Hortus Semioticus 13 / 2026 — 2

Abstract: Communication has played a fundamental role throughout history as a means of human self-expression and is characterised by the transmission of messages from sender to receiver. The development of information and communication technologies since the 1990s has led to the emergence of convergence technology, transforming the structure of the media and enabling different narrative forms to be presented together and interactively. Thus, it has changed the forms of communication and transformed the communication process into a cross-platform process of meaning production or storytelling. Charles Morris’ definition of semiosis as a prerequisite for communication (1970) emphasises the critical role of signs in meaning production. This study aims to discuss the relationship between Roman Jakobson’s concept of intersemiotic translation and Henry Jenkins’ concept of transmedia storytelling (2006). Transmedia storytelling has similarities with intersemiotic translation as a strategy in which stories are told with original contributions across multiple media platforms. It is seen that the intersemiotic translation makes meaningful and necessary contributions to transmedia storytelling. The question of whether transmedia storytelling can be considered a form of intersemiotic translation has been opened for academic debate. Intersemiotic translation is not only complementary to transmedia narratives, but also a necessary approach in the formation of these narratives.

Keywords: intersemiotic translation, transmedia storytelling, semiotics, Roman Jakobson, Henry Jenkins

Kas transmeedia jutustamisviis on intersemiootiline tõlge?

Abstrakt. Side on läbi ajaloo mänginud olulist rolli inimese eneseväljendusvahendina ja seda iseloomustab sõnumite arusaadav edastamine saatjalt vastuvõtjale. Info- ja kommunikatsioonitehnoloogiate areng alates 1990. aastatest on toonud kaasa konvergentsitehnoloogia tekkimise, mis muudab meedia struktuuri ja võimaldab erinevaid jutustamisvorme koos ja interaktiivselt esitada. Seega on see muutnud kommunikatsioonivorme ja muutnud kommunikatsiooniprotsessi platvormideüleseks tähenduse tootmise või jutustamise protsessiks. Charles Morrise definitsioon semioosi kui kommunikatsiooni eelduse kohta (1970) rõhutab märkide kriitilist rolli tähenduse tootmises. Käesoleva uurimuse eesmärk on arutada Roman Jakobsoni intersemiootilise tõlke kontseptsiooni ja Henry Jenkinsi (2006) transmeedia jutustamise kontseptsiooni vahelist seost. Transmeedialisel jutustamisel on sarnasusi intersemiootilise tõlkega kui strateegiaga, mille puhul jutustatakse lugusid originaalsete panustega mitmel meediaplatvormil. On näha, et intersemiootiline tõlge annab olulise ja vajaliku panuse transmeedia jutustamisse. On väidetud, et transmeedia jutustamist võib pidada omamoodi intersemiootiliseks tõlkeks. Intersemiootiline tõlge ei ole transmeedia jutustusi mitte ainult täiendav, vaid ka vajalik lähenemine nende jutustuste kujundamisel.

Märksõnad:  intersemiootiline tõlge, transmeedia jutustamine, semiootika, Roman Jakobson, Henry Jenkins

1. Introduction

Communication, which humanity has used to express itself since the day it came into being, signifies that the sender conveys a message to the receiver in an understandable way. Influenced by society, culture, and past experiences, each person understands and interprets the message differently based on the communication process. In other words, while an individual’s knowledge, experiences, and culture throughout life determine how they make sense of information, the type of communication and the tools used also shape this sense-making process and the production of meaning. However, people can engage in the communication process effectively by crafting their message with consideration for the culture and context of the receiver. In this way, the message is correctly understood by the receiver, and the receiver can provide feedback, taking their own perspective into account as they transition from the source role to the receiver role. Communication as a tool and a process is inseparable from humanity. Very simply put, effective communication is realised by the careful crafting of the message with consideration for the culture and context of the receiver. This facilitates the comprehension of the message by the receiver, who then provides feedback while accounting for their own perspective as they shift from the role of source to that of receiver. 

In the century we live in, the communication process is intertwined with technology. The development of information and Internet technologies for storing and processing information in the 1990s has led to the emergence of convergence technology, which reflects the general view of the media today. Currently, despite their decreasing volume, communication technologies can “bring together networkbased, unlimited, interactive environments” (Aydoğan 2018: 12-13). Therefore, while communication is intensely mediated by technology, rapidly developing technologies shape both the meaning in the message and the communication process. Charles Morris defines semiosis as a prerequisite for communication and explains it as “the process by which one thing functions as a sign for another” (1970: 3-4). According to this definition, communication can take place through verbal or non-verbal means. While any mutual conversation is seen as the oral aspect of verbal communication, letters, articles, press releases, etc. are examples of written verbal communication. Gestures, mimics and body language can be defined as non-verbal communication. In the communication process, one takes into account not only the content of the message sent, but also facial expressions, tone of voice and so on (Mehrabian, Wiener 1967). Therefore, limiting communication only to verbal expressions may not be sufficient to clarify the meaning being communicated in a message. According to Ray Lee Birdwhistell (1955), non-verbal communication constitutes between 60% and 93% of human communication, while Cynthia Barnum and Natasha Wolniansky (1989) point out that more than 70% of communication takes place through non-verbal methods.

According to Henry Jenkins’ widely cited observation in his book Brave New Media (2016), a person can now open different windows on a computer and listen to music while chatting with friends on social networks, design, search for any word in a text, and access videos and other texts on the subject by clicking on the relevant links. Therefore, it is possible to access content from different media platforms from a single device, to give feedback to that content, to copy and transform it, and to open it up for discussion. This situation not only brings about a cultural and social change, but also changes the sectoral structures in the media. Henry Jenkins (2016) emphasises the importance of the collective culture created by such a network mediated interaction. He is also interested in the open structure of these new media and the possibilities of the structures that enable interaction within the framework of the convergence feature of new media. In this sense, the concept of convergence is not only a technological development but also a concept that refers to the interaction between the market, audience, producer, content, genres, consumers and the changes brought about by the interaction between them. It is not a finalised product or logic, but a process, the intertwining and meeting of old and new media in complex ways (Jenkins 2016). From another perspective, convergence as a technology represents the reshaping of the new power structure, aesthetics, and economy of media. Inevitably, new media technologies also transform politics, culture, and the ways in which citizens communicate with the nation-state (Jenkins 2017: 34-39; 2018a: 32-47; 2018b: 12). 

Being in communication within all these intricate relationships is a much more complex process than before due to the reasons mentioned above. Therefore, in order to ensure effective communication the transfer of meaning is expected to minimise both semantic loss and the potential for misunderstanding, and consequently, the tools and methods that can best convey meaning should be selected. Translation, which is a form of communication, is one important method of conveying meaning. The concept of translation has been conceptualised in different ways due to the multiplicity of viewpoints, as well as the influence of time and culture. Roman Jakobson (1959: 232-239), who argues that meaning is not in the signified but in the signifier, asserts that it is the linguistic-verbal signs that give the object its meaning. According to him, a linguistic sign can be interpreted in three ways: through intralingual, interlingual and intersemiotic translation. Intersemiotic translation forms the basis of cultural communication, which consists of social, economic, and political components. Intersemiotic translation can be a solution in cases where language is limited in order to maximise the interaction and transfer of meaning between a verbal narrative and a non-verbal narrative. Intersemiotic translation is a form of transformation, modification, rewriting, and re-creation (Jakobson 2000[1959]: 114). 

Transformation can take different forms. For example, when translating from one language to another, minor adjustments may be made to align with the cultural practices of the target language. Alternatively, cultural elements from one language may be adapted to resemble those in the target language. The translation might include new elements that help convey the meaning of the original language. The transformative role of intersemiotic translation in transferring meaning is similar to the approach of transmedia storytelling, which involves recreating and enriching a story across multiple platforms. 

Just as intersemiotic translation reconstructs meaning between two narratives, transmedia storytelling expands and reinterprets the story across various media environments. Therefore, the effort of intersemiotic translation to capture meaning between narratives aligns with transmedia storytelling’s goal of enriching the experience across different platforms. Transmedia storytelling is the technique of telling a story across multiple media platforms, with “each new text making a different and valuable contribution to the whole” (Jenkins 2006: 95-96).  Transmedia storytelling, as a genre in which creativity is involved and such content is circulated while remaining faithful to the essence, has many similarities with intersemiotic translation.

Audrey Canalès (2020) conceptualises transmedia narratives through the lens of the storyworld, positing that such narratives may be regarded either as adaptations disseminated across multiple media platforms or as instances of intersemiotic translation. She further highlights that translation studies within the domain of transmedia are often confined to interlingual transfer, whereas intersemiotic translation constitutes a far more expansive and intricate process.

Similarly, Peeter Torop (2004) contends that, when examined from a semiotic standpoint, chronotopic analysis – situated within Jakobson’s (1959) tripartite typology of translation (intralingual, interlingual, and intersemiotic) – offers a valuable analytical framework for acknowledging the role of nonverbal sign systems, even within the translation of verbal texts. For example, in the cinematic adaptation of a novel, the transposition of spatial descriptions into visual-aesthetic forms or the reorganisation of narrative temporality into cinematic time exemplifies the chronotopic dimension. This dimension provides methodological flexibility, particularly in facilitating cross-cultural approaches to translation. 

By contrast, Qian Li (2025) addresses the question of intersemiotic translation from the perspective of digital communication. His work underscores the need for further investigation into intersemiotic processes within digital contexts, with particular attention to hypertext and online communicative practices. Nevertheless, Li does not explicitly engage with transmedia storytelling, despite its prevalence in digital environments. Importantly, intersemiotic translation and transmedia storytelling share notable points of convergence: whereas intersemiotic translation involves the transfer of meaning across heterogeneous semiotic systems, transmedia storytelling reshapes narrative content across distinct media platforms. In both cases, the central dynamic concerns the reconstruction and reconfiguration of meaning. This article examines the relationship between intersemiotic translation and transmedia storytelling, with particular emphasis on the extent to which transmedia practices may be informed and enriched by intersemiotic processes. Consequently, the analysis considers how intersemiotic translation enables the circulation of narrative content across multiple media platforms while preserving the coherence of the storyworld and fostering culturally situated forms of meaning-making. In this context, intersemiotic translation is conceptualised as a pivotal mechanism within contemporary transmedia ecosystems, especially in digital, interactive, and commercial environments. To fulfill its research aim, the paper will investigate the reciprocal dynamics between intersemiotic translation and transmedia storytelling, assessing the extent to which their interaction is mutually constitutive and contributes to the advancement of both practices. For the purposes of this research, a literature review was conducted, encompassing both relevant scholarly studies and a systematic examination of existing research on semiotic translation and transmedia storytelling. The review incorporated academic journal articles as well as selected transmedia artifacts, including films, novels, and related commercial materials such as toys, to provide a multidimensional understanding of the field.

2. Transmedia storytelling

The concept of transmedia was first used by communication theorist Henry Jenkins. He suggests that a transmedia story makes various contributions to the whole with new texts while remaining faithful to the original (Jenkins 2016: 144-145). In other words, according to him, transmedia is not limited to a single medium and has the purpose to expand the narrative universe. For this purpose, the narrative universe is expanded within domains such as cinema, theatre, cartoons, novels, comics, and so on. What is done here is to produce new content in each new environment while remaining faithful to the narrative. From a more recent perspective, transmediality can be conceptualised as the narration of large narrative structures through different media by dividing them into small parts, which is a subtype of the concept of intermediality (Arı, Köse 2021: 5). Transmediality, thus, can also be defined as “the state of being represented in multiple media”, and is used to refer to the diachronic perspective on the interrelationships of media and represents the general concept that different types of media share basic characteristics that can be defined in terms of material or, more broadly, physical properties and their ability to mobilise mental capacities (Elleström 2019: 2). 

Transmediality is also used in narratology and new media studies in connection with transmedia storytelling which was introduced by Henry Jenkins in 2006. Nevertheless, Lars Elleström’s and Jenkins’ definitions differ from each other. Jenkins defines transmedia storytelling as the distribution of a story across multiple media platforms, making unique and valuable contributions to the story through this process. This approach aims to increase audience participation by utilising the unique qualities of each medium while maintaining the integrity of the story (Jenkins 2006: 95-96). Elleström, on the other hand, approaches the concept of transmedia within a framework that analyses intermedia relations and modalities. According to Elleström, transmedia involves the transfer and transformation of meaning between different media types; it is more general than Jenkins’ story-oriented approach and is not limited to storytelling (2010: 11-48). Therefore, it offers a more holistic and inclusive perspective. 

Despite the multiplicity of the viewpoints in the conceptualisation of transmedia (storytelling), the consensus is that it refers to the retelling of a story through various media. In other words, by enriching the narration with different tools, permanence and sustainability are enhanced in the minds of the receiver. For example, a story conveyed through a novel can then continue in a series, a film, a theatrical play, a digital performance, an animation, a cartoon, and so on. This situation can also unfold in different ways. A story that begins in a theatrical show can then continue in a cartoon. In other words, the continuity of the story can be shared across different media, with new elements added to the story universe each time. This method ensures that the audience’s interest in the story is maintained while sometimes maximising commercial profit. It may also enable the audience to form a deeper connection with the text and derive more profound meanings, increasing their engagement with the content. 

According to Marie-Laure Ryan (2015: 17), transmedia storytelling is not an autonomous form of storytelling, but a marketing strategy that force-feeds story worlds to the public through as many media platforms as possible to reach the widest possible audience. Thus, the demand for merchandise such as toys and clothes related to the story increases, and the sale of related products can be sustained. For this reason, transmedia is frequently used as an important marketing strategy for all media products. Creators and companies use transmedia storytelling aiming it to reach a wider audience faster by presenting the basic elements of the story on different media platforms, to increase the impact of the text on the audience with the unique narrative tools of each platform, and thus to increase and maintain the audience’s interest in the text. 

However, according to Jenkins, transmedia is not only the repetition of a story in different media, but also the expansion of the story universe and a process of “world building” that encourages audience participation (2006: 95-96), while Elleström considers the concept of transmedia within the framework of a broader media theory and focuses on the transfer of meaning across media rather than storytelling (2010: 11-48). From this point of view, it can be claimed that Jenkins focuses on storyoriented and industry-centred definitions, while Elleström draws attention to the structural and semiotic features of the media. According to Elleström, transmedia involves the transformation of meaning between different media types, and this process is more general than Jenkins’ story-oriented definition. Ryan, on the other hand, criticises transmedia storytelling in terms of preserving narrative integrity and states that, as Jenkins emphasises, not every platform is necessarily guaranteed to offer a “valuable contribution” (2013: 361-388). Therefore, Ryan takes a more cautious and comprehensive approach to transmedia storytelling, contrasting with Jenkins’ optimistic and commercial focus.

Vance’s general framework of transmedia storytelling (Figure 1) explains the variety of connections between content and media environment. The boxes inside the circle demonstrate the content utilised in the creation of the story. Those outside the circle indicate the media environments in which the resulting story is mediated. Transmedia storytelling, as the telling of a story on multiple platforms, has three basic pillars: (1) story, (2) technology, and (3) audience. From this point of view, it can be argued that transmedia storytelling built on these foundations creates a holistic experience. This holistic experience that emerges can be understood through situations where different genres are combined and different media intertwine. This can happen in different ways. For example, when adapting a novel to cinema, 1) the novel is used as a “script raw material” for the benefit of cinema, 2) a one-to-one adaptation of the novel is made, or 3) the novel is reconstructed and recreated in the language of cinema (Aykın 1983: 495). 

The first example of adaptation, which can be defined as the creation of a new work of art by transferring a work of art in accordance with the tools of another branch of art (Katz 1979: 19). This type of adaptation can be traced back to French film artist Georges Méliès’ A Trip to the Moon (1902) (Çetin Erus 2020: 583). Film adaptations are a form of rewriting, creating, and transforming the original work without distorting it. However, film adaptations do not merely reinterpret the original work; they also create a new artistic form by harmonising different language codes.

Thus, while preserving the essence of the original work, they enable the emergence of a different artistic product through intersemiotic translation. 

 What is done with intersemiotic translation, which is performed by harmonising different linguistic codes, is the transformation of a literary work created with a written code into a film or comic book by converting it into a visual code (Dindar 2020: 70). However, intersemiotic translation is not merely a matter of converting written code into visual code. The important point here is that two different codes are translated in a consistent manner. Intersemiotic translation is any form of translation that involves at least two different semiotic codes; for example, translation from words to images, numerical code or non-verbal sounds (Loddo, Addis and Lorini, 2022: 2). Zeynep Çetin Erus (2005: 16) defines adaptation as “the transfer of a novel, play or other literary source to film in the mutual exchange between literature and film”. 

According to Serhan Dindar (2020: 70), intersemiotic translation and adaptation are interchangeable concepts. In order words, the process that the translator performs when switching between different sign systems is intersemiotic translation or adaptation. Linda Hutcheon, on the other hand, calls adaptation “intersemiotic transposition” and defines it as a kind of translation, but she does not limit adaptation to intersemiotic translation; she also draws attention to the necessity of cultural and contextual transformations (Hutcheon 2006: 16). Therefore, according to Hutcheon, although these two concepts are not exactly the same, they are closely related. Inter-semiotic translation or adaptation is realised when literary works are remediated with the help of a different technology (Sutherland 2018: 289). However, this view addresses inter-semiotic translation from the perspective of literary works. Here, John Sutherland approaches intersemiotic translation from a literary perspective. 

Geoffrey Wagner (1975: 222–223) divides adaptation into three categories: adaptation that transfers the novel directly to the screen with very few changes, adaptation that transfers the original work by changing it, and adaptation that establishes similarities or parallels with the original work in order to create another work of art. However, Louis Gianetti classifies adaptation as free (not faithful to the novel), faithful (faithful to the original work in terms of subject and meaning), and literal adaptations (direct copying in terms of content and meaning) (Çetin Erus 2005: 20). Each of these types of adaptation may be preferred to serve a specific purpose. While some adapt the novel exactly to the film, others may present it by adding something of their own or by making additions in order to draw attention to a certain element. This is what is done in transmedia storytelling; it is aimed to maximise the level of experience through different intertwined media. 

By utilising the narrative possibilities of different technologies, they can also resort to alternative fictionalisation. Texts can be transformed in line with these possibilities. This transformation involves approaching different events in different ways using the same logic, that is, performing an intersemiotic translation. Therefore, like adaptation, additions and subtractions give rise to transmedia narratives. Hutcheon (2006: 20) states that adaptation always involves “interpreting and creating something new”. Therefore, adaptation and transmedia move very close to each other. 

Although adaptation and transmedia narratives may seem very similar, there are differences between them. In Jenkins’ theory of transmedia storytelling, as a story evolves across multiple media platforms, each new text makes a distinctive and valuable contribution to the whole (Jenkins 2006: 95). According to him, a composition that does not offer a distinctive and valuable contribution is redundant because it does not offer a new level of insight and experience, and this leads to a decrease in consumer interest and thus the failure of the series (ibid, 96). 

Adaptation and transmedia are distinct concepts. Geoffrey Long clarifies this situation: “Retelling a story in a different type of media is adaptation, while using more than one type of media to create a single story is transmedia” (Long 2007: 22).  Transmedia uses different media to create a single story. This contributes to the expansion of the narrative universe. Transmedia can be considered more advantageous than adaptation. For example, even though adaptations often involve a one-to-one transformation, the audience that is loyal to the characters of the main text may not like the adapted text or may take a distant stance. It may therefore “fail to appeal to anyone by containing multiple elements that please one audience and actively antagonise another, so that no audience is completely satisfied’” (Elkington 2009: 214). However, transmedia can mitigate this risk. There is not only a transformation, but also an original contribution in each of the variations made in different media. In this way, the audience is not alienated and a sustainable cycle is ensured by keeping the interest and curiosity of the audience alive. However, it should be noted that some works may have been designed to be more suitable for adaptation, and a transmedia-based narrative technique can be used if a new contribution is desired. 

From this perspective, the necessity of adaptation still emerges. Therefore, adaptations can be helpful for transmedia productions in certain situations. Sometimes, the audience is so connected to the story or characters that they may want to experience the same narrative in different ways. Viewed from this angle, it is inappropriate to label adaptation texts as “unsuccessful”. Instead of appealing to a single type of audience, adaptations can target different demographics, including children, the elderly, and young people. However, since transmedia uses various media simultaneously or at specific intervals, it may more easily attract diverse audiences. 

On the other hand, Christy Dena sees adaptation as a single story expressed through different media and art forms rather than a primary composition adapted from other media, arguing that it aligns with the essence of transmedia in this regard (Dena 2009: 155-156). Her perspective on this matter must be acknowledged as correct; adaptations should ideally remain faithful to the source material. However, adaptations may incorporate differences and innovations to enhance their creativity and contextual appropriateness. For instance, when a novel is adapted into a film, an actor may bring a new perspective by adding something of himself with his emotions, gestures, and expressions. This does not make the film merely an adaptation; rather, it introduces innovation. Therefore, adaptation and transmedia narratives can be seen as two forms of narrative that cannot be separated by sharp boundaries. However, it should be noted that not all media may appeal to everyone. At this point, transmedia connections come to the forefront. 

Transmedia storytelling is about presenting new events from the same story across different media environments. Each narrative event forms part of the main text and thus becomes integral to the protagonist and the event world (Dena 2018: 196). Meanwhile, Carlos Scolari notes that adaptations can be viewed as a type of transmedia storytelling strategy, since each translation already necessitates a textual transformation. Just as in the translation process, there may be both gains and losses during these transmedial adaptations (Scolari 2009). Likewise, although each media environment or communication tool possesses distinct affordances in conveying messages, their multimodal convergence enhances narrative clarity and reinforces the overarching meaning (Jenkins 2006; Scolari 2009). Such broadening leads to the transformation and pluralisation of meaning, thereby differentiating the recipient’s textual experience. Therefore, adaptation and transmedial expansion should be considered a form of narrative continuity rather than isolated textual practices (Scolari 2009). Adaptation is about making it appropriate by changing or adjusting. As Dena (2009: 145–160) points out, it is important not to make a rigid distinction between adaptations and story expansion, on which the transmedia storytelling strategy is based, as adaptations can involve significant changes. Therefore, the process cannot be reduced to a simple reproduction. Nevertheless, each means of communication transforms meaning due to its differences. For example, describing a scene via radio does not offer the same experience as performing it on stage. Theatre offers a more intense and layered opportunity for meaning production compared to radio narration. While radio appeals only to the sense of hearing, theatre engages the senses of hearing, sight, and even touch, thereby broadening the reception process. 

A broadened reception process gives the receiver a richer opportunity for interpretation. Such broadening leads to the transformation and pluralisation of meaning, differentiating the recipient’s experience of the text. For this reason, it seems possible to consider adaptation and transmedial expansion as a kind of continuity. Although the adaptation of a text includes significant changes, it is still an adaptation as long as we know which text is the original text.

The main question addressed in this section was the similarity of transmedia storytelling with intersemiotic translation as an expressive strategy, in connection with the aim of the article: to discuss the closeness and similarity between transmedia and intersemiotic translation, and to investigate how they can benefit each other. It is claimed that investigating these links through such an approach to transmedia storytelling may reveal a new perspective to understand a different potential of transmedia. Translation is not a process limited to the transfer of meaning from one language to another. Although some studies maintain the traditional understanding of translation, today, traditional translation methods are no longer sufficient in terms of transferring meaning. At this point, rather than focusing retrospectively on nonchange, broadening trends have evolved into an approach that privileges new dynamics and diversity through expanding types of change such as culture, media, social environment, and technology (Doorslaer 2018: 220).  Transmedia storytelling is similar to intersemiotic translation in that it not only complements but also creates meaning (Okulska 2016: 61). It goes beyond what is possible with a single source and allows semantic expansions (Wignell et al. 2016: 205). Furthermore, Inez Okulska, summarizing Teresa Tomaszkiewicz’s definition from the original Polish, noteing that “intersemiotic translation focuses on the necessity rather than the formal aspects of the transfer” (Okulska 2016: 65)¹, which approaches transmedia storytelling by distinguishing it from other types of translation. Similarly, the fact that intersemiotic translation takes place in situations where the language is inadequate can be considered to serve the function of transmedia storytelling to increase the level of interactivity for the receiver.

3. Intersemiotic translation

Translation can be seen as a form of communication, so economic, political, and cultural relations and their effects are influential in this process. Therefore, translation, which is a multidimensional and complicated process, is a concept in dialogue with multiple academic disciplines, including communication. Translation is carried out in order to convey information to an audience or a person who does not have access to a certain subject, fact, fiction, emotion and all kinds of communication due to language, culture, or any other barrier. Translation can be conceptualised as the process of matching and relating specific similarities between two languages. When transitioning from one language to another or from one system to another, the transfer of meaning can sometimes be more complex and challenging than the transfer of symbols or words. 

This can be explained by the viewpoint that translation is the work of creating equivalences corresponding to semantic elements as well as searching for overlaps of linguistic elements (Dindar 2020: 80). Translation, which allows ridding of the surface structure and reaching the deep structure, not only comprehends the message to be conveyed, but also makes it necessary to be able to accurately express the message that can be the equivalent of the code of the transmitted system in the target language (Sunel 1988: 153). In other words, the message intended to be conveyed in the source text must be reconstructed in accordance with the structure and culture of the target language. 

From this point of view, it is understood that translation is also a cultural phenomenon. For this reason, there is no definite answer to questions such as “What is translation?”, “What should a good translation be like?”, and “Is a complete and accurate translation possible?”. In fact, what is actually happening may be the transfer of a culture, history, or literature, or it may be the transfer of psychosocial or sociological processes. In order to realise all these processes successfully, it is necessary to know what a language is. Translation is the transfer of the integrity of form and meaning in one language to the integrity of form and meaning in another language, hence it is the process of transferring the message given in one code to another code (Sunel 1988: 154). The difficulty in translation arises from the difference in codes between these two languages. Although the codes are more or less similar in meaning, they are completely different in form, except when the languages borrow words from each other. Translation involves both linguistic and cultural transmission. Although there are similarities between signifier and signified in different languages due to cultural exchanges, these may not always correctly convey the message that needs to be conveyed. This is because a signifier and signified are identical only in the language in which they are present. In the case of a second language, this sameness disappears and translation becomes increasingly complex and challenging, or there is definitely a change in the message when switching from one language to another, as the relationship between signifier and signified is not universal it is cultural. 

Cultural context plays an important role in the processes of transferring language and meaning. For instance, the Turkish word for “blue” may have certain symbolic connotations in Turkish culture, whereas an English-speaking individual may associate the same word with different or more limited connotations, or not with any at all. Similarly, the Turkish word for “cow” only refers to an animal, but in Indian culture, it may be seen as a sacred symbol in a religious and spiritual context. These examples illustrate that words and expressions are laden with culturally coded meanings that can complicate the transfer of meaning during translation. Therefore, translation is a multidimensional process that requires consideration of cultural contexts and symbolic meanings. However, no translation can be perfect, because loss of meaning is inevitable in every translation. However, a type of translation that minimises the loss of meaning is possible through a profound understanding of signs. Then, a carefully constructed translation can be achieved by ensuring the equivalence of form and meaning between the two languages as much as possible. To reiterate the previous section, in his article “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation” published in 1959, Jakobson divides translation into three categories (Jacobson 1959: 233): 

• Intralingual translation, which is used within the same language to rewrite text or to explain what is being expressed in alternative ways, 
• interlingual translation, which, according to Jakobson, can be called proper translation, 
• intersemiotic translation, which is the translation of a verbal sign into a nonverbal sign.

As can be seen, interlingual translation is the expression of a word with other words that will express the same meaning. Here, synonymy is not a complete equivalence as it is almost impossible to achieve a precise and perfect synonymy. Interlingual translation is also a type of translation in which a complete equivalence cannot be achieved. What is done here is the interpretation of the signs in one language with the signs in another language. When interpreting, it is as important to be able to choose the right expression as it should transfer to the target language properly. 

Wilhelm von Humboldt (1836) explains that each language has its own point of view and is therefore untranslatable (Yazıcı 2005: 71). Due to the nature of language, cultural codes and historical events are effective in the formation of language. All these interactions enable the emergence of a certain order related to the society to which the language belongs and the formation of features specific to that language. Therefore, the translator has a significant challenge here: to analyse the cultural and historical contexts between the two languages and to accurately retransmit a code from the source language into the target language. In intersemiotic translation, linguistic signs are reinterpreted with non-linguistic signs. In other words, although languages are different in interlingual translation, the common sign system is language; however, in intersemiotic translation, there is a transition between two different sign systems (Dindar 2020: 83). A written text is transferred to visual (such as pictures) and auditory (such as music) texts. Likewise, the reinterpretation of Edgar Allan Poe’s gothic works in films and video games and the transformation of written signs into visual, auditory, and interactive signs are involved in the process of intersemiotic translation (Torres-Toukoumidis et al. 2024: 3). 

Jakobson argues that there is no complete equivalence when translating between languages, so translation from one language to another is an indirect transfer, and thus translation is two messages that have equivalence in two different codes (Jakobson 1959). According to some translation scholars, intersemiotic translation is seen as a transfer rather than a translation. According to Gorlée (1993: 161), informational loss is at its peak in intersemiotic translation. Gorlée’s view might be appropriate when translation is considered as mere information transfer, but translation is not mere information transfer and it is not clear what kind of information is being referred to here. Nevertheless, Eco (1979: 71) sees intersemiotic translation as a case of cultural communication: “Culture constantly translates signs into other signs and definitions. It translates these definitions into other definitions, words into other words, words into general and explicit signs, new recognitions, new functions, and in this way forms a cultural chain that interacts with other cultures”. In intersemiotic translation, the transfer of symbols or specific signs is accompanied by a simultaneous cultural transfer. 

Intersemiotic translation is regarded as the foundation of cultural communication, wherein ideas are circulated, translated, and elucidated through the use of language, imagery, and other semiotic resources (Wignell et al. 2016: 199). As understood, communication should not be confined to mere words. It encompasses a profound interaction influenced by various factors such as emotions, behaviours, and cultural codes. This is because language operates within a broader semiotic framework that includes visuals, gestures, posture, gaze, and colour, all of which are considered to possess equal but non-equivalent potential for meaning-making (Borodo 2015: 23). This enables more enduring communication in terms of the senderreceiver relationship. In this situation, the process of intersemiotic translation can be said to occur in three stages: 

• semiotisation, 
• desemiotisation, and 
• resemiotisation.

Firstly, a sign system is created in the source language, and semiotisation is performed. Then, the created signs are analysed (desemiotisation), and finally, a different sign system is established in the target language, followed by resemiotisation. This process continues in this manner. Using a novel as an example, specific signs are first embedded within the text (semiotisation). The next step in interpretation involves identifying the meanings of these signs, their references, and the intentions behind their inclusion before adapting to an alternative medium (desemiotisation). This initiates the process of intersemiotic translation. Consequently, the message, now transferred to an alternative medium, undergoes recoding to align with its new contextual framework (resemiotisation). 

This cycle is constantly in motion across various media and forms. As is wellknown, intersemiotic translation can occur across many fields such as literature, theatre, cinema, music, and painting. The relationship between a literary work and fields like music, theatre, and cinema falls within the domain of intersemiosis. Semiotics of culture studies film, photography, or any other meaningful text; in short, everything that makes human life meaningful (Çanakpınar 2023: 111). When transferring meaning from a linguistic narrative to a non-linguistic narrative, linguistic signs transform into non-linguistic signs. For instance, if this transfer occurs in the realm of music, it transforms into the language of music, while in cinema, it transitions into the language of cinema. Therefore, the transformation of a novel into a film represents intersemiosis (Gariper 2015: 75).

Intersemiosis refers to the process of exchange between two different sign systems (e.g. writing with painting, painting with music, etc.) and to the explicit or implicit relations between works belonging to different sign systems. These relations are realised in two ways: either a verbal art takes a non-verbal art into itself by verbalising it, or a non-verbal art explicitly refers to a verbal art. (…) Inter-semiosis refers to the process of ‘semiotically dealing with the traces of one art in the concrete existence of another art’. An element taken by one art form from another art form is endowed with a new meaning or value in a new art form. (Aktulum 2011: 436-438)

New concepts have been adopted to indicate the exchanges between art forms other than literature, together with the literary. The concept of intersemiosis has been proposed by some theorists of language, literature, text and art (Jacobson, Molinié, Gignoux), based on Saussure’s definition that ‘language is a system of signs’, in order to show the exchange processes between other forms of art rather than being a practice specific to the literary field. Thus, the exchange processes between different artistic forms such as literature and painting, literature and cinema, literature and music, literature and photography, painting and music, music and painting, painting and sculpture, cinema and painting, etc. are questioned from a new perspective under the title of intersemiosis, a vast field of research (ibid, 9).

Intersemiotic translation, then, can be summarised as the interpretation of a written work through auditory and visual arts (painting, music, song, sculpture, photography, etc.) or multimedia languages (cinema, theatre, opera, etc.). Intersemiotic translation, also known as transmutation, involves the transformation/transfer of linguistic signs into non-linguistic signs. In order to examplify the process of intersemiotic translation, The film Clueless (1995), based on Jane Austen’s well-known novel Emma (1815), and the film of the same name based on the author’s book Pride and Prejudice (1815) are going to be presented in the following paragraph. 

The process of intersemiotic translation can be seen on a schema-model as follows (Dindar 2020: 87):

Stage 1: Novel (Source text) Screenwriter-Translator (Translator 1) Screenplay (Rewriting/Intralingual Translation- Hypo-target-text) Stage 2: Director-Translator (Translator 2) Transformation into Audio-Visual Signs (Recreation) Cinema Film (Target Text / Intersemiotic Translation)

The process outlined here comprises two stages. The literary text (novel) is designated as the source text, with the screenwriter and/or director functioning as the translator, the script serving as the hypo-target text, and the film constituting the final target text. In the initial stage, those responsible for adapting the source text into a cinematic form collaborate with the screenwriter, who acts as the primary translator, to craft the script, thereby transmuting the novel into a visual and auditory system. This phase encapsulates the rewriting process. The subsequent stage pertains to adaptation, wherein creativity assumes paramount importance. The objective is to transpose the source text into a visual system while preserving its semantic integrity, necessitating the application of recreative skills. During this second stage, the text undergoes structural transformations; however, the critical imperative is to effectively convey the emotional essence to the audience.

4. Discussion

The central issue addressed in this study concerns the tendency within existing scholarship to conceptualise transmedia primarily as a marketing strategy. Within the academic literature, transmedia is frequently framed as a commercially driven tool employed by brands to expand narrative universes and to reach heterogeneous audiences. Such a perspective, however, risks overlooking the broader potential of transmedia as a multidimensional practice with significant social, cultural, and communicative functions. This raises a set of critical questions: Why has transmedia been confined almost exclusively to the marketing domain? Might it not also possess functional capacities beyond this? For instance, could transmedia serve as an effective means of fostering more robust social relationships or of enhancing intercultural communication processes?

In addition, this study advances the argument that intersemiotic translation ought to be regarded as a practice that substantively contributes to transmedia storytelling. Both frameworks are concerned with the production of meaning through heterogeneous semiotic resources and its dissemination across different audiences. Importantly, a reciprocal dynamic can be observed: transmedia storytelling and intersemiotic translation not only intersect but also enrich one another, generating mutually reinforcing processes. This dimension merits further attention from future research in the field.

Both transmedia storytelling and intersemiotic translation operate through systems of signs that shift according to textual form and communicative intent, yet their shared objective lies in rendering the text intelligible for the target audience. Through this, meaning becomes more accessible, transferable, and sustainable. On this basis, the present study contends that transmedia storytelling may be conceptualised as a strategy of intersemiotic translation.

Three principal arguments support this claim:

(1) Both transmedia storytelling and intersemiotic translation play vital roles in the communicative process, enabling the deepening of meaning and the exploration of alternative interpretive approaches.

(2) The transfer of meaning across multiple media platforms necessarily entails processes of comprehension, interpretation, and reinterpretation; thus, the creation of a transmedial narrative inherently involves intralingual, interlingual, and intersemiotic translation.

(3) The expansion of narrative universes through supplementary texts and alternative constructions still requires processes of understanding and interpretation that preserve fidelity to the narrative’s essence.

The affinities between transmedia storytelling and intersemiotic translation are particularly salient. While transmedia storytelling is enriched by the expansion of a story with original contributions on different media platforms (Jenkins 2006), intersemiotic translation enables the transformation and recreation of meaning between verbal and non-verbal signs (Jakobson 2000). Transmedia disseminates a narrative across diverse media platforms while maintaining fidelity to the original storyworld, whereas intersemiotic translation likewise facilitates the preservation and transformation of meaning as it traverses distinct semiotic systems. 

Conclusion

Transmedia involves a process of continuous production, yet this production is carried out with sustained fidelity to the original text, without distorting or effacing its foundational structure. Each act of reproduction seeks to highlight different dimensions of the narrative, thereby generating new perspectives. Achieving this, however, requires a comprehensive understanding of the source text, including a close analysis of its semiotic structures, followed by the creation of new sign systems in the reproduced text. This process constitutes a self-renewing cycle of meaningmaking. Within this framework, intersemiotic translation emerges as a critical contributor to the creative processes of transmedia.

Intersemiotic translation and transmedial narratives have been shown to overlap in many aspects of meaning production. While transmedia storytelling is enriched by the expansion of a story with original contributions on different media platforms (Jenkins 2006), intersemiotic translation enables the transformation and recreation of meaning between verbal and non-verbal signs (Jakobson 2000). Transmedia storytelling can establish its connections through intersemiotic translations. In addition, adaptation texts, which are seen as intersemiotic translation, come closer to being a transmedial narrative to the extent that the story universe is expanded in different media languages, provided that they remain faithful to the original text. Therefore, it is possible to say that intersemiotic translation and transmedia narratives progress in an intertwined process, although they do not overlap exactly. Thus, the main argument of the study, whether transmedia storytelling is an intersemiotic translation, has been clarified. It has been observed that transmedia storytelling makes use of intersemiotic translation to increase the recognition of a product, to expand its communication network, and to ensure that it is better understood and comprehended.

Consequently, both practices can be understood as creative processes of meaning reproduction, which warrant consideration not merely within the scope of intertextuality but also as central mechanisms in intercultural communication. Taken together, these considerations demonstrate the extent to which intersemiotic translation is not merely complementary but intrinsic to the practice of transmedia storytelling.

References

Aktulum, Kubilay 2011. Metinlerarasılık / Göstergelerarasılık [Intertextuality / Intersemiotics]. Ankara: Kanguru Yayınları.

Arı, Beste Elveren ve Köse, İlknur Gürses 2021. Metinlerarasılıktan Transmedya Hikâye Anlatıcılığına: Harry Potter [From intertextuality to transmedia storytelling: Harry Potter]. Erciyes İletişim Dergisi 2: 1–25.

Aydoğan Boschele, Filiz 2018. Tekno-Metalaşan ve “Emeğe’’ Dönüşen Oyun [Technometallised and “labour” transformed game]. Akdeniz Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi (Güz) 4: 11–22. 

Aykın, Cemal 1983. Batı Toplumlarında Roman ve Sinema İlişkisi II [Novel and cinema relationship in Western societies II]. Türk Dili 383: 482–502.

Barnum, Cynthia and Wolniansky, Natasha 1989. Taking cues from body language. Management Review 78(6): 59–60.

Birdwhistell, Ray Lee 1955. Background to kinesics. Educational Technology and Change (13)1: 10-18. 

Borodo, Michal 2015. Multimodality, translation and comics. Perspectives 23(1): 22–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2013.876057

Canalès, Audrey 2020. Transmedia, translation and adaptation: Parallel universes or complex system? TTR Traduction, terminologie, rédaction 33(1): 55–78. https://doi.org/10.7202/1071148ar  

Çanakpınar, Betül 2023. Construction of the culture in Turkish television advertisements. EPISTÉMÈ International Journal of Applied Social and Human Sciences 29: 109–124.

Çetin Erus, Zeynep 2005. Amerikan ve Türk Sinemalarında Uyarlamalar, Karşılaştırmalı Bir Bakış [Adaptations in American and Turkish Cinema, A Comparative Perspective]. İstanbul: Es Yayınları.

Çetin Erus, Zeynep 2020. Türkiye Sinemasında Uyarlamalara Genel Bir Bakış [An overview of adaptations in Turkish cinema]. Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi 18(36): 583–592.

Dena, Christy 2009. Transmedia Practice: Theorising the Practice of Expressing a Fictional World across Distinct Media and Environments. PhD Thesis, Sydney: University of Sydney.

Dena, Christy 2018. Transmedia adaptation: Revisiting the no-adaptation rule. In: Freeman, Matthew; Rampazzo Gambarato, Renira (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Transmedia Studies. New York: Routledge, 195–206. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351054904 

Dindar, Serhan 2020. Göstergelerarası Çeviride Yenidenyazma ve Yenidenyaratma Kavramları [The Concepts of Rewriting and Recreation in Intersemiotic Translation]. Ankara: Çizgi Kitabevi.

Doorslaer, Luc van 2018. Bound to expand: The paradigm of change in translation studies. In: Dam, Helle V.; Nisbeth Brøgger, Matilde; Korning Zethsen, Karen (eds.), Moving Boundaries in Translation Studies. London, New York: Routledge, 220–230. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315121871 

Eco, Umberto 1979. A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Elkington, Trevor 2009. Too many cooks: Media convergence and self-defeating adaptations. In: Perron, Bernard; Wolf, Mark J. P. (eds.), The Video Game Theory Reader, vol. 2. New York: Routledge, 213–235.

Elleström, Lars 2010. The modalities of media: A model for understanding intermedial relations. In: Elleström, Lars (ed.), Media Borders, Multimodality and Intermediality. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 11–48.

Elleström, Lars 2019. Transmediation: Some theoretical considerations. In: Salmose, Niklas; Elleström, Lars (eds.), Transmediations: Communication Across Media Borders. New York: Routledge, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429282775-1 

Gariper, Cafer 2015. Cengiz Aytmatov’un Al Yazmalım Selvi Boylum Hikâyesi ve Göstergelerarasılık [Cengiz Aytmatov’s Al Yazmalım Selvi Boylum Story and Intersemiotics]. Bilig Türk Dünyası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 74: 71-96.

Giannetti, Louis 2014. Understanding Movies. London: Pearson.

Gorlée, Dinda Liesbeth 1993. Semiotics and The Problem of Translation: With special Reference to the Semiotics of Charles S. Peirce. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.

Humboldt, Wilhelm von 1836. Über die Kawi-Sprache auf der Insel Java: Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechts (Bd. 1). Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Hutcheon, Linda 2006. A Theory of Adaptation. New York: Routledge.

Jakobson, Roman 1959. On linguistic aspects of translation. In: Brower, Reuben A. (ed.), On Translation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 232–239. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674731615.c18 

Jakobson, Roman 2000 [1959]. On linguistic aspects of translation. In: Venuti, Lawrence (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge, 113–118.

Jenkins, Henry 2006. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press.

Jenkins, Henry 2016. Cesur Yeni Dünya, Teknolojiler ve Hayran Kültürü [Brave New World- Technologies and Fan Culture]. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.

Jenkins, Henry 2017 [2004]. Medya yöndeşmesinin kültürel mantığı. In: Aydoğan Boschele, Filiz (ed.), Yeni Medya Kuramları (Çizmeci, Esra, Trans.). İstanbul: Der Yayınları, 39–47.

Jenkins, Henry 2018a. Cesur Yeni Medy, Teknolojiler ve Hayran Kültürü [Brave New Media, Technologies and Fan Culture], vol. 2. Baskı, İstanbul, İletişim Yayınları.

Jenkins, Henry 2018b. Convergence culture, revisited. Etkileşim Dergisi 1(2): 10–19.

Katz, Ephraim 1979. The Film Encyclopedia, New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

Lederer, Marianne 1994. La traduction aujourd’hui: Le modèle interprétatif. Paris: Hachette.

Li, Qian 2025. Intersemiotic translation in hypertext-based digital communication. International Journal of Applied Science 8(1): 9–19.

Long, Geoffrey Alan 2007. Transmedia Storytelling: Business, Aesthetics and Production at the Jim Henson Company. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Loddo, Olimpia Giuliana; Addis, Andrea; Lorini, Giuseppe 2022. Intersemiotic translation of contracts into digital environments. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 5: 963–692. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2022.963692 

Mehrabian, Albert; Wiener, Morton 1967. Decoding of inconsistent communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 6(1): 109–114.

Morris, Charles William 1970. Foundations of the Theory of Signs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Okulska, Inez 2016. From intersemiotic translation to tie-in products, or transmedial storytelling as a translation strategy. Forum of Poetics 6: 58–69.

Ryan, Marie Laure 2013. Transmedial storytelling and transfictionality. Poetics Today 34(3): 361–388.

Ryan, Marie Laure 2015. Transmedia storytelling: Industry buzzwordor new narrative experience? Storyworlds: A Journal of Narrative Studies 7(2): 1–19. https://dx.doi.org/10.5250/storyworlds.7.2.0001 

Scolari, Carlos Alberto 2009. Transmedia storytelling: Implicit consumers, narrative worlds, and branding in contemporary media production. International Journal of Communication 3: 586–606.

Sutherland, John 2018. Edebiyatın Kısa Tarihi [Short History of Literature]. İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları.

Sunel, A. Hamit 1988. Çeviri ve bir çevirinin düşündürdükleri [Translation and the Thoughts It Evokes]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 3(3): 153–168.

Torop, Peeter 2004. Locations in intersemiotic space. In: Sarapik, Virve (ed.), Koht ja Paik / Place and Location. Studies in Environmental Aesthetics and Semiotics, vol 4. Tallinn: The Research Group of Cultural and Literary Theory, Institute of Art History & Estonian Semiotics Association, 59–68.

Torres-Toukoumidis, Angel; León-Alberca, Tatiana; Henriquez-Mendoza, Eduardo 2024. Echoes of thegothic: Transmedia reinterpretations of Edgar Allan Poe’s legacy in independent films and video games. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11(1): 846. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-02403370-1 

Wagner, Geoffrey 1975. The Novel and the Cinema. New York: Associated University Presses.

Wignell, Peter; O’Halloran, Kay; Tan, Sabine 2016. Intersemiotic translation as resemiotisation: A multimodal perspective. Signata 7: 199–229.

Yazıcı, Mine 2005. Çeviribilimin Temel Kavram ve Kuramları [Basic Concepts and Theories of Translation Studies], İstanbul: Multilingual.