CALL FOR PAPERS: SPECIAL ISSUE OF HORTUS SEMIOTICUS “SEMIOTICS AND TRANSLATION”

Edited by Irmak Mertens 

There has always been a connection between signs and translation, even before Semiotics and Translation Studies (TS) became institutionalized disciplines. For example, St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate is illustrative of this connection through his distinction between “word-for-word” and “sense-for-sense” translation, offering a strong example of how translation can be viewed within the framework of signs, where the target unit of translation functions as a signifier, remaining to be decided whether the translation will be literal or cultural. Additionally, in his work De Doctrina Christiana (On Christian Doctrine), St. Augustine’s concept of signs plays a central role in the interpretation and translation of sacred texts. In the context of biblical translation, for instance, Augustine emphasized that translation was not merely the literal conversion of words but the interpretation of signs that conveyed divine meaning. 

However, from the 20^th century onward, we observe a more explicit and an increasing convergence between the research on translation and signs. One of the first examples of the marriage between TS and Semiotics – which now have an intricate history as established and institutionalized disciplines – could be seen in Roman Jakobson’s seminal essay “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation” (1959), where he made his famous distinction between interlingual, intralingual, and intersemiotic translation. After that, “bridging” figures between TS and Semiotics also focused on how to conceptualize translation and came up with their own typology or taxonomies, such as Umberto Eco’s approach in Experiences in Translation (2000) that focuses on translation between cultures, or Susan Petrilli’s typology in Translation Translation (2001) which suggests that translation extends beyond a language-based phenomenon to encompass the biosemiosphere where “intersemiosic translation” – across sign systems – and “endosemiosic translation” – internal to a single sign system – occur (Petrilli 2003: 19). Moreover, we can also add to this list Henrik Gottlieb’s comprehensive taxonomy, where he makes a distinction between “conventionalized translation” and “adaptational translation” as applied to his own conceptualization of intersemiotic and intrasemiotic translation based on semiotic equivalence (Gottlieb 2008: 43-44). 

Among those bridging figures, it is also important to mention Dinda L. Gorlée who explored the relationship between translation, meaning, and semiotics by examining how texts and translations are understood through signs. Drawing on Peirce’s semiotic categories, she highlighted the dynamic nature of translated signs and underscored the crucial role of translation in the process of semiosis (cf. Gorlée 2004). Lastly, we could mention Kobus Marais’ impactful work, proposing a Peircean semiotic theory of translation that challenges the linguistic bias. In A (Bio)Semiotic Theory of Translation, he positioned translation as a complex, systemic process fundamental to semiosis and cultural emergence (cf. Marais 2018). 

Although it is impossible to provide a comprehensive overview of every point where translation and sign systems converge, or where TS and Semiotics intersect as disciplines, such perspectives enhance our understanding in two key areas: first, that translation can serve as a central focus across multiple disciplines, making collaboration essential regardless of the scope or specificity of our emphasis; and second, that from a semiotic standpoint, the concept of the sign – and thus semiosis – is intrinsically linked to translation, warranting particular attention in our research. As Petrilli formulates “sign activity or semiosis is a translative process” while “[m]eaning is indissolubly interconnected with translation” (Petrilli 2003: 17). The necessity for dialogue as a prerequisite for semiosis and as “the elementary mechanism of translation” (Lotman 1990: 143-144; Torop 2005, 163-164) in the contemporary academic scene is becoming increasingly prominent not only due to the growing interest between the two disciplines, but also because translation is a key notion for understanding the complexities of sign systems and their interconnections, whether from the perspective of biosemiotics, sociosemiotics, or semiotics of culture. 

Therefore, you are warmly invited to contribute to the ongoing discussion by submitting your manuscripts on topics related to the intersection of semiotics and translation. These topics include, but are not limited to, the history of semiotics and translation studies, the conceptual significance of translation in semiotics (and vice versa), city translation, museum translation, intersemiotic translation, translation in/as the arts/music/literature/media/political discourse, bio-/zoo-/ecosemiotic approaches to translation, translation technologies and AI from the viewpoint of semiotics, and more. 

The manuscripts should be written according to the guidelines mentioned on the Hortus Semioticus website, and be sent to hortus.semioticus@ut.ee by 10/05/2025 with the subject title “Manuscript submission – Hortus Semioticus”.