Abstract
This chapter aims to thematize the following theoretical issue: how John Deely critically treats the sign's semiologic conception, which is derived from Saussurean structural linguistics and is supposedly considered a general form of every sign-relation. The text focuses on crucial theoretical differences between semiologic, semiotic, and semeiotic definitions of the sign-relation, and shows Deely's distinctive perspective within these approaches.
Deely's original point of view, which is deeply rooted in his novelty interpretations of semeiotic works of C. S.
Peirce, T. A.
Sebeok and Latin philosophers, proposes truly general, the triadic ontological definition of a sign, that cannot be reduced to any supposed nominalistic, idealistic, modern, dyadic, semiologic conception. The chapter's main interest is to consider some consequences of Deely's devastating critique in the light of comparison with some selected (post)structuralists.