Mapping the Semiosphere: A Bibliographic Review (1995-2024)Review I

ABSTRACT

The concept of semiosphere, formulated by Yuri Lotman, is central to the semiotic theory of culture and has been reinterpreted in Brazil over the past three decades. This article¹ maps the interpretation of the concept in Brazilian academic production between 1995 and 2024, selected for thematic relevance, national authorship, and editorial quality. The analysis considers four main axes: the structure and internal dynamics of semiotic systems, communication and translation processes, memory mechanisms, and the relationship with the biosphere. The results indicate growth in production after 2010 and the consolidation of a research network in the country. A shift is also observed from theoretical approaches to applications in cultural phenomena such as digital journalism, nerd culture, cordel literature, and digital media. We conclude that the Brazilian appropriation of the semiosphere concept presents specific features and makes relevant contributions to updating Lotman’s theory in contemporary contexts.

KEYWORDS:
Semiotics of Culture; Yuri Lotman; Semiosphere

RESUMO

O conceito de semiosfera, formulado por Iúri Lotman, é central para a teoria semiótica da cultura e tem sido reinterpretado no Brasil nas últimas três décadas. Este artigo¹ mapeia a interpretação do conceito na produção científica brasileira entre 1995 e 2024, selecionados por relevância temática, autoria nacional e qualidade editorial. A análise considera quatro eixos principais: estrutura e dinâmica interna dos sistemas semióticos, processos de comunicação e tradução, mecanismos de memória e relação com a biosfera. Os resultados apontam crescimento da produção a partir de 2010 e a consolidação de uma rede de pesquisadores no país. Também se observa a passagem de abordagens teóricas para aplicações em fenômenos culturais, como jornalismo digital, cultura nerd, literatura de cordel e mídias digitais. Concluímos que a apropriação brasileira do conceito de semiosfera apresenta especificidades próprias e oferece contribuições relevantes para a atualização da teoria lotmaniana em contextos contemporâneos.

PALAVRAS-CHAVE:
Semiótica da cultura; Iúri Lotman; Semiosfera

Introduction

The concept of the semiosphere, formulated by the semiotician Yuri Lotman,² is central to the semiotic theory of culture. As it has no direct equivalent in Portuguese, Lotman’s definition reached Brazil through translations of his essay from Russian into other languages, such as Italian, Spanish, and English (Ramos et al., 2007). These translations enabled Brazilian researchers familiar with the theory to engage with the concept and later disseminate it through their own interpretations.

This study seeks to map how the semiosphere, as introduced by Lotman, has been interpreted and appropriated by Brazilian scholars over recent decades. We begin from the premise that the Brazilian engagement with the semiosphere exhibits distinctive features, reflecting the incorporation of themes and practices specific to the national context. Through a review of Brazilian academic literature, we examine how different approaches emphasize particular aspects of the concept, including its internal structure and dynamics, processes of translation and communication, mechanisms of memory, and its relationship with the biosphere. Our aim is to identify and synthesize these contributions, highlighting points of convergence and divergence, as well as the nuances and particularities that characterize Brazilian scholarship on the topic.

While this study does not aim to explore the epistemological foundations or national intellectual traditions that inform these readings, nor to provide an exhaustive comparison of Brazilian reception with that of other countries, it offers an initial overview that allows us to discern characteristic directions and emphases in the Brazilian approach to the semiosphere.

Accordingly, this paper is organized into five sections. We begin with this introduction, outlining the research problem and objectives; we then present a brief overview of the semiosphere and its key features; next, we describe the selected corpus and the methodological procedures adopted; the fourth section presents our analysis; and finally, we conclude with the study’s final considerations.

As Irene Machado (2007, p. 15) cautions, the inadvertent use of a concept can “weaken its potency, reach, and capacity to say something about the world.”³ Accordingly, one of the primary tasks of theoretical-academic work is to “preserve the conceptual field that guides scientific investigation” (Machado, 2007, p 15).⁴ Machado also emphasizes that every concept carries a history, as well as ideological and pragmatic affiliations. Thus, before addressing Brazilian readings of the semiosphere, it is important to provide a brief introduction to Lotman’s work and the Semiotics of Culture.

1 The Semiotician, the School, and the Concept

Yuri Lotman was a scholar of culture and literature, a critic, and a Russian philosopher, as well as one of the founders and leading figures of what would later become known as the Tartu-Moscow School (TMS). Born in 1922, he was invited to join the University of Tartu in Estonia as a professor in 1954. He initially taught in the Department of Russian Literature and, by the late 1970s, was transferred to the Department of Foreign Literature. As Américo (2012) recounts, during the 1960s the department also included Boris Egórov (its founder), Zara Mints (Lotman’s wife), and Igor Tchernov among its members, and “the main research directions were the analysis of poetic texts as well as the study of different cultural models” (2012, p. 77).⁵

According to Américo, it was during this period that Lotman deepened his interest in structuralist concepts and semiotics, while also forging connections with linguists and literary scholars from Moscow who would later form the Tartu-Moscow School.

When discussing the Russian semiotic school, it is important to note that, although it was founded by this leading semiotician, it involved the participation of many renowned scholars, such as Vladimir Toporov, Boris Uspensky, Viatcheslav Ivanov, Eleazar Meletinsky, and Sergei Nekliudov. It was, therefore, characterized by constant interaction among specialists from diverse fields, including linguistics, literary studies, folklore studies, culturology, and even the exact sciences-for example, the highly significant contributions of Vladimir Uspensky, mathematician and linguist, among others (Américo, 2015, pp. 123-124).⁶

With this multidisciplinary foundation, the activities of the Tartu-Moscow School (TMS) and the creation of what came to be known as the Semiotics of Culture unfolded over nearly two decades, between the 1960s and 1980s.

One of the first mentions of the term semiosphere appears in Lotman’s 1984 article O semiosfere [On the Semiosphere], published in the journal Trudy po znakovym sistemam [Sign Systems Studies] by the University of Tartu, and later republished in the collection Izbrannye stat’i v trekh tomakh [Selected Articles in Three Volumes] in 1992. Among the most cited translations by Brazilian authors are three: Italian, Spanish, and English.

The Italian version, produced by Simonetta Salvestroni in 1985, appears in the collection La semiosfera. L’asimmetria e il dialogo nelle strutture pensante. The Spanish translation was made by Desiderio Navarro Pérez in 1996, in the initial volume of La semiosfera, which is perhaps the most frequently cited version. Finally, the English translation by Wilma Clark was published in 2005 in the same Estonian journal that featured the original article. According to these translators, all these versions were based on the 1984 original.

From that time onward, the semiosphere concept was introduced and assumed a central role in Lotman’s theoretical framework. Analogous to V. I. Vernadsky’s concept of the biosphere, the semiosphere can be understood as an abstract space inhabited by diverse semiotic formations-signs, texts, codes, and languages-that coexist and interact in such a way that only within this space “is it possible to carry out communicative processes and produce new information” (Lotman, 1996, p. 11).⁷

Lotman identifies two key attributes of the semiosphere: its boundedness and its semiotic heterogeneity. Regarding the first, he notes that the notion of the semiosphere is tied to “a certain semiotic homogeneity and individuality, which presupposes the bounded character of the semiosphere in relation to the extrasemiospheric or alosemiospheric space that surrounds it” (Lotman, 1996, p. 12).⁸ The semiosphere, therefore, refers to a semiotic system delimited by a boundary that functions as a bilingual filter, translating messages between the internal and external languages. External structures are considered non-structural and undergo a process of semiosis at the boundary. In this way, the boundary emphasizes the specificity of the semiosphere in relation to its exterior, promoting internal development.

Concerning the semiosphere’s heterogeneity, Lotman describes it as a semiotic space in which core structures coexist with an amorphous and flexible periphery. “The division into core and periphery is a law of the internal organization of the semiosphere” (Lotman, 1996, p. 17).⁹ This organization is not fixed but relative, depending on the metalanguage used to describe it. While the core maintains greater rigidity and stability, the less organized periphery is a dynamic space that fosters the creation of new information and drives the semiosphere’s development at varying rates across its sectors. Internal boundaries that traverse the semiosphere specialize its parts, and the interaction among different structures and substructures generates new meanings, allowing the system to evolve continuously.

This structural heterogeneity is fundamental to the functioning of the semiosphere, as it enables both the multiplication of messages and semiotic exchange between its parts. Such exchange requires not only differences among the involved substructures but also an isomorphism relative to a shared higher level, allowing for the creation of a unified text that integrates transmission, translation, and dialogue. At every level, from the individual to the global system, the semiosphere consists of semiospheres within semiospheres, functioning simultaneously as participant and space for dialogue in a complex mechanism that sustains meaning making and preserves system integrity.

For Lotman, the “semiosphere also has a diachronic depth, as it possesses a complex system of memory, without which it cannot function” (Lotman, 1996, p. 20).¹⁰ This diachrony manifests in intricate memory mechanisms that not only store information from the past but also influence the evolution and dynamics of semiotic systems. Consequently, the semiosphere develops over time, incorporating new codes and meanings. Memory within the semiosphere is therefore dynamic rather than static. These mechanisms extend beyond individual memory to include collective memory systems that store and preserve cultural, linguistic, and symbolic information over time.

2 About the Corpus and Methodological Procedures

To understand how the concept of the semiosphere, formulated by Yuri Lotman, has been interpreted and developed in Brazilian scientific production, we selected a corpus of 24 academic works published between 1995 and 2024, comprising six book chapters and eighteen journal articles.

The selected texts focus centrally or significantly on the discussion of the semiosphere, addressing theoretical, methodological, or applied aspects, and are consistently grounded in the work of the Soviet author. An essential criterion for inclusion was that the works be authored by Brazilian researchers and published in Portuguese.

The temporal scope (1995-2024) is justified by the fact that the systematic circulation of the concept in Brazil, in terms of academic production with scholarly reach, intensified from the second half of the 1990s, coinciding with the consolidation of research centers devoted to the semiotics of culture. The starting point corresponds to the publication of one of the earliest Brazilian texts explicitly addressing the semiosphere. This delimitation also aims to map a recent and representative cycle of Lotmanian reception and appropriation within the national academic context.

The decision to focus on Brazilian production stems from the understanding that the semiosphere concept was locally appropriated with distinctive theoretical and thematic inflections, shaped by the country’s academic traditions and specific cultural dynamics. This territorial delimitation allows us to observe how this particular appropriation interacts with local conditions of knowledge production, highlighting the ways in which the notion of the semiosphere is recontextualized within a specific geocultural setting.

For the collection of texts, various sources were used, including the CAPES [Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education] Journals Portal and Google Scholar, whose coverage and efficiency were instrumental in identifying dispersed materials. The search also included specialized journal websites, utilizing their available research tools. During this process, the term “semiosfera” [semiosphere] was employed to locate texts, which were subsequently filtered according to criteria of thematic relevance, field of knowledge, and editorial quality.

Regarding articles published in journals (Table 1), only texts from indexed journals classified in Qualis 2017-2020 strata A and B were included, ensuring editorial quality and academic relevance. Furthermore, priority was given to works in the parent fields of Linguistics and Literature, as well as Communication and Information, as these areas traditionally serve as the foundation for debates on the concept in Brazil. Journals positioned in these strata adhere to rigorous evaluation criteria and play a central role in national scientific production.

Table 1:
List of Articles Published in Journals

Title	Journal	Author(s)	Year
Cultura é memória	Revista USP	Jerusa Pires Ferreira	1995
Direito à memória na semiosfera midiatizada	Fronteiras - estudos	Ronaldo Henn	2006
A semiótica da cultura: apontamentos para uma metodologia de análise da comunicação	Revista de Estudos da Comunicação	Ana Paula Machado Velho	2009
Cultura em campo semiótico	Revista USP	Irene Machado	2010
Yuri Lotman e semiótica da cultura	Revista Prâksis	Edgar Roberto Kirchof	2010
Jornalismo Digital em Base de Dados (JDBD) como um texto da cultura	Communicare: Revista de Pesquisa	Daniela Osvald Ramos	2012
Um olhar da semiótica da cultura sobre jogos digitais e seus avatares	Mídia e Cotidiano	Lorena Risse, Carlise S. Duarte e Nísia M. do Rosário.	2015
Espaço semiótico em diálogos e fronteiras	CASA: Cadernos de Semiótica Aplicada	Irene Machado	2015
Memória, consumo e memes de afeto nas cenas cosplay e furry	Contracampo	Mônica Rebecca Ferrari Nunes	2016
O conceito de fronteira na semiótica de Iúri Lotman	Bakhtiniana. Revista de Estudos do Discurso	Ekaterina Volkova Américo	2017
Semiose em Peirce e Lotman	Eikon	Tarcísio de Sá Cardoso, Carlos Magno Pinheiro Barreto Jr.	2018
Memória do futuro, explosão, pancronia: a semiótica de Lotman e os estudos da memória e do tempo nas teatralidades juvenis	Bakhtiniana. Revista de Estudos do Discurso	Mônica Rebecca Ferrari Nunes	2019
Cultura Nerd como Semiosfera: uma proposta de entendimento	Comunicação & Inovação	Herom Vargas e Anderson Rocha	2019
Epistemologia semiótica e a questão do observador em Peirce e Lotman	Estudos Semióticos	Regiane M. de Oliveira Nakagawa e Tarcísio de Sá Cardoso	2020
Semiótica das estruturas sociais	Estudos Semióticos	Lucas Calil	2020
A semiosfera como paisagem biossimbólica na construção da memória na mídia	Revista RUS A4	Mônica Rebecca Ferrari Nunes	2022
Contribuições da Semiótica da Cultura como abordagem de leitura de O Reino encantado dos pôneis 4D	Bakhtiniana. Revista de Estudos do Discurso	Sandra Mina Takakura	2024
A monstruosidade na Literatura de Cordel: fronteira e semiosfera nos sertões brasileiros	GALÁxia	Felipe Lima Rodriguez e Gabriela Reinaldo	2024

Although journal articles predominate in the corpus, book chapters were also included (Table 2), given their theoretical and historical importance for the dissemination of the semiosphere concept in Brazil. These chapters often provide more in-depth and contextualized analyses, allowing the author to develop arguments more extensively than in articles. Additionally, book chapters have played a significant role in introducing and consolidating the concept nationally, as exemplified by the anthology Semiótica da Cultura e Semiosfera [Semiotics of Culture and the Semiosphere], organized by Irene Machado (2007), which brings together essential studies for understanding the theoretical and methodological foundations of the semiosphere. This type of publication also facilitates an interdisciplinary approach, connecting the concept to fields such as literature, culture, and communication, thereby enriching the analysis and broadening its reach. Finally, these chapters were included in the analysis due to their high citation rate among the journal articles consulted.

Table 2:
List of Book Chapters

Títle	Book	Author(s)	Year
Meme, Memória: mutação nos textos culturais	A memória na mídia: a evolução dos memes de afeto	Mônica Rebecca Ferrari Nunes	2001
Metalinguagem	Escola de semiótica: a experiência de Tártu-Moscou para o estudo da cultura	Irene Machado	2003
Apresentação: Por que semiosfera?	Semiótica da cultura e semiosfera	Irene Machado	2007
Semiosfera: exploração conceitual nos estudos semióticos da cultura	Semiótica da cultura e semiosfera	A. V. Ramos et al.	2007
Passagens, Paragens, Veredas: Semiótica da Cultura e Estudos Culturais	Estudos culturais: uma abordagem prática	Mônica Rebecca Ferrari Nunes	2011
O método semiótico-estrutural na investigação dos sistemas da cultura	Semiótica da Comunicação	Irene Machado	2013

Based on this corpus, the next section of this study aims to provide a brief overview of Brazilian research on the concept of the semiosphere, highlighting readings and interpretations developed over nearly three decades. Furthermore, we seek to identify convergences and divergences in approaches to the concept, emphasizing how it has been adapted and applied within the national academic context.

3 The Semiosphere in Brazil

When examining the distribution of the bibliographic production analyzed here, the first article appears in 1995, authored by Jerusa Pires Ferreira, entitled “Cultura é memória” [Culture is Memory]. Drawing on Lotman’s Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture (1990), the author states that the concept of the semiosphere “encompasses the semiotic space and the developments of the symbolic and the plot, within the geographic and social space” (Ferreira, 1995, p. 120),¹¹ and that in it Lotman synthesizes his formulations on time and place.

In the following decade, three significant books for the field were published, which can be considered works that most illuminate the concept of the semiosphere. In 2001, Nunes published A memória na mídia: a evolução dos memes de afeto [Memory in the Media: The Evolution of Affection Memes], derived from her doctoral thesis, highlighting the chapter “Meme, Memória: mutação nos textos culturais [Meme, Memory: Mutation in Cultural Texts] In 2003, Escola de semiótica: a experiência de Tártu-Moscou para o estudo da cultura [School of Semiotics: The Tartu-Moscow Experience for the Study of Culture] by Irene Machado was released, notable for the glossary of terms in the chapter “Metalinguagem” [Metalanguage]. In 2007, the collection Semiótica da cultura e semiosfera [Semiotics of Culture and the Semiosphere] brought together a series of articles based on TMS theories, among which we highlight Machado’s “Apresentação: Por que semiosfera” [Introduction: Why Semiosphere] and the chapter “Semiosfera: exploração conceitual nos estudos semióticos da cultura” [Semiosphere: Conceptual Exploration in Semiotic Studies of Culture] by Ramos et al.

In 2009, Ana Paulo Machado Velho published the article “A semiótica da cultura: apontamentos para uma metodologia de análise da comunicação” [The Semiotics of Culture: Notes Toward a Methodology for Communication Analysis]. However, it is from 2010 onward that a significant increase in bibliographic production on the semiosphere is observed, with at least two articles published per year on the topic, indicating a notable growth in research and interest in the semiotics of culture.

Another notable point is the predominance of studies conducted by authors affiliated with the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo (PUC-SP). Jerusa Pires Ferreira, Irene Machado, and Lucia Santaella taught at the institution, while Monica R. F. Nunes, Ronaldo Henn, Herom Vargas, Regiane M. de Oliveira Nakagawa, among others, completed their master’s or doctoral studies there, positioning PUC-SP as a center for training researchers affiliated with the semiotics of culture. Another important research hub is the University of São Paulo (USP), where Ekaterina Volkova Américo and Sandra Mina Takakura completed their doctoral studies. These universities are also noteworthy for publishing the journals in which most of the analyzed articles appeared.

Nonetheless, it should be emphasized that, despite this initial concentration, authors trained at PUC-SP and USP have spread throughout the country, conducting related research at various institutions, such as UFRB, UFBA, Unisinos, ESPM, and UFF, among others. Thus, although there was an initial concentration in a single Brazilian state, studies on the semiosphere and the semiotics of culture have gradually dispersed across the country due to the migration of researchers to other regions.

It is also possible to identify the formation of a research network on the topic. Irene Machado, followed by Jerusa Pires Ferreira, are the most frequently cited scholars among the texts analyzed. Machado is cited in most works, while Ferreira appears more often in texts addressing memory. Monica R. F. Nunes references both in different contexts and is cited in Vargas & Rocha (2019), who, in turn, cite Ramos et al. (2007) and Velho (2009), the latter referring to Machado (2003), thereby closing part of this network. This example illustrates the formation of a network of researchers who interact and engage in dialogue, promoting the cross-referencing of works while deepening and disseminating the topic.

We can also highlight more specific content issues in the selected articles and how the concept has been expanded over recent decades. Works published between 1995 and 2011, such as Ferreira (1995), Machado (2003, 2007), Ramos et al. (2007), Velho (2009), and Kirchof (2010), focus on more ontological, epistemological, or methodological aspects of the semiosphere, seeking to define it based on Lotman’s thought and paving the way for subsequent researchers to apply the concept more practically to understand cultural phenomena.

This redirection of research is particularly evident from the second decade of this century. For instance, Ramos (2012) examines digital journalism in databases as cultural texts, while Vargas & Rocha (2019) seek to understand nerd culture as a symbolic system. More recently, Takakura (2024) analyzes augmented reality features in children’s books, known as 4D books, drawing on the notions of semiosis and the semiosphere, mapping the cultural translation process and the use of multimodal languages in “O reino encantado dos pôneis 4D” [The Enchanted Kingdom of 4D Ponies]. Rodrigues and Reinaldo (2024) examine the presence of monsters in cordel literature, addressing, in addition to the semiosphere, the concepts of boundary and translation, reflecting the Brazilian sertão [backlands] as a borderland inhabited by monsters.

It is important to note that, although applied studies of the concept have gained prominence, more theoretical and conceptual texts continue to circulate, such as Machado (2013), which addresses methodological issues, and Nakagawa & Cardoso (2018), which focus on Peirce’s and Lotman’s semiotic epistemology.

Finally, when comparing these texts, it is evident that they rely on four pillars of the concept: (a) the structure and internal dynamics of the semiosphere; (b) communication and translation processes; (c) memory mechanisms; and (d) the relationship with the biosphere, as will be demonstrated in the next subsection.

3.1 The Pillars of the Concept

Before exploring these different thematic groupings,¹² it is important to make three clarifications for the reader. First, although some interpretations may lean more toward one aspect or another, this does not imply that they disregard the other aspects; rather, it indicates that a particular feature of the concept is emphasized at a given moment. Second, this is not a classification of which reading is better or more correct, but rather a mapping of the differences and similarities among the various interpretations. Finally, our goal is not to exhaust the debate on the topic, but to present an overview of the study of the semiosphere in the national context, in an effort to preserve and disseminate this body of research.

3.1.1 Structures and Internal Dynamics of Semiotic Systems

The first group comprises texts that focus on the internal organization and interaction processes within the semiosphere, including the interplay between central and peripheral elements and the generation of new information. Particularly noteworthy is the view of the semiosphere as a space “of coexistence and coevolution of sign systems” (Machado, 2003, p. 163),¹³ which allows these signs to operate dialogically with one another, exchanging and influencing each other. As Ramos et al. illustrate in the chapter “Semiosfera: exploração conceitual nos estudos semióticos da cultura” [Semiosphere: Conceptual Exploration in Semiotic Studies of Culture]

The semiosphere can be understood as a sign sphere that is not limited to the sum of the codes, languages, and texts that circulate within it (Lotman, 1990, p. 123). It can be seen as an environment in which diverse semiotic formations are immersed in constant dialogue-a space-time whose existence precedes these formations and enables their functioning, while simultaneously making their own life cycle possible (Ramos et al., 2007, p. 34).¹⁴

Thus, we see an emphasis on the interactive character present in semiotic systems, where constant change and the dynamics among their elements are crucial to the structure of the semiosphere.

The authors also highlight the notion of the semiosphere as a complex hierarchy, referring to the way in which the dynamics among its constituent elements are organized. According to them:

Lotman presents the internal irregularity of the semiosphere as its law of organization, defining it as divided into nuclear and peripheral structures that move within the semiospheric space, generating areas of tension. The idea of the semiosphere as a complex hierarchy thus encompasses irregularity, dynamism, and tension between central and peripheral structures, where languages at the center tend toward the periphery, and those at the periphery tend toward the center (Ramos et al., 2007, p. 35).¹⁵

Thus, within this dynamic structure, hierarchy also functions as an organizing element, and the semiosphere is structured around the coexistence of a nucleus and a periphery. The nucleus, composed of the dominant semiotic systems within a given culture, exerts influence over other systems, while the periphery, formed by less dominant systems or fragments of different languages, occupies a less central position.

We further emphasize that this hierarchy is not static: peripheral systems can challenge the dominance of the nucleus, generating tensions and driving the dynamics of the semiosphere.

Hence, we understand internal irregularity as an inherent characteristic of the semiosphere’s functioning, fostering tension and movement between the more stable structures of the nucleus and the more mobile elements of the periphery. The rise of nerd culture in the media, as noted by Vargas and Rocha (2019), exemplifies how a system initially situated at the periphery can gain prominence and influence the cultural nucleus.

3.1.2 Communication and Translation Processes

Regarding the second group, we observe an approach that emphasizes the processes of translation and interaction between different semiotic systems. These works highlight the essential function of the boundary in mediating and translating between cultural systems, enabling communication and interaction. According to Américo, the boundary is “an abstract and imaginary divider that allows the exchange of information between the semiosphere and the space surrounding it” (2017, p. 8).¹⁶

According to Machado (2007, p. 16), Lotman devoted himself to understanding the dynamics of cultural encounters, pointing out how two cultures meet, what kind of dialogue they engage in, and how they create experiences capable of reconfiguring the field of cultural forces. Thus, the margins of the semiosphere constitute a space of extreme importance, giving rise to Lotman’s notion of the boundary [granítsa], described by Américo (2017, p. 8) as “an abstract and imaginary divider that allows the exchange of information between the semiosphere and the space surrounding it.”¹⁷

Meanwhile, Machado characterizes the boundary as:

that segment of space where boundaries become blurred, acquiring the function of a filter. Hence, this liminal space is essentially defined through the mechanism of mirror symmetry: everything that exists outside can be incorporated into the semiotic space thanks to the complementary relationship (Machado, 2003, pp. 163-164).¹⁸

The author thus emphasizes the essential function of the boundary in mediating and translating between cultural systems, enabling communication and interaction. Far from being rigid and insurmountable limits, boundaries within the semiosphere are characterized by their permeability, acting as zones of contact and exchange between different systems (Ramos, 2012). This permeability is crucial for the dynamics of the semiosphere, as it is through contact between different systems in the boundary zones that exchanges, conflicts, assimilations, and reinterpretations occur, driving the production of new information and the transformation of culture.

Américo (2017) revisits the comparison made by Lotman (2001), referring to the semiosphere’s boundary as analogous to urban spaces, observing an isomorphism between the two. From archaic settlements to the present day, urban organization tends to privilege the most important religious and administrative constructions in the central regions of cities, while the peripheries serve as meeting areas for less-valued social groups. The author continues with the analogy:

However, todaythe contrast between semiosphere and the urban space has to be corrected. In modern cities, the outskirts are not necessarily in the boundaries: there are poor districts in city centers and rich districts in the outskirts. However, by correcting this datum, we are brought closer to the concept of semiosphere, a space permeated by countless borders (Américo, 2017, p. 11).¹⁹

In addition to updating the concept, this citation allows us to highlight the existence of a symmetry between the internal functioning of the semiosphere and the processes occurring between different semiospheres. That is, semiotic structures move within the semiosphere in a manner similar to the movement carried out by semiospheres. And, while boundaries exist between semiotic spaces, these spaces also have internal boundaries.

For us, the importance of the translation processes promoted by boundaries within the semiosphere can be observed in the analysis of the interaction between different languages and cultural codes in digital games, as discussed in the article “Um olhar da semiótica da cultura sobre jogos digitais e seus avatares” [A Look at the Semiotics of Culture on Digital Games and their Avatars] by Lorena Risse, Carlise Scalamato Duarte, and Nísia Martins do Rosário. As the authors point out (2014), players’ capacity for translation and their attention to asymmetries directly impact their performance in the game, since understanding the rules, visual codes, and narratives requires translation between different semiotic systems.

3.1.3 Memory Mechanisms

This pillar encompasses works that highlight the role of memory in the constitution of the semiosphere. Unlike a static view of information storage, memory in the semiosphere is understood as an active and constantly moving process. Thus, emphasis is placed on understanding memory as a communicative and cultural process.

In this regard, we consider the work of Jerusa Pires Ferreira (1995), “Cultura é memória” [Culture is Memory] crucial - not only for being among the first to introduce the term semiosphere and present Lotman’s thought to the Brazilian context, but also for exploring the concept of culture as a mechanism for preserving and transmitting information over time, highlighting the importance of collective memory. The author emphasizes that “only that which has been translated into a system of signs can become part of memory heritage” (Ferreira, 1995, p. 117).²⁰

We refer to this system of signs as the semiosphere, since, as Nunes reminds us, “in the final decades of his work, Lotman expanded the idea of culture as a collection of texts to that of the semiosphere” (2001, p. 57).²¹ The researcher later asserts that

The Tartu-Moscow semiotician (op. cit., p. 35) attributes to the semiosphere as a whole “a complex system of memory, and without this memory it cannot function,” since the texts that compose it have the capacity to restore recollection. Thus, conceiving memory as a communicative and cultural process, and consequently understanding that culture itself is memory, allows us to comprehend that media cultural texts, submerged within the semiosphere, must come into contact with other texts, such as mythical texts in the following examples, and, through this operation, initiate generative processes, according to Lotman’s theory (Nunes, 2016, p. 153).²²

Thus, the semiosphere is the environment in which signs interact and generate meaning, and this interaction is fundamental for the construction and maintenance of cultural memory. Memory, in this context, is not limited to a record of the past but functions as an active mechanism in the production of new meanings and the transformation of culture.

In our understanding, it is also possible to observe in this group the mnemonic function of the cultural text, which, as the minimal unit of culture, is capable of preserving the memory of its previous contexts while producing new meanings. As Cardoso and Barreto Jr. indicate:

Finally, every text, once it is created within a specific context and therefore can at least convey something about its own context, but moreover, due to its enduring nature, leaves behind information that persists for future generations-this is what comes to be regarded as cultural memory (Cardoso & Barreto Jr., 2018, p. 53).²³

In this sense, memory manifests not only in the preservation of the past but also in the production of new meanings and in the constant transformation of culture.

As suggested by Nunes - in her discussion on memory and time in youth theatricalities - the mobility and dynamism of the semiosphere allow texts, heterogeneous and dialogical, to assume different hierarchies and be constantly redistributed and updated, acquiring temporary stability and defining what is considered memory within a culture (Nunes, 2019). This leads us to reflect on that which is not selected as memory, as the author elucidates elsewhere.

For Lotman (1981; 1996), forgetting is an element of memory; it makes possible the selection and fixation of certain cultural texts to the detriment of others, which remain in a potential state and may later be selected again-thanks, in this case, to the dynamics of the semiosphere itself. Memory, conceived as a communicative, sociocultural, and memetic process, is also a contest among texts and codes, among memes that may or may not achieve stability, be transformed, and persist longer in circulation, thereby fertilizing culture. Memory as a contest of texts, codes, and memes in pursuit of stability highlights its political dimension (Nunes, 2016, p. 159).²⁴

Therefore, forgetting functions as a fundamental selection mechanism in memory, allowing certain texts and codes to be preserved while others are discarded. That is, forgetting is not a mere erasure of the past but an active process that contributes to the organization and updating of cultural memory.

3.1.4 Correlation with the Biosphere

The fourth and final group consists of interpretations that emphasize the relationship between the concepts of semiosphere and biosphere. For Machado (2003), the concept of semiosphere traverses two important theoretical fields: Mikhail Bakhtin’s theory of dialogism, which addresses the dialogue between mind and world as well as the semiotic structure of responsive consciousness, and V. I. Vernadsky’s ecological theory of the biosphere, the biologist and philosopher of science who investigated relationships between binary and asymmetric structures that, despite their differences, maintain unity. In turn, Américo (2012) explains that

This concept, introduced in 1875 by the Austrian geologist Eduard Suess (1831-1914), was developed and further elaborated by the Russian biologist and philosopher Vladimir Vernadsky (1863-1945), who in turn proposed the term "noosphere": the sphere of human thought (nous in Greek means ‘mind’) (Américo, 2012, p. 83).²⁵

According to Kirchof, while the biosphere refers to the “world of nature not yet organized according to any code or semiotic system,”²⁶ the semiosphere is related to “the world of semiosis, in which semiotic systems operate, responsible for communication” (2010, p. 64).²⁷ In this sense, the semiosphere is understood as a semiotic ecosystem, in which the diversity of codes and signs interacts similarly to biological elements in the biosphere.

In “A semiótica da cultura: apontamentos para uma metodologia de análise da comunicação” [Semiotics of Culture: Note for a Communication Analysis Methodology], Velho explains that the semiosphere functions like the biosphere, “that environment with specific characteristics and elements available to be accessed and to provide conditions for life, for culture” (2009, p. 255),²⁸ highlighting the dependence of culture on the natural environment, both in terms of material resources and influence on processes of meaning-making.

For Ramos et al. (2007), it is important to emphasize that the spatial nature of the semiosphere is not merely a metaphor or allegory, since, according to Lotman, the semiosphere is a real and distinct space, closed in on itself, where communication and the production of new information are possible.

Final Considerations

Based on the analysis conducted, we observed a significant growth in academic production on the semiosphere in Brazil over the past decades, with a marked increase from 2010 onwards. Additionally, we sought to highlight the formation of a network of researchers who engage in dialogue with one another, promoting cross-referencing and contributing to the strengthening of cultural semiotics in Brazil. This network, initially concentrated in institutions such as PUC-SP and USP, has expanded to other universities, reflecting the dissemination and consolidation of the field across different regions of the country.

Brazilian scholarship on the semiosphere reveals an evolution both in terms of theoretical depth and thematic diversity. In the early years, studies focused on the ontological, epistemological, and methodological aspects of the concept, directly aligned with Lotman’s thought. Later, approaches broadened to include practical applications across various cultural phenomena, such as digital journalism, nerd culture, and cordel literature, demonstrating the flexibility and richness of the concept within the Brazilian academic context. We understand that this movement reflects not only the growing interest in the concept but also its capacity to adapt to new objects of study and cultural contexts.

The analysis identified four fundamental pillars underpinning the different readings of the semiosphere concept: (a) internal structures and dynamics, (b) communication and translation processes, (c) memory mechanisms, and (d) the relationship with the biosphere. We note that these approaches are complementary, offering diverse perspectives that collectively provide a more comprehensive understanding of the concept. Beyond guiding interpretations, these pillars demonstrate the concept’s capacity to integrate different theoretical perspectives and disciplines.

We also found that the notion of the semiosphere remains underexplored by Brazilian researchers for analyzing semiotic processes on digital platforms and networks such as TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and immersive environments. In this context, we highlight Ramos’s (2012) contribution, which employs the concept to examine digital journalistic production, as well as our work on TikTok (Abrão, 2023; 2024a; 2024b), where we conceptualize it as a digital semiosphere. Accordingly, we argue that considering these media as contemporary configurations of the semiosphere-shaped by algorithmic action, with more fluid cultural boundaries and their own dynamics of memory and translation-can constitute relevant topics for updating and expanding the application of Lotman’s theory, shedding light on the specificities and communicational challenges inherent to digital culture.

By mapping this panorama of Brazilian academic production on the semiosphere, we aim to contribute to the understanding and valorization of the concept, while preserving and disseminating the work of national researchers. We hope this study serves as a foundation for future research and encourages new debates, further deepening the comprehension and applications of the theoretical model.

References

• ABRÃO, Jorge A. M. Você não vai fingir que está em um filme do Wes Anderson, né?! Memória e performances no TikTok. In: Mônica Rebecca Ferrari Nunes. (Org.). Memórias do futuro em textos culturais midiáticos: perspectivas semióticas. Pontes Editores. 2024a
• ABRÃO, Jorge. “Não nasci para trabalhar como CLT” - as lives de NPCs no TikTok. In: RÊGO, A. R. et al (Org.). Mídia e dimensões do tempo. Teresina: Editora da Universidade Federal do Piauí - EDUFPI, 2024b. pp. 548-565.
• ABRÃO, Jorge. A semiosfera, as mídias e o discurso: três leituras sobre o TikTok. In: Congresso Internacional Comunicação e Consumo 2023, São Paulo.
• AMÉRICO, Ekaterina Volkova. Alguns aspectos da semiótica da cultura de Iúri Lotman. 2012. 343 f. Tese (Doutorado) - Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2012. Disponível em: https://teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/8/8155/tde-07112012-124602/pt-br.php Acesso em 28 de jan. 2025.
  » https://teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/8/8155/tde-07112012-124602/pt-br.php
• AMÉRICO, Ekaterina Volkova. Iúri Lotman e a Escola de Tártu-Moscou. Galaxia (São Paulo, Online), n. 29, pp. 123-140, jun. 2015. Disponível em: https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/galaxia/article/view/20156 Acesso em 28 de jan. 2025.
  » https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/galaxia/article/view/20156
• AMÉRICO, Ekaterina Volkova. O conceito de fronteira na semiótica de Iúri Lotman. Bakhtiniana. Revista de Estudos do Discurso, [S. l.], v. 12, n. 1 pp. Port. 5-20 / Eng. 6-21, 2017. Disponível em: https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/bakhtiniana/article/view/26361 Acesso em 28 de jan. 2025.
  » https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/bakhtiniana/article/view/26361
• CALIL, Lucas. Semiótica das estruturas sociais. Estudos Semióticos, São Paulo, Brasil, v. 16, n. 2, pp. 56-80, 2020. DOI: 10.11606/issn.1980-4016.esse.2020.171906. Disponível em: https://revistas.usp.br/esse/article/view/171906 Acesso em 28 de jan. 2025.
  » https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1980-4016.esse.2020.171906» https://revistas.usp.br/esse/article/view/171906
• CARDOSO, Tarcísio S.; BARRETO JUNIOR, Carlos M. P. Semiose em Peirce e Lotman. Eikon, n. 4, 2018. Disponível em: https://ojs.labcom-ifp.ubi.pt/eikon/article/view/422 Acesso em 28 de jan. 2025.
  » https://ojs.labcom-ifp.ubi.pt/eikon/article/view/422
• FERREIRA, Jerusa Pires. Cultura é memória. Revista USP, São Paulo, Brasil, n. 24, pp. 114-120, 1995. DOI: 10.11606/issn.2316-9036.v0i24p114-120. Disponível em: https://www.revistas.usp.br/revusp/article/view/27032 Acesso em 28 de jan. 2025.
  » https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2316-9036.v0i24p114-120» https://www.revistas.usp.br/revusp/article/view/27032
• HENN, Ronaldo. Direito à memória na semiosfera midiatizada. Revista Fronteiras -estudos midiáticos, n. 3, pp. 177-184, 2006. Disponível em: https://revistas.unisinos.br/index.php/fronteiras/article/view/6132 Acesso em 28 de jan. 2025.
  » https://revistas.unisinos.br/index.php/fronteiras/article/view/6132
• KIRCHOF, E.dgar R. Yuri Lotman e semiótica da cultura. Revista Prâksis, [S. l.], v. 2, pp. 63-72, 2010. DOI: 10.25112/rp.v2i0.703. Disponível em: https://periodicos.feevale.br/seer/index.php/revistapraksis/article/view/703 Acesso em 28 de jan. 2025.
  » https://doi.org/10.25112/rp.v2i0.703» https://periodicos.feevale.br/seer/index.php/revistapraksis/article/view/703
• RISSE, Lorena; DUARTE, Carlise S.; ROSÁRIO, Nísia M. DO. Um olhar da semiótica da cultura sobre jogos digitais e seus avatares. Mídia e Cotidiano, v. 5, n. 5, 3 mar. 2015. Disponível em: https://periodicos.uff.br/midiaecotidiano/article/view/9731 Acesso em 28 de jan. 2025.
  » https://periodicos.uff.br/midiaecotidiano/article/view/9731
• LÓTMAN, Iuri. Acerca de la semiosfera. La semiosfera I - Semiótica de la cultura e del texto. Trad. Desiderio Navarro. Madrid: Cátedra, 1996.
• LÓTMAN, Jurij La semiosfera. L’asimmetria e il dialogo nelle strutture pensante. Trad. Simonetta Salvestroni. Venezia: Marsilio, 1985.
• LOTMAN, Juri. On the Semiosphere. Sign Systems Studies, v. 33, n. 1, pp. 205-229, 2005. DOI: 10.12697/SSS.2005.33.1.09. Disponível em: https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/sss/article/view/SSS.2005.33.1.09 Acesso em 28 de jan. 2025.
  » https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2005.33.1.09» https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/sss/article/view/SSS.2005.33.1.09
• LOTMAN, Yuri M. Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture. Translated by Ann Shukman. Indiana: Indiana University Press,1990.
• MACHADO, Irene. Metalinguagem. In: MACHADO, Irene, Escola de semiótica: a experîencia de Tártu-Moscou para o estudo da cultura. Ateliê Editorial, 2003.
• MACHADO, Irene A., Apresentação: Por que semiosfera? In: MACHADO, Irene A.; Semiótica da cultura e semiosfera. Annablume, 2007.
• MACHADO, Irene. Cultura em campo semiótico. Revista USP, São Paulo, Brasil, n. 86, pp. 157-166, 2010. DOI: 10.11606/issn.2316-9036.v0i86p157-166. Disponível em: https://www.revistas.usp.br/revusp/article/view/13822 Acesso em 28 de jan. 2025.
  » https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2316-9036.v0i86p157-166» https://www.revistas.usp.br/revusp/article/view/13822
• MACHADO, Irene. O método semiótico-estrutural na investigação dos sistemas da cultura. In: SILVA, Alexandre R., NAKAGAWA, Regiane M. O. Semiótica da Comunicação. São Paulo: Intercom, 2013. Disponível em: https://www.eca.usp.br/acervo/producao-academica/002424072.pdf Acesso em 28 de jan. 2025.
  » https://www.eca.usp.br/acervo/producao-academica/002424072.pdf
• MACHADO, Irene. Espaço semiótico em diálogos e fronteiras. Casa: Cadernos de Semiótica Aplicada, v. 13, n. 1, pp. 87-119. Araraquara: Unesp, 2015. Disponível em: https://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/casa/article/view/7449 Acesso em 28 de jan. 2025.
  » https://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/casa/article/view/7449
• NUNES, Mônica Rebecca Ferrari. Meme, memória: mutação nos textos culturais In: NUNES, Mônica Rebecca Ferrari A memória na mídia: a evolução dos memes de afeto. São Paulo: Annablume; Fapesp, 2001.
• NUNES, Monica Rebecca Ferrari. Passagens, paragens, veredas: semiótica da cultura e estudos culturais. Estudos culturais: uma abordagem prática. São Paulo: Senac, pp. 13-38, 2011.
• NUNES, Mônica Rebecca Ferrari. Memória, consumo e memes de afeto nas cenas cosplay e furry. Contracampo, Niterói, v. 35, n. 01, pp. 142-162. abr./jul., 2016. Disponível em: https://periodicos.uff.br/contracampo/article/view/17565 Acesso em 28 de jan. 2025.
  » https://periodicos.uff.br/contracampo/article/view/17565
• NUNES, Mônica Rebecca Ferrari. Memória do futuro, explosão, pancronia: a semiótica de Lotman e os estudos da memória e do tempo nas teatralidades juvenis. Bakhtiniana. Revista de Estudos do Discurso. v. 14, n. 4, pp. Port. 192-210 / Eng. 184-203, 2019. Disponível em: https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/bakhtiniana/article/view/38563 Acesso em 28 de jan. 2025.
  » https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/bakhtiniana/article/view/38563
• NUNES, Mônica Rebecca Ferrari. A semiosfera como paisagem biossimbólica na construção da memória na mídia. RUS (São Paulo), São Paulo, Brasil, v. 13, n. 23, 2022. DOI: 10.11606/issn.2317-4765.rus.2022.202447. Disponível em: https://www.revistas.usp.br/rus/article/view/202447 Acesso em 28 de jan. 2025.
  » https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2317-4765.rus.2022.202447» https://www.revistas.usp.br/rus/article/view/202447
• NAKAGAWA, Regiane Miranda de Oliveira; CARDOSO, Tarcísio de Sá. Epistemologia semiótica e a questão do observador em Peirce e Lotman. Estudos Semióticos, São Paulo, Brasil, v. 16, n. 3, pp. 112-132, 2020. DOI: 10.11606/issn.1980-4016.esse.2020.172812. Disponível em: https://www.revistas.usp.br/esse/article/view/172812 Acesso em 28 de jan. 2025.
  » https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1980-4016.esse.2020.172812» https://www.revistas.usp.br/esse/article/view/172812
• RAMOS, Adriana Vaz et al. Semiosfera: exploração conceitual nos estudos semióticos da cultura. In: MACHADO, Irene A. Semiótica da cultura e semiosfera. Annablume, 2007. pp. 27- 44.
• RAMOS, Daniela Osvald. Jornalismo Digital em Base de Dados (JDBD) como um texto da cultura. Communicare: revista de pesquisa, v. 12. n. 2. 2012. Disponível em: https://casperlibero.edu.br/revista-communicare/artigos/jornalismo-digital-em-base-de-dados-jdbd-como-um-texto-da-cultura/. Acesso em 28 de jan. 2025.
  » https://casperlibero.edu.br/revista-communicare/artigos/jornalismo-digital-em-base-de-dados-jdbd-como-um-texto-da-cultura
• RODRIGUES, Felipe Lima; REINALDO, Gabriela Frota. A monstruosidade na Literatura de Cordel: fronteira e semiosfera nos sertões brasileiros. Galáxia (São Paulo), v. 49, p. e66880 2024. Disponível em: https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/galaxia/article/view/66880 Acesso em 28 de jan. 2025.
  » https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/galaxia/article/view/66880
• TAKAKURA, Sandra M. Contribuições da Semiótica da Cultura como abordagem de leitura de O Reino encantado dos pôneis 4D. Bakhtiniana. Revista de Estudos do Discurso, v. 19, n. 3, 2024. Disponível em: https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/bakhtiniana/article/view/63980 Acesso em 28 de jan. 2025.
  » https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/bakhtiniana/article/view/63980
• VARGAS, Heron; ROCHA, Anderson A. Cultura nerd como semiosfera: uma proposta de entendimento. Comunicação & Inovação, v. 20, n. 44, 2019. Disponível em: https://seer.uscs.edu.br/index.php/revista_comunicacao_inovacao/article/view/6230 Acesso em 28 de jan. 2025.
  » https://seer.uscs.edu.br/index.php/revista_comunicacao_inovacao/article/view/6230
• VARGAS, Heron; ROCHA, Anderson A. Cultura nerd como semiosfera: uma proposta de entendimento. Comunicação & Inovação, v. 20, n. 44, 2019. Disponível em: https://seer.uscs.edu.br/index.php/revista_comunicacao_inovacao/article/view/6230 Acesso em 28 de jan. 2025.
  » https://seer.uscs.edu.br/index.php/revista_comunicacao_inovacao/article/view/6230
• VELHO, Ana Paula Machado. A semiótica da cultura: apontamentos para uma metodologia de análise da comunicação. Revista Estudos de Comunicação, Curitiba, v. 10, n. 23, pp. 249-257, set./dez. 2009. Disponível em: https://periodicos.pucpr.br/estudosdecomunicacao/article/view/22315 Acesso em 28 de jan. 2025.
  » https://periodicos.pucpr.br/estudosdecomunicacao/article/view/22315

• Research Data and Other Materials Availability
  The contents underlying the research text are included in the manuscript.
• Reviews
  Due to the commitment assumed by Bakhtiniana. Revista de Estudos do Discurso [Bakhtiniana. Journal of Discourse Studies] to Open Science, this journal only publishes reviews that have been authorized by all involved.
• 2
  We opted to use the criterion already adopted for the phonetic spelling of the author’s name in English; however, in the references and citations, we decided to maintain the spelling as it appears in the sources consulted.
• 3
  In Portuguese: “enfraquecer sua potência, alcance e capacidade de dizer algo sobre o mundo.”
• 4
  In Portuguese: “preservar o campo conceitual que orienta a investigação científica.”
• 5
  In Portuguese: “principais rumos de pesquisa eram a análise do texto poético, bem como o estudo dos diferentes modelos culturais.”
• 6
  In Portuguese: “Ao se falar da Escola semiótica russa, é necessário observar primeiramente que, apesar de ter sido fundada por esse expoente semioticista, ela contou com a participação de muitos autores de renome, tais como: Vladímir Toporov, Borís Uspiénski, Viatcheslav Ivánov, Eleazar Meletínski e Serguei Nekliúdov. Trata-se, portanto, de uma interação constante entre especialistas de diferentes áreas, como linguística, estudos literários, folclorística, culturologia e até mesmo das ciências exatas (por exemplo, a contribuição extremamente relevante de Vladímir Uspiénski, matemático e linguista, dentre outros).”
• 7
  In Spanish: “Sólo dentro de tal espacio resultan posibles la realización de los procesos comunicativos y la producción de nueva información.”
• 8
  In Spanish: “El concepto de semiosfera está ligado a determinada homogeneidad e individualidad.”
• 9
  In Spanish: “La división en núcleo y periferia es una ley de la organización interna de la semiosfera.”
• 10
  In Spanish: “La semiosfera tiene una profundidad diacrónica, puesto que está dotada de un complejo sistema de memoria y sin esa memoria no puede funcionar.”
• 11
  In Portuguese: “abriga o espaço semiótico e os desenvolvimentos do simbólico e da trama, no espaço geográfico e social.”
• 12
  The distribution of the articles and book chapters in the corpus, according to their association with the four conceptual pillars, is summarized in the table presented in Annex 1.
• 13
  In Portuguese: “de coexistência e coevolução dos sistemas de signos.”
• 14
  In Portuguese: “A semiosfera pode ser compreendida como uma esfera sígnica que não se restringe à soma de códigos, linguagens e textos que por ela transitam (Lotman, 1990: 123). Ela pode ser vista como um ambiente no qual diversas formações semióticas se encontram imersas em diálogo constante, um espaço-tempo, cuja existência antecede tais formações e viabiliza o seu funcionamento, e, no entanto, torna possível o seu próprio ciclo vital.”
• 15
  In Portuguese: “Lótman apresenta a irregularidade interna da semiosfera como sua lei de organização, definindo que esta se divide em estruturas nucleares e periféricas que se movimentam no espaço semiosférico, gerando áreas de tensão. A ideia da semiosfera como hierarquia complexa compreende, portanto, irregularidade, dinamismo e tensão entre as estruturas centrais e periféricas, onde as linguagens que estão no centro tendem para periferia, as que estão na periferia, para o centro.”
• 16
  In Portuguese: “um divisor abstrato e imaginário que possibilita a troca de informações entre a semiosfera e o espaço que a circunda.”
• 17
  In Portuguese: “um divisor abstrato e imaginário que possibilita a troca de informações entre a semiosfera e o espaço que a circunda.”
• 18
  In Portuguese: “aquele segmento de espaço onde os limites se confundem adquirindo a função de filtro. Daí porque esse espaço de liminaridade se define basicamente através do mecanismo de simetria especular: tudo o que está no exterior pode ser incorporado ao espaço semiótico graças à relação complementar.”
• 19
  In Portuguese: “No entanto, no contexto atual, a comparação entre a semiosfera e o espaço urbano precisa ser corrigida. Nas cidades modernas, a periferia não necessariamente se encontra nos limites: há bairros pobres nas regiões centrais e bairros ricos nas áreas periféricas. Porém, essa correção nos aproxima mais ainda do conceito de semiosfera como um espaço perpassado por inúmeras fronteiras.”
• 20
  In Portuguese: “somente aquilo que foi traduzido em um sistema de signos pode vir a ser patrimônio da memória.”
• 21
  In Portuguese: “nas últimas décadas de seu trabalho, Lotman alargou a ideia de cultura como conjunto de textos para a de semiosfera.”
• 22
  In Portuguese: “O semioticista de Tártu-Moscou (op. cit, p. 35) credita à semiosfera, como um todo, “um complexo sistema de memória e sem essa memória não pode funcionar”, pois os textos que a compõem têm capacidade de restaurar a recordação. Pensar então a memória como processo comunicativo e cultural, e, em consequência, entender que a cultura em si mesma é memória permite compreender que os textos culturais midiáticos, submersos na semiosfera, devem entrar em contato com outros textos, como os textos míticos, nos exemplos a seguir, e, nessa operação, põem em andamento processos generativos, se seguirmos a teoria proposta por Lotman.”
• 23
  In Portuguese: “Por fim, todo texto, uma vez que nasce em um contexto específico e que, por isso, pode ter algo a dizer no mínimo sobre seu próprio contexto, mas, além disso, por ter uma característica de perenidade, acaba deixando uma informação que permanece, que fica para as gerações futuras, isto é que passa a ser visto como uma memória da cultura.”
• 24
  In Portuguese: “Para Lotman (1981; 1996), o esquecimento é um elemento da memória, torna viável a seleção e a fixação de certos textos culturais em detrimento de outros, que em estado de potência, e, ulteriormente, podem voltar a ser selecionados, e, neste caso, graças à dinâmica da própria semiosfera. A memória pensada como um processo comunicativo, sociocultural e memético é também uma disputa entre textos e códigos, entre memes que podem ou não ganhar estabilidade, serem transformados e permanecerem mais tempo em circulação, fecundando a cultura. A memória como disputa de textos, códigos e memes em busca da estabilidade evidencia sua dimensão política.”
• 25
  In Portuguese: “Esse conceito, introduzido em 1875 pelo geólogo austríaco Eduard Suess (1831-1914), foi desenvolvido e aprofundado pelo biólogo e filósofo russo Vladímir Vernádski (1863-1945) que, por sua vez, sugeriu o termo “noosfera”: a esfera do pensamento humano (nous em grego significa ‘mente’).”
• 26
  In Portuguese: “mundo da natureza ainda não organizada a partir de qualquer código ou sistema semiótico.”
• 27
  In Portuguese: “ao mundo da semiose, em que funcionam os sistemas semióticos, responsáveis pela comunicação.”
• 28
  In Portuguese: “aquele ambiente com características específicas e elementos disponíveis para serem acessados e dar condições à vida, à cultura.”
• 1
  This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001.”

ANNEXE 1

Tabela 3:
Distribuição Temática da Produção Brasileira sobre Semiosfera (1995-2024)

Authors/Year	Tittle	Structure and Internal Dynamics	Communication and Translation Processes	Memory Mechanisms	Correlation with the Biosphere
Ferreira (1995)	Cultura é memória	X		X
Nunes (2001)	Meme, Memória: mutação nos textos culturais			X	X
Machado 2003)	Metalinguagem		X
Henn (2006)	Direito à memória na semiosfera midiatizada	X		X	X
Ramos et al. (2007)	Semiosfera: exploração conceitual nos estudos semióticos da cultura	X			X
Machado (2007)	Apresentação: Por que semiosfera?	X	X
Velho (2009)	A semiótica da cultura: apontamentos para uma metodologia de análise da comunicação		X		X
Machado (2010)	Cultura em campo semiótico	X			X
Kirchof (2010)	Yuri Lotman e semiótica da cultura	X	X		X
Nunes (2011)	Passagens, Paragens, Veredas: Semiótica da Cultura e Estudos Culturais	X	X
Ramos (2012)	Jornalismo Digital em Base de Dados (JDBD) como um texto da cultura	X
Machado (2013)	O método semiótico-estrutural na investigação dos sistemas da cultura				X
Machado (2015)	Espaço semiótico em diálogos e fronteiras		X
Duarte; Rosário (2015)	Um olhar da semiótica da cultura sobre jogos digitais e seus avatares		X	X
Nunes (2016)	Memória, consumo e memes de afeto nas cenas cosplay e furry			X
Américo (2017)	O conceito de fronteira na semiótica de Iúri Lotman		X
Cardoso; Barreto Jr. (2018)	Semiose em Peirce e Lotman		X	X
Vargas; Rocha (2019)	Cultura Nerd como Semiosfera: uma proposta de entendimento	X	X
Nunes (2019)	Memória do futuro, explosão, pancronia: a semiótica de Lotman e os estudos da memória e do tempo nas teatralidades juvenis		X	X
Nakagawa; Cardoso (2020)	Epistemologia semiótica e a questão do observador em Peirce e Lotman	X
Calil (2020)	Semiótica das estruturas sociais	X	X
Nunes (2022)	A semiosfera como paisagem biossimbólica na construção da memória na mídia			X	X
Takakura (2024)	Contribuições da Semiótica da Cultura como abordagem de leitura de O Reino encantado dos pôneis 4D	X	X
Rodriguez; Reinaldo (2024)	A monstruosidade na Literatura de Cordel: fronteira e semiosfera nos sertões brasileiros		X	X

Edited by

• Editor in Charge Paulo Rogério Stella

Review II

About the reviewerSCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Review II

The article is relevant as it provides a valuable survey of how the concept of the semiosphere, proposed by Iuri Lotman and his colleagues from the Tartu-Moscow School, has been addressed by Brazilian researchers over a period of 29 years. In this sense, the title is fully appropriate to what was developed in the work, as it reflects the central objective of the research. The mapping of how the authors appropriated and interpreted the concept followed well-explicit methodological criteria: in addition to the semiosphere being a fundamental keyword, the collected articles were published in Brazilian journals evaluated in Qualis CAPES strata A and B (2017-2020), as well as book chapters with editorial relevance. Initially, the author synthesized the concept and its formulation throughout the history of the school, explained the methodological procedures and the corpus description, and established categories for material analysis: structures and internal dynamics of semiotic systems; processes of communication and translation; memory mechanisms; and the relationship with the biosphere. The text is clearly aligned with the proposed objective. Additionally, the author relies on up-to-date and sufficient bibliography for the purpose of the article. One inference, which is not present in the work, could be developed: in the analyzed corpus, there are no indicators of how the concept of the semiosphere can be applied to describe and understand processes occurring within platforms and digital networks, which could constitute an important research topic for the continuation of these studies. APPROVED

• peer review recommendation: accept

History

• Peer review received
  11 July 2025

Data availability

The contents underlying the research text are included in the manuscript.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  25 May 2026
• Date of issue
  Apr-Jun 2026

History

• Peer review received
  04 July 2025