sign as the main object of semiotics. The well-known structural classifications of
the sign as a carrier of meaning and information were based on its use in communication,
while the cognitive value of the sign as a means of cognition was emphasized.
As a mental entity, developing in the process of cognition, from the idea of Possibility
to revealing Regularity, the sign was represented by Ch. Pierce, who defined its basic,
cognitive, function. In linguistics the role of the sign in communication was especially
emphasized, systems of communicative functions of the language sign were proposed
by K. Bühler and R. Jacobson.
However, the specific tasks that different signs perform are not only related to the
aspect of meaning, but also to their significance. Signs that regulate social interaction,
as well as signs of art, highlight the value side of their content.
R. Barthes believed that the function of a thing can be determined on the basis of its
structure – in decomposing it into component parts and then in recomposing it; this way
you can understand how the whole works. If you use this method, you can distinguish
between different functional character types.
In the process of semiosis semantic relations between the two sides of the sign
(signans vs signatum) can be different, which allows us to distinguish three main functional
types of signs: identifiers, regulators and models. A sign-identifier is usually
closely connected with its object, it seems to be “talking about itself”; a sign-regulator
has the character of an indication or imperative, it “tells you”, indicating the path to its
object; a sign-model recreates the image of an object in another space – it “tells about
something”. Modeling signs represent the most complex level of sign organization and
semiotic problems. Modeling can use iconic techniques, including the principle of harmonic
similarity (or syntactic coding, according to U. Eco), or use the principle of functional
similarity. Modifications are possible for any type of signs. The functional types of signs are in a sense correlated with the functions of language
in the model of K. Bühler. The proposed classification could systematize ideas about the functions of the sign
and the essence of semiosis, in which, according to Ch. Morris, “something functions as
a sign”. Functional typology of signs can serve as a methodological basis for a particular
semiotic analysis in different areas of semiotics and linguistics.
In this paper, we propose a sketch of the functional classification of the
sign as the main object of semiotics. The well-known structural classifications of
the sign as a carrier of meaning and information were based on its use in communication,
while the cognitive value of the sign as a means of cognition was emphasized.
As a mental entity, developing in the process of cognition, from the idea of Possibility
to revealing Regularity, the sign was represented by Ch. Pierce, who defined its basic,
cognitive, function. In linguistics the role of the sign in communication was especially
emphasized, systems of communicative functions of the language sign were proposed
by K. Bühler and R. Jacobson.
However, the specific tasks that different signs perform are not only related to the
aspect of meaning, but also to their significance. Signs that regulate social interaction,
as well as signs of art, highlight the value side of their content.
R. Barthes believed that the function of a thing can be determined on the basis of its
structure – in decomposing it into component parts and then in recomposing it; this way
you can understand how the whole works. If you use this method, you can distinguish
between different functional character types.
In the process of semiosis semantic relations between the two sides of the sign
(signans vs signatum) can be different, which allows us to distinguish three main functional
types of signs: identifiers, regulators and models. A sign-identifier is usually
closely connected with its object, it seems to be “talking about itself”; a sign-regulator
has the character of an indication or imperative, it “tells you”, indicating the path to its
object; a sign-model recreates the image of an object in another space – it “tells about
something”. Modeling signs represent the most complex level of sign organization and
semiotic problems. Modeling can use iconic techniques, including the principle of harmonic
similarity (or syntactic coding, according to U. Eco), or use the principle of functional
similarity. Modifications are possible for any type of signs. The functional types of signs are in a sense correlated with the functions of language
in the model of K. Bühler. The proposed classification could systematize ideas about the functions of the sign
and the essence of semiosis, in which, according to Ch. Morris, “something functions as
a sign”. Functional typology of signs can serve as a methodological basis for a particular
semiotic analysis in different areas of semiotics and linguistics.
Список литературы
Barthes R. Strukturalizm kak deyatel'nost' [Structuralism as Activity]. In: Barthes R.
Izbrannye raboty. Semiotika. Poehtika [Selected works. Semiotics. Poetics]. Moscow,
Progress Publ., 1989, p. 253–261. (in Russ.)
Benvenist E. Semiologiya yazyka [Semiology of Language]. In: Benvenist E. Obshchaya
lingvistika [General Linguistics]. Moscow, Progress Publ., 1974, p. 69–89.
(in Russ.)
Buhler K. Model' yazyka kak organona. In: Buhler K. Teoriya yazyka. Moscow,
Progress Publ., 1993, p. 30–38. (in Russ.)
Eco U. Otsutstvuyushhaya struktura: Vvedenie v semiologiyu. St. Petersburg, Petropolis
Publ., 1998. (in Russ.)
Fedorova L. L. Semiotika. Uchebno-metodicheskij modul'. Moscow, Ippolitov
Publ., 2004. (in Russ.)
Frege G. Smysl i denotat. Semiotika i informatika, 1977, no. 8, p. 181–210.
(in Russ.)
Ivanov V. V. Semiotics of the 20th century. In: Modern Semiotics and Humanity Science.
Moscow, 2010, p. 53–106.
Jakobson R. Lingvistika i poehtika. In: Strukturalizm: «za» i «protiv». Moscow,
Progress Publ., 1975, p. 193–230. (in Russ.)
Jakobson R. Shiftery, glagol'nye kategorii i russkij glagol. In: Printsipy tipologicheskogo
analiza yazykov razlichnogo stroya. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1972, p. 95–113.
(in Russ.)
Jakobson R. Yazyk v otnoshenii k drugim sredstvam kommunikatsii. In: Jakobson
R. Izbrannye raboty. Moscow, Progress Publ., 1985, p. 319–330. (in Russ.)
Kassirer E. Filosofiya simvolicheskikh form [The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms].
St. Petersburg: Universitetskaya kniga Publ., 2001, vol. 1: Language. (in Russ.)
Knorozov Yu. V. K voprosu o klassifikatsii signalizatsii. In: Osnovnye problemy
afrikanistiki. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1973, p. 324–334. (in Russ.)
Leach E. Kul'tura i kommunikatsiya: logika vzaimosvyazi simvolov. K ispol'zovaniyu
strukturnogo analiza v sotsial'noj antropologii. Moscow, Vostochnaya literatura
Publ., 2001. (in Russ.)
Lorents K. Kol'tso tsarya Solomona. Moscow, Znanie Publ., 1978. (in Russ.)
Lotman Yu. M. Vykhod iz labirinta. Posleslovie k romanu U. Eco «Imya rozy»). In:
Eco U. Imya rozy. Moscow, Knizhnaya palata Publ., 1998. (in Russ.)
Lukiyanova N. А. O semioticheskoj prirode idej. Nauchnye vedomosti Belgorodskogo
gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Pravo, 2012,
vol. 21, no. 14 (133), p. 54–59. (in Russ.)
Morris Ch. U. Osnovaniya teorii znakov. In: Semiotika: Аntologiya. Comp. by
Yu. S. Stepanov. Moscow, Аkademicheskij proekt Publ.; Ekaterinburg, Delovaya kniga
Publ., 2001, p. 45–97. (in Russ.)
Noth W. Charlez Sanders Peirce. Critique & Semiotics, 2001, no. 3–4, p. 5–32.
(in Russ.)
Parshin P. B. Territoriya kak brend: marketingovaya metafora, identichnost' i konkurentsiya.
Moscow, MGIMO-Universitet Publ., 2014. (in Russ.)
Peirce Ch. S. O novom spiske kategorij. In: Peirce Ch. S. Izbrannye filosofskie
proizvedeniya. Moscow, Logos Publ., 2000, p. 96–115. (in Russ.)
Peirce Ch. S. O znakakh i kategoriyakh. In: Peirce Ch. S. Izbrannye filosofskie
proizvedeniya. Moscow, Logos Publ., 2000, p. 162–175. (in Russ.)
Peirce Ch. S. Razdelenie znakov. In: Peirce Ch. S. Izbrannye filosofskie
proizvedeniya. Moscow, Logos Publ., 2000, p. 176–199. (in Russ.)
Potpot R. M. Reprezentatsiya kontsepta KHOT ‘dom’ v tekstakh lichnykh pesen
khantov. Vestnik ugrovedeniya, 2016, no. 6 (27), p. 52–57. (in Russ.)
Sossure F. de. Kurs obshhej lingvistiki. In: Sossure F. de. Trudy po yazykoznaniyu.
Moscow, Progress Publ., 1977, p. 7–285. (in Russ.)
Volkova P. Tajna maski [The Mystery of the Mask]. In: Volkova P. Most cherez
bezdnu [The Bridge over Abyss]. Moscow, Zebra E, 2013, vol. 1, p. 227–255. (in Russ.)
Towards the Functional Typology of Signs С. 283–301. DOI 10.25205/2307-1737-2019-2-283-301