Semiotika: Perbedaan antara revisi

← Revisi sebelumnya Revisi selanjutnya →

Konten dihapus Konten ditambahkan

Sebaris

Revisi per 31 Agustus 2014 15.36

Semiotika (juga disebut studi semiotik dan dalam tradisi Saussurean disebut semiologi) adalah studi tentang makna keputusan. Ini termasuk studi tentang tanda-tanda dan proses tanda (semiosis), indikasi, penunjukan, kemiripan, analogi, metafora, simbolisme, makna, dan komunikasi. Semiotika berkaitan erat dengan bidang linguistik, yang untuk sebagian, mempelajari struktur dan makna bahasa yang lebih spesifik. Namun, berbeda dari linguistik, semiotika juga mempelajari sistem-sistem tanda non-linguistik. Semiotika sering dibagi menjadi tiga cabang:

Semantik: hubungan antara tanda dan hal-hal yang mereka lihat; denotata mereka, atau makna
Sintaksis: hubungan antara tanda-tanda dalam struktur formal
Pragmatik: hubungan antara tanda dan tanda-menggunakan agen

Semiotika sering dipandang memiliki dimensi antropologis penting; misalnya, Umberto Eco mengusulkan bahwa setiap fenomena budaya dapat dipelajari sebagai komunikasi.^[1] Namun, beberapa ahli semiotik fokus pada dimensi logis dari ilmu pengetahuan. Mereka juga menguji area untuk ilmu kehidupan - seperti bagaimana membuat prediksi tentang organisme, dan beradaptasi, semiotik relung mereka di dunia (lihat semiosis). Secara umum, teori-teori semiotik mengambil tanda-tanda atau sistem tanda sebagai objek studi mereka: komunikasi informasi dalam organisme hidup tercakup dalam biosemiotik (termasuk zoosemiotik).

Sintaksis adalah cabang dari semiotika yang berhubungan dengan sifat-sifat formal tanda dan simbol.^[2] Lebih tepatnya, Sintaksis berkaitan dengan "aturan yang mengatur bagaimana kata-kata digabungkan untuk membentuk frasa dan kalimat".^[3]

Charles Morris menambahkan bahwa semantik berkaitan dengan hubungan tanda-tanda untuk designata mereka dan benda-benda yang memungkinkan atau menunjukkan; dan, penawaran pragmatik dengan aspek biotik dari semiosis, yaitu dengan semua fenomena psikologis, biologis, dan sosiologis yang terjadi dalam fungsi tanda-tanda.

Terminologi

Istilah, yang dieja semeiotika, berasal dari bahasa Yunani σημειωτικός sēmeiōtikos, "tanda-tanda jeli"^[4] (dari σημεῖον sēmeion, "tanda, cap"^[5]) dan pertama kali digunakan dalam bahasa Inggris oleh Henry Stubbes^[6] dalam arti yang sangat tepat untuk menunjukkan cabang ilmu kedokteran yang berkaitan dengan interpretasi dari tanda-tanda.^[7] John Locke menggunakan istilah sem(e)iotike dalam Buku 4, Bab 21 dari An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690).^[8]^[9]

Sejarah

Awal mulanya konsep semiotik diperkenalkan oleh Ferdinand de Saussure melalui dikotomi sistem tanda: signified dan signifier atau signifie dan significant yang bersifat atomistis. Konsep ini melihat bahwa makna muncul ketika ada hubungan yang bersifat asosiasi atau in absentia antara ‘yang ditandai’ (signified) dan ‘yang menandai’ (signifier). Tanda adalah kesatuan dari suatu bentuk penanda (signifier) dengan sebuah ide atau petanda (signified). Dengan kata lain, penanda adalah “bunyi yang bermakna” atau “coretan yang bermakna”. Jadi, penanda adalah aspek material dari bahasa yaitu apa yang dikatakan atau didengar dan apa yang ditulis atau dibaca. Petanda adalah gambaran mental, pikiran, atau konsep. Jadi, petanda adalah aspek mental dari bahasa (Bertens, 2001:180). Suatu penanda tanpa petanda tidak berarti apa-apa dan karena itu tidak merupakan tanda. Sebaliknya, suatu petanda tidak mungkin disampaikan atau ditangkap lepas dari penanda; petanda atau yang dtandakan itu termasuk tanda sendiri dan dengan demikian merupakan suatu faktor linguistik. “Penanda dan petanda merupakan kesatuan seperti dua sisi dari sehelai kertas,” kata Saussure. Louis Hjelmslev, seorang penganut Saussurean berpandangan bahwa sebuah tanda tidak hanya mengandung hubungan internal antara aspek material (penanda) dan konsep mental (petanda), namun juga mengandung hubungan antara dirinya dan sebuah sistem yang lebih luas di luar dirinya. Bagi Hjelmslev, sebuah tanda lebih merupakan self-reflective dalam artian bahwa sebuah penanda dan sebuah petanda masing-masing harus secara berturut-turut menjadi kemampuan dari ekspresi dan persepsi. Louis Hjelmslev dikenal dengan teori metasemiotik (scientific semiotics). Sama halnya dengan Hjelmslev, Roland Barthes pun merupakan pengikut Saussurean yang berpandangan bahwa sebuah sistem tanda yang mencerminkan asumsi-asumsi dari suatu masyarakat tertentu dalam waktu tertentu. Semiotik, atau dalam istilah Barthes semiologi, pada dasarnya hendak mempelajari bagaimana kemanusiaan (humanity) memaknai hal-hal (things). Memaknai (to sinify) dalam hal ini tidak dapat dicampuradukkan dengan mengkomunikasikan (to communicate). Memaknai berarti bahwa objek-objek tidak hanya membawa informasi, dalam hal mana objek-objek itu hendak dikomunikasikan, tetapi juga mengkonstitusi sistem terstruktur dari tanda. Salah satu wilayah penting yang dirambah Barthes dalam studinya tentang tanda adalah peran pembaca (the reader). Konotasi, walaupun merupakan sifat asli tanda, membutuhkan keaktivan pembaca agar dapat berfungsi. Barthes secara lugas mengulas apa yang sering disebutnya sebagai sistem pemaknaan tataran ke-dua, yang dibangun di atas sistem lain yang telah ada sebelumnya. sistem ke-dua ini oleh Barthes disebut dengan konotatif, yang di dalam buku Mythologies-nya secara tegas ia bedakan dari denotative atau sistem pemaknaan tataran pertama.

Dari peta Barthes di atas terlihat bahwa tanda denotatif (3) terdiri atas penanda (1) dan petanda (2). Akan tetapi, pada saat bersamaan, tanda denotatif adalah juga penanda konotatif (4). Jadi, dalam konsep Barthes, tanda konotatif tidak sekadar memiliki makna tambahan namun juga mengandung kedua bagian tanda denotatif yang melandasi keberadaannya. Pada dasarnya, ada perbedaan antara denotasi dan konotasi dalam pengertian secara umum serta denotasi dan konotasi yang dipahami oleh Barthes. Di dalam semiologi Barthes dan para pengikutnya, denotasi merupakan sistem signifikasi tingkat pertama, sementara konotasi merupakan tingkat kedua. Dalam hal ini denotasi justru lebih diasosiasikan dengan ketertutupan makna. Sebagai reaksi untuk melawan keharfiahan denotasi yang bersifat opresif ini, Barthes mencoba menyingkirkan dan menolaknya. Baginya yang ada hanyalah konotasi. Ia lebih lanjut mengatakan bahwa makna “harfiah” merupakan sesuatu yang bersifat alamiah (Budiman, 1999:22). Dalam kerangka Barthes, konotasi identik dengan operasi ideologi, yang disebutnya sebagai ‘mitos’ dan berfungsi untuk mengungkapkan dan memberikan pembenaran bagi nilai-nilai dominan yang berlaku dalam suatu periode tertentu. Di dalam mitos juga terdapat pola tiga dimensi penanda, petanda, dan tanda. Namun sebagai suatu sistem yang unik, mitos dibangun oleh suatu rantai pemaknaan yang telah ada sebelumnya atau dengan kata lain, mitos adalah juga suatu sistem pemaknaan tataran ke-dua. Di dalam mitos pula sebuah petanda dapat memiliki beberapa penanda. Berbeda dengan para ahli yang sudah dikemukakan di atas, Charles Sanders Peirce, seorang filsuf berkebangsaan Amerika, mengembangkan filsafat pragmatisme melalui kajian semiotik. Bagi Peirce, tanda “is something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity.” Sesuatu yang digunakan agar tanda bisa berfungsi disebut ground. Konsekuensinya, tanda (sign atau representamen) selalu terdapat dalam hubungan triadik, yakni ground, object, dan interpretant (lihat gambar 3). Atas dasar hubungan ini, Peirce membuat klasifikasi tanda. Tanda yang dikaitkan dengan ground dibaginya menjadi qualisign, sinsign, dan legisign. Qualisign adalah kualitas yang ada pada tanda. Sinsign adalah eksistensi aktual benda atau peristiwa yang ada pada tanda. Sedangkan legisign adalah norma yang dikandung oleh tanda.

Peirce membedakan tiga konsep dasar semiotik, yaitu: sintaksis semiotik, semantik semiotik, dan pragmatik semiotik. Sintaksis semiotik mempelajari hubungan antartanda. Hubungan ini tidak terbatas pada sistem yang sama. Contoh: teks dan gambar dalam wacana iklan merupakan dua sistem tanda yang berlainan, akan tetapi keduanya saling bekerja sama dalam membentuk keutuhan wacana iklan. Semantik semiotik mempelajari hubungan antara tanda, objek, dan interpretannya. Ketiganya membentuk hubungan dalam melakukan proses semiotis. Konsep semiotik ini akan digunakan untuk melihat hubungan tanda-tanda dalam iklan (dalam hal ini tanda non-bahasa) yang mendukung keutuhan wacana. Pragmatik semiotik mempelajari hubungan antara tanda, pemakai tanda, dan pemakaian tanda. Berdasarkan objeknya, Peirce membagi tanda atas icon (ikon), index (indeks), dan symbol (simbol). Ikon adalah tanda yang hubungan antara penanda dan petandanya bersifat bersamaan bentuk alamiah. Dengan kata lain, ikon adalah hubungan antara tanda dan objek atau acuan yang bersifat kemiripan; misalnya foto. Indeks adalah tanda yang menunjukkan adanya hubungan alamiah antara tanda dan petanda yang bersifat kausal atau hubungan sebab akibat, atau tanda yang langsung mengacu pada kenyataan; misalnya asap sebagai tanda adanya api. Tanda seperti itu adalah tanda konvensional yang biasa disebut simbol. Jadi, simbol adalah tanda yang menunjukkan hubungan alamiah antara penanda dengan petandanya. Hubungan di antaranya bersifat arbitrer, hubungan berdasarkan konvensi masyarakat. Berdasarkan interpretant, tanda (sign, representamen) dibagi atas rheme, dicent sign atau dicisign dan argument. Rheme adalah tanda yang memungkinkan orang menafsirkan berdasarkan pilihan. Dicent sign atau dicisign adalah tanda sesuai dengan kenyataan. Sedangkan argument adalah yang langsung memberikan alasan tentang sesuatu.

Referensi

^ Caesar, Michael (1999). Umberto Eco: Philosophy, Semiotics, and the Work of Fiction. Wiley-Blackwell. hlm. 55. ISBN 978-0-7456-0850-1.
^ The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Syntactics
^ Wiktionary.org
^ σημειωτικός, Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, on Perseus
^ σημεῖον, Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, on Perseus
^ Stubbe, H.,The Plus Ultra reduced to a Non Plus ... (London, England, 1670), page 75: "... nor is there any thing to be relied upon in Physick, but an exact knowledge of medicinal phisiology (founded on observation, not principles), semeiotics, method of curing, and tried (not excogitated, not commanding) medicines ...."
^ For the Greeks, "signs" occurred in the world of nature, “symbols” in the world of culture. Not until Augustine of Hippo would a thematic proposal for uniting the two under the notion of "sign" (signum) as transcending the nature/culture divide and identifying symbols as no more than a species (or sub-species) of signum be formally proposed. See the monograph study on this question Le teorie del segno nell’antichità classica by Giovanni Manetti (Milan: Bompiani, 1987); trans. by Christine Richardson as Theories of the Sign in Classical Antiquity (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1993). Classic also is the article by Luigi Romeo, “The Derivation of ‘Semiotics’ through the History of the Discipline”, in Semiosis 6, Heft 2 (1977), 37–49. See also Andrew LaVelle’s discussion of Romeo on Peirce-l at [1].
^ Locke used the Greek word σημιωτική [sic] in the 4th ed. of 1700 of his Essay concerning Human Understanding. He notably writes both (a) σημιωτικὴ and (b) Σημιωτική—when term (a) is followed by any kind of punctuation mark, it takes the form (b); see Ancient Greek accent. The 1689/1690 first edition of Locke’s Essay concerning Human Understanding, in the concluding “Division of the Sciences” chapter, Locke introduces, in §4, "σημιωτική" as his proposed name synonymous with “the Doctrine of Signs” for the development of the future study of the ubiquitous role of signs within human awareness. In the 1689/1690 original edition, the “Division of the Sciences” chapter was Chapter XX. In the 4th ed. of 1700, a new Chapter XIX “Of Enthusiasm” is inserted into Book IV, after which the Chapter XX of the 1st ed. becomes Chapter XXI for all subsequent editions. — see in John Deely, Why Semiotics? (Ottawa: Legas, 2004), 71–88, esp. 77–80 for the editions of Locke’s Essay from 1689 through 1716. It is an important fact that Locke’s proposal for the development of semiotics, with three passing exceptions as “asides” in the writings of Berkeley, Leibniz, and Condillac, “is met with a resounding silence that lasts as long as modernity itself. Even Locke’s devoted late modern editor, Alexander Campbell Fraser, dismisses out of hand ‘this crude and superficial scheme of Locke’” (see “Locke’s modest proposal subversive of the way of ideas, its reception, and its bearing on the resolution of an ancient and a modern controversy in logic” in Chap. 14 of Deely’s Four Ages of Understanding, pp. 591–606). In the 1975 Oxford University Press critical edition prepared and introduced by Peter Harold Nidditch, Nidditch tells us, in his “Foreword”, p. vii, that he presents us with “a complete, critically established, and unmodernized text that aims at being historically faithful to Locke’s final intentions”; p. xxv tells us further that “the present text is based on the original fourth edition of the Essay”, and that “readings in the other early authorized editions are adopted, in appropriate form, where necessary, and recorded otherwise in the textual notes”. The term "σημιωτική" appears in that 1700 4th edition, the last published (but not the last prepared) within Locke’s lifetime, with exactly the spelling and final accent found in the 1689/1690 1st edition. Yet if we turn to the final Chapter XXI of the 1975 Oxford edition, we find on p. 720 not "σημιωτικὴ" but rather do we find substituted the "σημειωτικὴ" spelling (and with final accent reversed). (Note that in Modern Greek and in some systems for pronouncing classical Greek, "Σημιωτικὴ" and "Σημειωτική" are pronounced the same.)
^ Prior to Locke, the notion of "sign" as transcending the nature/culture divide was introduced by Augustine of Hippo—see John Deely, Augustine & Poinsot: The Protosemiotic Development (Scranton: University of Scranton Press, 2009) for full details of Augustine’s originality on this point—a specialized study was firmly established. Himself a man of medicine, Locke was familiar with this "semeiotics" as naming a specialized branch within medical science. In his personal library were two editions of Scapula’s 1579 abridgement of Henricus Stephanus’ Thesaurus Graecae Linguae, which listed σημειωτική as the name for “diagnostics”, the branch of medicine concerned with interpreting symptoms of disease (“symptomatology”). Indeed the English physician and scholar Henry Stubbes had transliterated this term of specialized science into English precisely as “semeiotic” in his 1670 work, The Plus Ultra Reduced to a Non Plus (p. 75).

[caesar-1] Caesar, Michael (1999). Umberto Eco: Philosophy, Semiotics, and the Work of Fiction. Wiley-Blackwell. hlm. 55. ISBN 978-0-7456-0850-1.

[2] The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Syntactics

[3] Wiktionary.org

[4] σημειωτικός, Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, on Perseus

[5] σημεῖον, Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, on Perseus

[6] Stubbe, H.,The Plus Ultra reduced to a Non Plus ... (London, England, 1670), page 75: "... nor is there any thing to be relied upon in Physick, but an exact knowledge of medicinal phisiology (founded on observation, not principles), semeiotics, method of curing, and tried (not excogitated, not commanding) medicines ...."

[7] For the Greeks, "signs" occurred in the world of nature, “symbols” in the world of culture. Not until Augustine of Hippo would a thematic proposal for uniting the two under the notion of "sign" (signum) as transcending the nature/culture divide and identifying symbols as no more than a species (or sub-species) of signum be formally proposed. See the monograph study on this question Le teorie del segno nell’antichità classica by Giovanni Manetti (Milan: Bompiani, 1987); trans. by Christine Richardson as Theories of the Sign in Classical Antiquity (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1993). Classic also is the article by Luigi Romeo, “The Derivation of ‘Semiotics’ through the History of the Discipline”, in Semiosis 6, Heft 2 (1977), 37–49. See also Andrew LaVelle’s discussion of Romeo on Peirce-l at [1].

[8] Locke used the Greek word σημιωτική [sic] in the 4th ed. of 1700 of his Essay concerning Human Understanding. He notably writes both (a) σημιωτικὴ and (b) Σημιωτική—when term (a) is followed by any kind of punctuation mark, it takes the form (b); see Ancient Greek accent. The 1689/1690 first edition of Locke’s Essay concerning Human Understanding, in the concluding “Division of the Sciences” chapter, Locke introduces, in §4, "σημιωτική" as his proposed name synonymous with “the Doctrine of Signs” for the development of the future study of the ubiquitous role of signs within human awareness. In the 1689/1690 original edition, the “Division of the Sciences” chapter was Chapter XX. In the 4th ed. of 1700, a new Chapter XIX “Of Enthusiasm” is inserted into Book IV, after which the Chapter XX of the 1st ed. becomes Chapter XXI for all subsequent editions. — see in John Deely, Why Semiotics? (Ottawa: Legas, 2004), 71–88, esp. 77–80 for the editions of Locke’s Essay from 1689 through 1716. It is an important fact that Locke’s proposal for the development of semiotics, with three passing exceptions as “asides” in the writings of Berkeley, Leibniz, and Condillac, “is met with a resounding silence that lasts as long as modernity itself. Even Locke’s devoted late modern editor, Alexander Campbell Fraser, dismisses out of hand ‘this crude and superficial scheme of Locke’” (see “Locke’s modest proposal subversive of the way of ideas, its reception, and its bearing on the resolution of an ancient and a modern controversy in logic” in Chap. 14 of Deely’s Four Ages of Understanding, pp. 591–606). In the 1975 Oxford University Press critical edition prepared and introduced by Peter Harold Nidditch, Nidditch tells us, in his “Foreword”, p. vii, that he presents us with “a complete, critically established, and unmodernized text that aims at being historically faithful to Locke’s final intentions”; p. xxv tells us further that “the present text is based on the original fourth edition of the Essay”, and that “readings in the other early authorized editions are adopted, in appropriate form, where necessary, and recorded otherwise in the textual notes”. The term "σημιωτική" appears in that 1700 4th edition, the last published (but not the last prepared) within Locke’s lifetime, with exactly the spelling and final accent found in the 1689/1690 1st edition. Yet if we turn to the final Chapter XXI of the 1975 Oxford edition, we find on p. 720 not "σημιωτικὴ" but rather do we find substituted the "σημειωτικὴ" spelling (and with final accent reversed). (Note that in Modern Greek and in some systems for pronouncing classical Greek, "Σημιωτικὴ" and "Σημειωτική" are pronounced the same.)

[9] Prior to Locke, the notion of "sign" as transcending the nature/culture divide was introduced by Augustine of Hippo—see John Deely, Augustine & Poinsot: The Protosemiotic Development (Scranton: University of Scranton Press, 2009) for full details of Augustine’s originality on this point—a specialized study was firmly established. Himself a man of medicine, Locke was familiar with this "semeiotics" as naming a specialized branch within medical science. In his personal library were two editions of Scapula’s 1579 abridgement of Henricus Stephanus’ Thesaurus Graecae Linguae, which listed σημειωτική as the name for “diagnostics”, the branch of medicine concerned with interpreting symptoms of disease (“symptomatology”). Indeed the English physician and scholar Henry Stubbes had transliterated this term of specialized science into English precisely as “semeiotic” in his 1670 work, The Plus Ultra Reduced to a Non Plus (p. 75).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

@@ Baris 1: / Baris 1: @@
 {{rapikan}}
-'''Semiotika''' (juga disebut '''studi semiotik''' dan dalam tradisi [[Ferdinand de Saussure|Saussurean]] disebut '''semiologi''') adalah studi tentang makna keputusan. Ini termasuk studi tentang tanda-tanda dan proses tanda (semiosis), indikasi, penunjukan, kemiripan, analogi, metafora, simbolisme, makna, dan komunikasi. Semiotika berkaitan erat dengan bidang linguistik, yang, untuk sebagian, mempelajari struktur dan makna bahasa yang lebih spesifik. Namun, berbeda dari linguistik, semiotika juga mempelajari sistem-sistem tanda non-linguistik. Semiotika sering dibagi menjadi tiga cabang:
+'''Semiotika''' (juga disebut '''studi semiotik''' dan dalam tradisi [[Ferdinand de Saussure|Saussurean]] disebut '''semiologi''') adalah studi tentang makna keputusan. Ini termasuk studi tentang tanda-tanda dan proses tanda (semiosis), indikasi, penunjukan, kemiripan, analogi, metafora, simbolisme, makna, dan komunikasi. Semiotika berkaitan erat dengan bidang linguistik, yang untuk sebagian, mempelajari struktur dan makna bahasa yang lebih spesifik. Namun, berbeda dari linguistik, semiotika juga mempelajari sistem-sistem tanda non-linguistik. Semiotika sering dibagi menjadi tiga cabang:
 * '''[[Semantik]]''': hubungan antara tanda dan hal-hal yang mereka lihat; denotata mereka, atau makna
 * '''[[Sintaksis]]''': hubungan antara tanda-tanda dalam struktur formal
 * '''[[Pragmatik]]''': hubungan antara tanda dan tanda-menggunakan agen
-Semiotika sering dilihat sebagai memiliki dimensi [[antropologi|antropologis]] penting; misalnya, [[Umberto Eco]] mengusulkan bahwa setiap fenomena budaya dapat dipelajari sebagai komunikasi.<ref name=caesar>{{cite book |last= Caesar |first= Michael |title= ''Umberto Eco: Philosophy, Semiotics, and the Work of Fiction'' |publisher= Wiley-Blackwell |year= 1999 |isbn= 978-0-7456-0850-1 |page= 55}}</ref> Namun, beberapa ahli semiotik fokus pada dimensi logis dari ilmu pengetahuan. Mereka memeriksa daerah milik juga untuk ilmu kehidupan - seperti bagaimana membuat prediksi tentang organisme, dan beradaptasi, [[relung (ekologi)|relung]] semiotik mereka di dunia (lihat semiosis). Secara umum, teori-teori semiotik mengambil tanda-tanda atau [[sistem tanda]] sebagai objek studi mereka: komunikasi informasi dalam organisme hidup tercakup dalam [[biosemiotik]] (termasuk [[zoosemiotik]]).
+Semiotika sering dipandang memiliki dimensi [[antropologi|antropologis]] penting; misalnya, [[Umberto Eco]] mengusulkan bahwa setiap fenomena budaya dapat dipelajari sebagai komunikasi.<ref name=caesar>{{cite book |last= Caesar |first= Michael |title= ''Umberto Eco: Philosophy, Semiotics, and the Work of Fiction'' |publisher= Wiley-Blackwell |year= 1999 |isbn= 978-0-7456-0850-1 |page= 55}}</ref> Namun, beberapa ahli semiotik fokus pada dimensi logis dari ilmu pengetahuan. Mereka juga menguji area untuk ilmu kehidupan - seperti bagaimana membuat prediksi tentang organisme, dan beradaptasi, semiotik [[relung (ekologi)|relung]] mereka di dunia (lihat semiosis). Secara umum, teori-teori semiotik mengambil tanda-tanda atau [[sistem tanda]] sebagai objek studi mereka: komunikasi informasi dalam organisme hidup tercakup dalam [[biosemiotik]] (termasuk [[zoosemiotik]]).
-[[Sintaksis]] adalah cabang dari semiotika yang berhubungan dengan sifat-sifat formal tanda dan simbol.<ref>The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/syntactics Syntactics]</ref> Lebih tepatnya, Syntactics berkaitan dengan "aturan yang mengatur bagaimana kata-kata digabungkan untuk membentuk frasa dan kalimat".<ref>[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/syntax Wiktionary.org]</ref> Charles Morris menambahkan bahwa semantik berkaitan dengan hubungan tanda-tanda untuk designata mereka dan benda-benda yang mereka mungkin atau tidak menunjukkan; dan, penawaran pragmatik dengan aspek biotik dari semiosis, yaitu dengan semua fenomena psikologis, biologis, dan sosiologis yang terjadi dalam fungsi tanda-tanda.
+[[Sintaksis]] adalah cabang dari semiotika yang berhubungan dengan sifat-sifat formal tanda dan simbol.<ref>The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/syntactics Syntactics]</ref> Lebih tepatnya, Sintaksis berkaitan dengan "aturan yang mengatur bagaimana kata-kata digabungkan untuk membentuk frasa dan kalimat".<ref>[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/syntax Wiktionary.org]</ref>
+[[Charles Morris]] menambahkan bahwa semantik berkaitan dengan hubungan tanda-tanda untuk designata mereka dan benda-benda yang memungkinkan atau menunjukkan; dan, penawaran pragmatik dengan aspek biotik dari semiosis, yaitu dengan semua fenomena psikologis, biologis, dan sosiologis yang terjadi dalam fungsi tanda-tanda.
 ==Terminologi==
-Istilah, yang dieja '''semeiotika''', berasal dari [[Yunani Kuno|Yunani]] σημειωτικός ''sēmeiōtikos'', "tanda-tanda jeli"<ref>[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dshmeiwtiko%2Fs σημειωτικός], Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, ''A Greek-English Lexicon'', on Perseus</ref> (dari σημεῖον ''sēmeion'', "tanda, cap"<ref>[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dshmei%3Don σημεῖον], Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, ''A Greek-English Lexicon'', on Perseus</ref>) dan pertama kali digunakan dalam bahasa Inggris oleh [[Henry Stubbes]]<ref>Stubbe, H.,''The Plus Ultra reduced to a Non Plus'' ... (London, England, 1670), page 75:  "... nor is there any thing to be relied upon in Physick, but an exact knowledge of medicinal phisiology (founded on observation, not principles), '''semeiotics''', method of curing, and tried (not excogitated, not commanding) medicines ...."</ref> dalam arti yang sangat tepat untuk menunjukkan cabang ilmu kedokteran yang berkaitan dengan interpretasi dari tanda-tanda.<ref>For the Greeks, "signs" occurred in the world of nature, “symbols” in the world of culture. Not until [[Augustine of Hippo]] would a thematic proposal for uniting the two under the notion of "sign" (''signum'') as transcending the nature/culture divide and identifying symbols as no more than a species (or sub-species) of ''signum'' be formally proposed. See the monograph study on this question ''Le teorie del segno nell’antichità classica'' by Giovanni Manetti (Milan: Bompiani, 1987); trans. by Christine Richardson as ''Theories of the Sign in Classical Antiquity'' (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1993). Classic also is the article by Luigi Romeo, “The Derivation of ‘Semiotics’ through the History of the Discipline”, in ''Semiosis'' 6, Heft 2 (1977), 37–49. See also Andrew LaVelle’s discussion of Romeo on Peirce-l at [http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/3252].</ref> [[John Locke]] menggunakan istilah '''sem(e)iotike''' dalam Buku 4, Bab 21 dari ''An Essay Concerning Human Understanding'' (1690).<ref>Locke used  the Greek word σημιωτική{{sic}} in the [http://books.google.gr/books?id=hGeKsjjtu6EC&source=gbs_navlinks_s 4th ed. of 1700] of his ''Essay concerning Human Understanding''. He notably writes both (a) σημιωτικὴ<!--non-capitalized first letter and featuring a grave-accented last vowel--> and (b) Σημιωτική<!--capitalized first letter and featuring an acute-accented last vowel-->—when term (a) is followed by any kind of punctuation mark, it takes the form (b); see ''[[Ancient Greek accent]]''.  The 1689/1690 first edition of Locke’s ''Essay concerning Human Understanding'', in the concluding “Division of the Sciences” chapter, Locke introduces, in §4, "σημιωτική" as his proposed name synonymous with “''the Doctrine of Signs''” for the development of the future study of the ubiquitous role of signs within human awareness. In the 1689/1690 original edition, the “Division of the Sciences” chapter was Chapter XX. In the 4th ed. of 1700, a new Chapter XIX “Of Enthusiasm” is inserted into Book IV, after which the Chapter XX of the 1st ed. becomes Chapter XXI for all subsequent editions.&nbsp;— see in John Deely, ''Why Semiotics?'' (Ottawa: Legas, 2004), 71–88, esp. 77–80 for the editions of Locke’s ''Essay'' from 1689 through 1716. It is an important fact that Locke’s proposal for the development of semiotics, with three passing exceptions as “asides” in the writings of [[George Berkeley|Berkeley]], [[Leibniz]], and [[Étienne Bonnot de Condillac|Condillac]], “is met with a resounding silence that lasts as long as modernity itself. Even Locke’s devoted late modern editor, [[Alexander Campbell Fraser]], dismisses out of hand ‘this crude and superficial scheme of Locke’” (see “Locke’s modest proposal subversive of the way of ideas, its reception, and its bearing on the resolution of an ancient and a modern controversy in logic” in Chap. 14 of Deely’s ''Four Ages of Understanding'', pp. 591–606). In the 1975 Oxford University Press critical edition prepared and introduced by Peter Harold Nidditch, Nidditch tells us, in his “Foreword”, p. vii, that he presents us with “a complete, critically established, and unmodernized text that aims at being historically faithful to Locke’s final intentions”; p. xxv tells us further that “the present text is based on the original fourth edition of the ''Essay''”, and that “readings in the other early authorized editions are adopted, in appropriate form, where necessary, and recorded otherwise in the textual notes”. The term "σημιωτική" appears in that 1700 4th edition, the last published (but not the last prepared) within Locke’s lifetime, with exactly the spelling and final accent found in the 1689/1690 1st edition. Yet if we turn to the final Chapter XXI of the 1975 Oxford edition, we find on p. 720 not "σημιωτικὴ" but rather do we find substituted the "σημειωτικὴ" spelling (and with final accent reversed). (Note that in [[Greek orthography|Modern Greek]] and in [[Pronunciation of Ancient Greek in teaching|some systems for pronouncing classical Greek]], "Σημ'''ι'''ωτικὴ" and "Σημ'''ει'''ωτική" are pronounced the same.)</ref><ref>Prior to Locke, the notion of "sign" as transcending the nature/culture divide was introduced by [[Augustine of Hippo]]—see John Deely, ''Augustine & Poinsot: The Protosemiotic Development'' (Scranton: University of Scranton Press, 2009) for full details of Augustine’s originality on this point—a specialized study was firmly established. Himself a man of medicine, Locke was familiar with this "semeiotics" as naming a specialized branch within medical science. In his personal library were two editions of Scapula’s 1579 abridgement of Henricus Stephanus’ ''Thesaurus Graecae Linguae'', which listed σημειωτική as the name for “diagnostics”, the branch of medicine concerned with interpreting symptoms of disease (“[[symptomatology]]”). Indeed the English physician and scholar [[Henry Stubbes]] had transliterated this term of specialized science into English precisely as “semeiotic” in his 1670 work, ''The Plus Ultra Reduced to a Non Plus'' (p.&nbsp;75).</ref>
+Istilah, yang dieja '''semeiotika''', berasal dari [[Yunani Kuno|bahasa Yunani]] σημειωτικός ''sēmeiōtikos'', "tanda-tanda jeli"<ref>[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dshmeiwtiko%2Fs σημειωτικός], Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, ''A Greek-English Lexicon'', on Perseus</ref> (dari σημεῖον ''sēmeion'', "tanda, cap"<ref>[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dshmei%3Don σημεῖον], Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, ''A Greek-English Lexicon'', on Perseus</ref>) dan pertama kali digunakan dalam bahasa Inggris oleh [[Henry Stubbes]]<ref>Stubbe, H.,''The Plus Ultra reduced to a Non Plus'' ... (London, England, 1670), page 75:  "... nor is there any thing to be relied upon in Physick, but an exact knowledge of medicinal phisiology (founded on observation, not principles), '''semeiotics''', method of curing, and tried (not excogitated, not commanding) medicines ...."</ref> dalam arti yang sangat tepat untuk menunjukkan cabang ilmu kedokteran yang berkaitan dengan interpretasi dari tanda-tanda.<ref>For the Greeks, "signs" occurred in the world of nature, “symbols” in the world of culture. Not until [[Augustine of Hippo]] would a thematic proposal for uniting the two under the notion of "sign" (''signum'') as transcending the nature/culture divide and identifying symbols as no more than a species (or sub-species) of ''signum'' be formally proposed. See the monograph study on this question ''Le teorie del segno nell’antichità classica'' by Giovanni Manetti (Milan: Bompiani, 1987); trans. by Christine Richardson as ''Theories of the Sign in Classical Antiquity'' (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1993). Classic also is the article by Luigi Romeo, “The Derivation of ‘Semiotics’ through the History of the Discipline”, in ''Semiosis'' 6, Heft 2 (1977), 37–49. See also Andrew LaVelle’s discussion of Romeo on Peirce-l at [http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/3252].</ref> [[John Locke]] menggunakan istilah '''sem(e)iotike''' dalam Buku 4, Bab 21 dari ''An Essay Concerning Human Understanding'' (1690).<ref>Locke used  the Greek word σημιωτική{{sic}} in the [http://books.google.gr/books?id=hGeKsjjtu6EC&source=gbs_navlinks_s 4th ed. of 1700] of his ''Essay concerning Human Understanding''. He notably writes both (a) σημιωτικὴ<!--non-capitalized first letter and featuring a grave-accented last vowel--> and (b) Σημιωτική<!--capitalized first letter and featuring an acute-accented last vowel-->—when term (a) is followed by any kind of punctuation mark, it takes the form (b); see ''[[Ancient Greek accent]]''.  The 1689/1690 first edition of Locke’s ''Essay concerning Human Understanding'', in the concluding “Division of the Sciences” chapter, Locke introduces, in §4, "σημιωτική" as his proposed name synonymous with “''the Doctrine of Signs''” for the development of the future study of the ubiquitous role of signs within human awareness. In the 1689/1690 original edition, the “Division of the Sciences” chapter was Chapter XX. In the 4th ed. of 1700, a new Chapter XIX “Of Enthusiasm” is inserted into Book IV, after which the Chapter XX of the 1st ed. becomes Chapter XXI for all subsequent editions.&nbsp;— see in John Deely, ''Why Semiotics?'' (Ottawa: Legas, 2004), 71–88, esp. 77–80 for the editions of Locke’s ''Essay'' from 1689 through 1716. It is an important fact that Locke’s proposal for the development of semiotics, with three passing exceptions as “asides” in the writings of [[George Berkeley|Berkeley]], [[Leibniz]], and [[Étienne Bonnot de Condillac|Condillac]], “is met with a resounding silence that lasts as long as modernity itself. Even Locke’s devoted late modern editor, [[Alexander Campbell Fraser]], dismisses out of hand ‘this crude and superficial scheme of Locke’” (see “Locke’s modest proposal subversive of the way of ideas, its reception, and its bearing on the resolution of an ancient and a modern controversy in logic” in Chap. 14 of Deely’s ''Four Ages of Understanding'', pp. 591–606). In the 1975 Oxford University Press critical edition prepared and introduced by Peter Harold Nidditch, Nidditch tells us, in his “Foreword”, p. vii, that he presents us with “a complete, critically established, and unmodernized text that aims at being historically faithful to Locke’s final intentions”; p. xxv tells us further that “the present text is based on the original fourth edition of the ''Essay''”, and that “readings in the other early authorized editions are adopted, in appropriate form, where necessary, and recorded otherwise in the textual notes”. The term "σημιωτική" appears in that 1700 4th edition, the last published (but not the last prepared) within Locke’s lifetime, with exactly the spelling and final accent found in the 1689/1690 1st edition. Yet if we turn to the final Chapter XXI of the 1975 Oxford edition, we find on p. 720 not "σημιωτικὴ" but rather do we find substituted the "σημειωτικὴ" spelling (and with final accent reversed). (Note that in [[Greek orthography|Modern Greek]] and in [[Pronunciation of Ancient Greek in teaching|some systems for pronouncing classical Greek]], "Σημ'''ι'''ωτικὴ" and "Σημ'''ει'''ωτική" are pronounced the same.)</ref><ref>Prior to Locke, the notion of "sign" as transcending the nature/culture divide was introduced by [[Augustine of Hippo]]—see John Deely, ''Augustine & Poinsot: The Protosemiotic Development'' (Scranton: University of Scranton Press, 2009) for full details of Augustine’s originality on this point—a specialized study was firmly established. Himself a man of medicine, Locke was familiar with this "semeiotics" as naming a specialized branch within medical science. In his personal library were two editions of Scapula’s 1579 abridgement of Henricus Stephanus’ ''Thesaurus Graecae Linguae'', which listed σημειωτική as the name for “diagnostics”, the branch of medicine concerned with interpreting symptoms of disease (“[[symptomatology]]”). Indeed the English physician and scholar [[Henry Stubbes]] had transliterated this term of specialized science into English precisely as “semeiotic” in his 1670 work, ''The Plus Ultra Reduced to a Non Plus'' (p.&nbsp;75).</ref>
 ==Sejarah==