Abstract
Although some researchers consider semiotics as a universal epistemological approach (Gaines, 2015), calling something 'asemiotic' may be challenging. However, one can find such characteristics in semioticians' work. For example, Tartu semiotic school cofounders Juri M. Lotman and Boris A. Uspensky argue that asemiotic is a way how proper name functions within mythological consciousness (Lotman; Uspensky, 1973). Despite the fact that this characteristics may be found in other scholars' works, research of 'asemiotic' continues to be a marginal field in semiotic studies.
Since the 'semiotic' (related to semiotics) is determined in theoretical frameworks in different ways, the 'asemiotic' similarly does not stick to one meaning . In other words, asemiotic postulates the absence of the semiotic in the sense in which the scholar understands the semiotics. Otherwise, incompatibility of the theoretical sequence may lead to methodological inaccuracy. This may happen when one perceives semiotics as a unified theory. Thus, while it is not an accepted term, 'asemiotic' may have different meanings depending on the perspective. This research will delve into, the use of 'asemiotic' in the works of Guattari and Deleuze (1987), Nöth (1995, 2000) and Lotman and Uspensky as well as try to identify the case when scholars resort to using 'asemiotic' in their works. One may find different approaches of use, from the auxiliary instrument through the method of interpretation to the core concept.