{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02652396463471382, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007445323406235459, 'mean_word_length': 5.005586592178771, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Thomas A. Sebeok and semiotics in the United States in the panorama of recent developments in Italian semiotics

Almost all of Thomas A. Sebeok's books are now available in Italian (cf. References), the most recently translated being Semiotics in the United States of 1991 (the enlarged and revised version of a long article originally published in 1990 in The Semiotic Web 1989, subtitled 'A view from the center'), published by Bompiani in 1992. Unlike other volumes by Sebeok, this one was translated into Italian (by myself) directly from the typescript, and therefore before it actually appeared as a monograph in English. Having been originally conceived in relation to the Italian edition of this book, the present paper begins with some introductory considerations on Sebeok's research and then continues with a brief overview of the relationship of U.S. semiotics with semiotics in Italy. In Semiotics in the United States, Sebeok takes a look at U.S. semiotics according to three different modes of analysis, which, though closely interrelated, are easily singled out. The first consists of a survey of the various theoretical trends, perspectives, problems, fields, specializations, and institutions characterizing U.S. semiotics, and is conducted both on a synchronic and a diachronic level. As regards the latter, Sebeok faces the rather difficult task of reconstructing the origins of American semiotics, which he seeks in discourse fields that were not yet connoted as semiotics at the time, and which in certain cases are still considered to be either only marginally associated with semiotics or completely distant from it. The second mode of analysis is of a theoretical-critical order. Sebeok takes a stand with respect to the handling of certain problems in semiotics: problems of a general order concerning, for instance, the delimitation of the field of semiotics or the construction of a general sign model; and problems of a more specific order concerning the various sectors and subsectors of the science, or 'doctrine of signs' (as Sebeok prefers to call it). The impression, which would seem to be confirmed by Sebeok here