Peony,

Yes it sounds like you basically have it. Semiotics is the study of signs. A sign is composed of the signified and the signifier and the complex interactions between them. A semantician would apply this primarily to words, so he could contemplate the relation of /murder/ to murder (metalanguage for the specific word "murder" and what the word "murder" signifies). While a semiotician would be just as inclined to study that, he might also look at visual and musical language as well.

This is a gaping generalization, but semiotics tends to be more concerned with the complex relationships between signs, in other words what is said in a unit of communication that is carried in the genetic code (a common metaphor, although one I am not comfortable with) of the sign. So with /murder/ a semiotician will be more inclined to take into account the various loadings that come with the word: Johnny Cash songs, Sherlock Holmes, etc. and read the text with this overlay.

Basically semiotics is a tool for looking for shadings and nuances. It gets out of hand when it is used to reveal "secrets." One of the reasons I like Eco is that he has a pretty common-sensical approach and tends to be deeply suspicious of "hidden meanings." If you read his novel Foucault's Pendulum as a satire of his profession you will get a lot more out of it than simply reading it as the Grand Story of Occultic/Gnostic conspiracy mongers.

Did I just muddy the waters even more?

well, I guess I am just dumb, because I still don't understand. I'm frustrated that I don't understand, because I think I would be intensely interested in semiotics if I only understood what it was! (Same goes for philosophy; if you ever want to watch my head quiver and explode like a Star Trek female robot's, just drop the word "ontic" into the conversation.)

Would you mind explaining a little more about exactly what "signifier-signified relationships" are?

In my rudimentary understanding, semantics studies the connotations of words, the meanings that words carry in addition to the "dictionary" meaning: the differences in meaning carried by the word "shack" v. "house", or "fetus" v. "unborn baby", for example. Am I correct in understanding that semiotics studies this same relationship in 3-D, so to speak -- the connotations of actions and objects and not just words?

Alicia, I will need to check something to respond to your first post, so it will have to wait.

I highly recommend Eco, and should post a reading list of his. His Art and Beauty in the Middle Ages is fantastic, as is his dissertation, which was edited and published under the title of The Aesthetics of Thomas Aquinas. For an interesting quick read, the published letters that he exchanged with Cardinal Martini in the Milan paper are definitely worth reading (I think the book is called Belief and Unbelief). The Cardinal is surprisingly good for someone with his reputation as an aggiornamentisto.

As to the burgers, these are Alice's Lovage Burgers from the Chez Panisse Cafe Cookbook, but made with bison instead of beef and grilled on hardwood mesquite charcoal (made from actual chunks of wood, not in briquettes). I served them on grilled ciabatta bread as cheeseburgers (with Irish cheddar). On the side I served a Tuscan bread and tomato salad.

For wine, I went with a Trinchero San Luis Obispo Cabernet, which worked well. I have also served Zinfandels, Côte du Rhone style wines, as well as hearty Iberian reds. Beer would work fine. Cider would be good, particularly the Spanish ciders. A salad of mixed greens in balsamic vinegrette would work nicely, and the whole thing could benefit from avocado slices!

P.S. - what is the proper wine to go with bison burger? And was this served on a bread or roll, or on a plate?
I would think that a beer or hard cider would be more appropriate to the robust taste of bison burger with lovage.

Thank you. It is still a little fuzzy in my brain, but that is probably due to lack of sleep. I will re-read it later.
I was first introduced to Korzybski's General Semantics through science fiction (A.E. Van Vogt, Heinlein, etc)reading, so I probably have a little bit skewed concept to begin with. S.I. Hayakawa was also a well-known semantician whose work I have at least skimmed. I confess that I have not read Eco at all. Even at 1000 wpm, I have limits in what I can read and absorb, and of course there are limits on the books I can buy or borrow.
Another question - in reading Scott Hahn, I have bumped into the concept of typology in Scripture. What, if any, is the relationship between typology and semiotics?

Dear Erik,

Deft and wonderful explanation. Thank you. I would probably add that semiotics is a more "spiritual" discpline. By that I mean simply that the fruits of semiotics can yield insights, as you hint, into the natural world--whereas semantics tends to be a much more grounded fact-based investigation into the subtleties of meanings.

But that's a personal perspective, not written into the theory--as you point out.

shalom,

Steven