further exploration in cultural violence and conflict studies. Utilizing content analysis of various media sources, the study examines the semiocidal practices perpetrated against the Baha’i community in Iran. The findings illustrate the systematic erasure and manipulation of the Baha’i cultural identity through three semiocidal mechanisms. These insights shed light on the complex dynamics of cultural violence, not only within the specific context of Iran but also providing valuable implications for understanding similar phenomena in other socio-cultural contexts. By bridging the gap between theory and practice, this study offers a nuanced discussion of semiocide, contributing to a broader comprehension of cultural violence and cultural hegemony, and thereby enriching the discourse in conflict and violence studies.

The principal object of this study is constituted by two epistemologically distinct models of Ferdinand de Saussure’s depictions of the linguistic sign. The first model pertains to a bilateral conception of the sign as an inseparable unity of two sides that evoke each other in the mind of individuals during their speaking and understanding activities. The second model, termed here as ‘unilateral conception’, has been deduced from Saussure’s understanding of parole, where an idea establishes itself in a sound and a sound becomes the sign for an idea. A survey of related terminological distinctions derived from logic and philosophy as well as linguistic semiotics seems indispensable for presenting the positions of these bilateral and unilateral sign concepts in a typological matrix which could embrace all sign models originating in the sciences of language. The additional purpose of this study is to put forward the idea of epistemological equivalence to be achieved in translational practice. This supplementary focus of interest in particular concentrates around the question of how the translations of sign-related terms, selected from Cours de linguistique générale, reflect the epistemological awareness of their English-speaking translators.

The paper addresses the concept of artistic communication as a type of semiotic interaction in the discourses of art. Semiotic methodologies for modelling the sign and the communicative act, developed in the works of Gottlob Frege, Gustav Shpet, Jan Mukařovský, Roman Jakobson, Juri Lotman, Umberto Eco, Suren Zolyan, and some other semioticians, are discussed with a focus on the models of aesthetic sign and the corresponding models of semiosis in relation to artistic systems. The study focuses on the discourses of verbal art in its various manifestations (poetry, prose, drama, performance, spoken word, etc.) as material for a linguistic analysis of artistic communication. The paper specifically discusses the linguistic representations of artistic discourse within a model of aesthetic semiosis. The resulting model of artistic communication in verbal art is presented as a synthesis of Jakobson’s scheme of communicative act and its important specification in Lotman’s model of “literary communication”. Based on the existing models of sign, semiosis, and communication (taking Jakobson’s scheme as the main framework), a synthetic, linguo-aesthetic model of artistic communication is outlined, considering together the linguistic, semiotic, and aesthetic parameters of the artistic act.

Where do the basic composite parts of an umwelt – the organism and the environment – come from? Customarily, in umwelt theory, the emphasis is on their mutual co-construction or constitution through functional cycles. But another question could be added to this inquiry: what is the origin, the genesis of organisms and their environments which are now to be indivisibly united once again? On the basis of the transactional conception of relations proposed by John Dewey, the concept of schismogenesis as described by Gregory Bateson, and the process of individuation as explicated by Gilbert Simondon, it is proposed that it is the umwelt which is ontologically primary, and that it is its internal division, separation and individuation, which results in the appearance of organisms with their environments.

This article explicates how different approaches to teaching history can enforce diverse strategies for dealing with uncertainty. Descriptions of three types of historical pedagogy are analysed as three kinds of modelling systems derived from Juri Lotman’s theory of semiotics of culture: myth-type modelling, scientific modelling, and play-type modelling. The paper argues that the connection between pedagogical approaches and uncertainty, as an experience that occurs at the limits of knowledge, can be modelled as the relation between a semiotic system and its boundary. The nature of this relation can differ depending on how the division between the internal and external space of the semiotic entity is perceived. Different types of modelling systems establish distinct patterns in order to deal with the indeterminacy of the borderland area. In the process of learning, these patterns can be viewed as semiotic strategies that various pedagogical approaches enforce when arriving at the limits of knowledge and facing the situation of indeterminacy that can cause students to experience uncertainty. Three different strategies are discussed in the context of history education: avoiding uncertainty in the case of the collective memory approach, addressing uncertainty in the case of the disciplinary approach, and accepting uncertainty in the case of the post-modern approach to teaching history.

This article reconstructs the main foci and changes in the reception of Juri Lotman’s work and Lotman-related scholarship in the Anglophone world. The first part of the article presents a brief critical overview of the history of the translations of Juri Lotman’s works into English and of Anglophone scholarship on Lotman from 1973 to the present. The second part of the article considers more closely three volumes entirely dedicated to Lotman’s work which have most recently been published in English: the anthologies of translated texts by Lotman Culture, Memory and History: Essays in Cultural Semiotics (2019, ed. Marek Tamm) and Culture and Communication: Signs in Flux. An Anthology of Major and Lesser-Known Works by Juri Lotman (2020, ed. Andreas Schönle) as well as The Companion to Juri Lotman: A Semiotic Theory of Culture (2022, eds. Marek Tamm and Peeter Torop).