Language:
Research journal "Foreign Languages in Tertiary Education"
ISSN 2072-7607
Latest issues

Lebedeva D. S.

The semiosis of Chinese hieroglyphic signs viewed through the prism of Yu. S. Stepanov’s semiotic model. Pp. 37–48.

 

UDC 81’22

DOI: 10.37724/RSU.2026.76.1.005

EDN: HQQQMF

 

Abstract. Hieroglyphics is a multilayered heterogeneous system that is characterized by the various degree of iconicity of its signs which causes a problem to systematize and describe the signs that differ from each other structurally. The type of connection between graphic form and the object it denotes is one of the criterion that allows us to organize hieroglyphs into various categories. Thus, we have three basic groups of hieroglyphic signs — pictographic, ideographic and phonetic that are usually described from the classical semiotic perspective of Charles S. Peirce. The etymological analysis of form and meaning of hieroglyphic signs revealed that one category can embrace different types of hieroglyphic signs. Thus, the description of hieroglyphs from the perspective of classical sign classification (icons, indexes and symbols) proves to be inaccurate and insufficient. All this dictated the research objective which is to analyze hieroglyphic categories using Yu. S. Stepanov’s semiotic model that enables us to consider two parameters of the signs: 1) the exterior sign characteristics; 2) the interior sign characteristics (sign type). Using grapheme and etymological analysis we have organized hieroglyphic signs into categories. Etymological analysis of the hieroglyphic signs shows that every category can embrace all three sign types. This research is also the study of cognitive mechanisms that form different hieroglyphic categories.

Keywords: semiotic model, icon, index, symbol, Chinese character, Chinese hieroglyphic categories.

 

Bibliography

 

  1. Vasilyev V. P. Analiz kitayskikh iyeroglifov [The study of the Chinese characters]. St. Petersburg, Tipografiya V. Bezobrazova i Komp. Publ., 1898, vol. 1, 133 p. (In Russian)
  2. Glazacheva N. L. Borrowed characters in the first Chinese oracle bone scripts jiǎgǔ wén. Almanakh sovremennoy nauki i obrazovaniya [Almanac of Modern Science and Education]. 2017, no. 1, pp. 26–30. (In Russian)
  3. Gotlib O. M. Osnovy grammatologii kitayskoy pismennosti [The fundamentals of the Chinese writing system grammatology]. Moscow, Izdatelskiy dom VKN Publ., 2020, 314 p. (In Russian)
  4. Yelsakova A. L. Semiotic law of weakening of a feature on the example of money. Vestnik NGU. Ser. “Lingvistika i mezhkulturnaya kommunikatsiya” [NSU Vestnik. Ser. “Linguistics and Intercultural Communication”]. 2010, no. 8 (1), pp. 68–74. (In Russian)
  5. Yeremeyev V. Simvoly i chisla “Knigi peremen” [The symbols and the numbers of “The Book of Changes”]. Moscow, Ladomir Publ., 2005, 600 p. (In Russian)
  6. Komkova A. S. Fenomen semioticheskogo oslableniya v anglosaksonskoy lingvokulture VII–XI vv. [Semiotic weakening phenomenon in the Anglo-Saxon linguo-cultural tradition (7th–9th centuries ad)]. Novosibirsk, IPTs NGU Publ., 2017, 170 p. (In Russian)
  7. Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metafory, kotorymi my zhivem. [Metaphors we live by]. Ed. by A. N. Baranov; transl. from Engl. by A. N Baranov, A. V. Morozova. Moscow, Izdatelstvo LKI Publ., 2023, 256 p. (In Russian)
  8. Petrov A. A. Wang Bi (226–249). Iz istorii kitayskoy filosofii [Wang Bi (226–249). The history of the Chinese philosophy]. Ed. by V. M. Alekseyev. Moscow, Leningrad, USSR Academy of Sciences Publ., 1936, 190 p. (In Russian)
  9. Peirce Ch. S. Izbrannyye filosofskiye proizvedeniya [Selected philosophy writings]. Transl. from Engl. by K. Golubovich, K. Chukhrukidze, T. Dmitriyeva. Moscow, Logos Publ., 2000, 448 p. (In Russian)
  10. Proskurin S. G., Komkova A. S. Conceptualized word-object spheres as representation of semiotic weakening in the Anglo-Saxon linguo-cultural tradition. Filologicheskiye nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki [Philology. Theory & Practice]. 2017, no. 11 (77), pp. 144–147. (In Russian)
  11. Proskurin S. G., Lebedeva D. S. Hieroglyphic sign weakening mechanisms. ru: baltiyskiy aktsent [Slovo.ru: Baltic accent]. 2025, no. 216 (1), pp. 103–124. (In Russian)
  12. Sannikov S. V. Semiosis of power in semantic type of culture: methodological prolegomena. Schole. 2014, no. 8 (2), pp. 378–398. (In Russian)
  13. Sofronov M. V. Kitayskiy yazyk i kitayskaya pismennost’ [The Chinese language and writing]. Moscow, AST Publ., Vostok-Zapad Publ., 2007, 640 p. (In Russian)
  14. Stepanov Yu. S. Semiotika [Semiotics]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1971, 167 p. (In Russian)
  15. Jin X. New Interpretation of Western Semiotics from the Perspective of Symbolic Concepts in Zhouyi. Language and Semiotic Studies. 2021, no. 7 (1), pp. 57–78.
  16. Universal and Specific Reading Mechanisms across Different Writing Systems. Li, L. Huang, P. Yao, J. Hyönä. Nature Reviews Psychology. 2022, no. 1 (3), pp. 133–44.
  17. Zhang L. On the Chinese resistance to lexical borrowing: a writing-driven self-purification system. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2024, no. 11 (33), pp. 1–9.
  18. 新甲骨文編(增訂本)。劉釗主編。福建，福建人民出版社，2014，1104页。[New Oracle Bone Script Compilation (Revised ed.). E by Liu Zhao. Fujian, Fujian renmin chubanshe, 2014, 1104 p.] (In Chinese)
  19. 张煕宁。汉语的意合机制及其字场理论。東アジア国際言語研究。2023，N 4，176–185页。[Zhang X. The YiHe Mechanism and Semantic field of ZI in Chinese. International East Asian language research. 2023, no. 4, pp. 176–185.] (In Chinese)
  20. 字源。李学勤主编。天津,天津古籍出版社；沈阳,辽宁人民出版社，2012，1420页。[Chinese characters etymology. by Li Xueqin. Tianjin, Tianjin guji chubanshe; Shenyang, Liaoning renmin chubanshe, 2012, 1420 p.] (In Chinese)