Abstract
The paper deals with the question of how the reading of De Anima would affect the semiotic understanding of Aristotle. Traditionally, semioticians hold that Aristotle considered only sémeion to be the sign, not symbolon.
In Aristotle's words, theory of signs is based on the theory submitted in De Anima. Therefore, we explore first the notion of pathémata en téi psýchei and their sign-relation to ta pragmata.
The main point of the paper is, that, opposed to traditional interpretations, representation of pathémata en téi psychéi by means of symbola is formally the same as the representation of ta pragmata by means of pathémata en téi psychéi. The difference between symbola and sémeia consists in different relation of form to matter.
Whereas in sémeion the representative form is natural to the pathémata, in case of spoken sounds the representative form (which they share with pathémata) is imposed on them conventionally.