In this essay I will evaluate whether or not semiotics can be considered "a science" of sign systems. Semiotics is a relatively new science and essentially consists of the in-depth analysis of any sign system present in an established society. When semiotics is applied to twenty-first century society, the addition of technology slightly changes the meaning of the word “semiotics,” as it is impossible not to take into account in any topic the various distinctions between human behavior and intellect in relation to mechanical systems. . These similarities between machines and the human mind are strongly linked to the semiotic sign systems created by humans. I think the idea that language can be studied scientifically, rather than historically, is a valid argument; a good example of this can be found in A Course in General Linguistics when Saussure states that semiotics is found by establishing a field of inquiry and studying synchronically in the style of a science rather than diachronically[1]. Furthermore, due to the natural properties of language, semiotics can be used as a model of the external world surrounding human society, physical events awaiting scientific explanation. This reduces the differences and similarities encountered when dealing with sign systems, for example the aforementioned human technological and intellectual differences, to little more than a statement of a formalized language. Complex semiotic systems could perhaps be considered purely aesthetic systems found in art forms rather than anything particularly scientific. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay It is important to note that as intellectual creatures, humans are capable of understanding and using language to talk about things without the aid of sign systems; Pierce claims that all sorts of things can be transformed “into themselves” and that signs in particular can be transformed into a medium between the world and the human mind.[2] Conversely, something that is regularly perceived as a sign can just as easily be misused, for example by interpreting the Holy Bible as a symbolically sacred object, and then using that same object to hit someone on the head and kill them. The presence of science in this side of semiotic theory is not very strong, since objects are not permanent in their meaning in the slightest; the meaning will mean more or less to different types of people. While determining a sign requires considering a large number of external factors, in semiotics there is no corresponding relationship between the physical object and the sign; semiotics does not take into account the question of what exists or does not exist beyond physical signs. What could be considered a negative sign due to lack of definitive existence does not fall within the spectrum of semiotics. If semiotics were a science, these non-signs would perhaps be overlooked, since everything belongs to an object, which essentially means that there are no specific objects. The approach to language through immanentism brings semiotics closer to science. Yuri Lotman states that in immanentism, language is regarded as a self-governing thing that is held together by a "highly organized integrity". [3] Lotman implies that it is the scientific structure of language that generates the meaning of signs, and that the relationships between linguistic levels are understood as immanent, essentially something that can exist without any scientific procedure to demonstrate its existence to human society . This ideathat a scientist or analyst could only explain what was already present in the language itself is also clearly shown in the classical notions of structuralism. Because structuralism is closely tied to ideas surrounding science as an exact thing, it distances itself from the relevance of human consciousness. The fundamental principles of structuralism are that any underlying structure of a text is entirely objective and does not exist in the conscious mind; they are universal patterns that determine social order and are close to language itself, which means they can be studied using linguistic analysis methods such as semiotics. Paul Ricouer states that the main purpose of structuralism is to place distance in the personal investigation of a text, to allow for great objectivity "in the structure of an institution". He also states that a structural thought "turns out to be a thought that does not think".[4] This understanding of scientific, logical and structural analysis is essentially a personal experience replaced by a substitute thought, abstracted from itself through the subjectivity of signs and codes. Science has required an element of conscious study of a language to progress over the centuries. , and the lack of serious study of scientific language has limited its progress. It is significant to note that a similar pattern can be observed in mathematics, where mathematical logic linked to semiological research has revealed matching to solve cybernetic problems, while other sciences such as linguistics are only now approaching the link between logical information and semiotic information . analyses. Language in its natural state will always be a basic interpretation of scientific language, but perhaps not a science itself. Unlike other sciences, semiotics is based on forms that reflect physical objects, with the aim of transforming these forms into something where all the elements are present in both the form and the model. Another significant discrepancy to note in terms of semiotics as a science can be found in the problems arising from sign systems formed in pre-reality within a culture, shown in the analysis of semiosis. It is possible to identify this pre-reality with nature as opposed to culture; cultural acts were understood as a dialogue between a culture and its own pre-reality, an infinite interaction with itself. The problem that arises here with semiotics as a science is the lack of collocation of signs that are trapped in an analytical framework and become lost in meaning. The attention of the apparently scientific analyst will always move to the boundaries of culture. Therefore, instead of dealing primarily with the scientific interpretation of a natural language, the analyst focuses more on cultural experiences. The management of the unconscious as a cultural experience is highly objective, in the sense that in attempting to scientifically analyze the cultural unconscious, only objectifications are observed. It is also possible that semiotics could be seen as a psychological state rather than a science. Since the basic concepts of semiotics are indefinable around some mathematical concepts, for example a fixed point or a number, a sign cannot be considered an initial scientific concept because it is not without complications; rather, it is an idea constituted by at least some relation to the name and the idea. An initial concept of signs is often interpreted not as the primary object of a science but rather as a sign situation; this situation occurs when a sign is understood by someone, and perceived in its own duality. I would argue that, in light of this, it is possible to see semiotics as little more than a means of self-expression.