SEMIOTIC SOCIETY OF AMERICA STYLE SHEET, BRIEF VERSION

 

      For the convenience of contributors to Society publications, and in response to requests by Soci­e­ty members, we are providing here a brief version of the official Style Sheet, covering the essential points of its application. Authors whose work requires more detailed discussion of these points should consult the full version of the Style Sheet, in The American Journal of Semiotics 4.3-4 (1986), 193-215, or the Semiotics 1984 Proceedings volume, pp. 715-739. In this brief version, we elaborate only on the principle unique to and differentiative of the SSA Style Sheet, the principle of the historical layering of sources.

      Manuscripts are to be typed double-spaced throughout the text, notes and references, with at least 1 inch top, bottom, and right margins, using 11 point type size for text, 10 point for extracts (block quotes) and the list of References, and 9 point for notes. The typing is to be on one side of standard typing paper. Manuscripts may be divided as appropriate into sections with headings, not numbers alone. All pages of the manuscript are to have the last name of the author and the page number. Single quotes are to be used within double quotes; brackets within parentheses; single underlining or italics for emphasized expressions. Manuscripts for the Proceedings volumes should not be less than 8 nor more than 20 pages in length.

      Line drawings (called “Figures” in the text) and photographs (glossies, not negatives; also called “Figures” in the text) are to be reproducible originals submitted on separate sheets, carefully numbered and labeled. Captions are to be typed on a separate sheet and placed at the end of the manuscript.

      Tables should be numbered consecutively and titled, and must be referred to in the Text. Avoid referring to the ‘preceding’ or ‘following’ table, since the original position may be shifted in the final camera-ready preparation.

      Notes should be kept to an absolute minimum, typed on a separate sheet of paper (double-spaced throughout) and included at the end of the text, but before the references. If a wordprocessing program is used, footnoting is preferred.

      References are to add to the current scientific practice the refinement of historical layering. That is to say, References should be cited in the text by giving, all within parentheses: the name of the author(s) and the year according to which the work cited fromcalled the source workis prop­erly located within the lifetime of the author who produced it, followed by a colon, a space, and the specific page number(s) of the actual volume according to which the citation is madecalled the access volumewhen these are called for.

      Paying explicit and systematic attention to this distinction between source works and ac­cess works is all that is meant by the “principle of historical layering”, and is the es­sence of the Style Sheet.

      Accordingly, in those cases where source work and access volume differ, the relation of the twoincluding any discrepancy of dates and publishers, and mediator between source and access where there is the added discrepancy of language (i.e., the special case of translations), and whatever additional information or glosses seem usefulis given in the list of References at the end of the manuscript. This list is to be arranged alphabetically by last name of authors, all in capital letters.

 

Illustrative examples where source work and access volume differ:

 

AQUINAS, Thomas.

  c.1269-1272. In libros posteriorum analyticorum expositio, cum textu ex recen­si­one leo­nina cura et studio R. M.

                  Spiazzi (Turin: Marietti, 1955).

DARWIN, Charles.

      1859.    The Origin of Species (New York: The Modern Library, 1937).

LEIBNIZ, G. W. F.

      1704.    Nouveaux Essais sur l’entendement humaine (first published posthumously in Amsterdam, 1765), English trans. by A. G. Langley as New Essays Concerning Human Understanding (Chicago, 1916).

 

Examples where source work and access volume coincide:

 

MAYR, Ernst.

      1963.    Animal Species and Evolution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

RANSDELL, Joseph.

      1979.    “Semiotic Objectivity”, Semiotica 26.3-4, 261-288.

      1979a.   “The Epistemic Function of Iconicity in Perception”, in Peirce Studies 1, ed. K. Ketner and J. Ransdell et al. (Lubbock, Texas: Institute for Studies in Pragmati­cism), 1-56.

 

Example where the source being used or discussed depends essentially on a specific posthumous edition of a source:

 

FRASER, Alexander Campbell, Editor.

      1894.    Text, “Prolegomena”, Notes, and Critical Apparatus for new edition of John Locke 1690, An Essay concerning Human Understanding (Oxford; reprinted New York: Dover Publications, 1959, 2 vols).

LOCKE, John.

      1690.    An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding (London: Printed by Elizabeth Holt for Thomas Basset). Editions by Fraser 1894 and Campbell 1975 were used in this work, both of which editions drop the “e” from “Humane” in Locke’s original title.

NIDDITCH, Peter H., Editor.

      1975.    Text, Foreword, Notes, and Critical Apparatus to new edition of John Locke 1690, An Essay concerning Human Understanding (Oxford, 1975).

      1979.    Corrected paperback edition of Nidditch 1975.

 

      The rule is simply that primary reference dates must be taken from within the lifetime of the author of the source work cited.

      As long as a publication date falls within the lifetime of the author of the source work cited, that publication date is normally to be preferred as the primary reference date; otherwise, it is necessary to use a composition or period of composition date as the primary reference date.

      The reason for the rule is that only by structuring references in this way is it possible to establish a reference base that is invariant across historical and linguistic lines, something very useful for all scholarship, but especially within a field such as semiotics which embraces in principle scholarly work from all disciplines. The point is to make scholarly judgments in the use of sources an explicit rather than a tacit or ignored point.

      The principle on which the SSA Style Sheet rests is quite simple. It was chosen for its sim­plic­ity compatibile with the informational content demanded by all existing reference styles, while improving upon other styles by uniquely establishing an invariant reference base across all the disciplines.

      Conformity of reference to the Style Sheet is the primary responsibility of individual authors. Authors who encounter technical difficulties in referencing are asked to consult the full Style Sheet, where detailed discussion of special cases can be found, including limit cases and the handl­ing of non-Gregorian systems of dating (TAJS 1986: 207ff.).[1] In general, final submissions must be presumed to be conscientiously prepared by their author according to the guidelines, and to be complete as far as the scholarly intent and state of the knowledge of a field allows. Sub­mis­sions which do not meet these presumptions will be returned. The editors cannot be expected to supply final details of references in all fields.

            Note regarding punctuation. The SSA Style Sheet does not follow the standardized but arbitrary practice of putting all punctuation marks inside of quotation marks. Instead, respecting the purpose of quotation marks, which is to show what was actually said or written, the rule is: punctuation which belongs to the source cited belongs inside quotation marks; otherwise punctuation belongs after the closing of the quotation marks. Please note this well, for, as Peirce best noted, logic is required for thought to be disciplined, especially in matters where an arbitrary bad habit of ignoring logic has taken root.

 

 

1For the further convenience of authors, we may also give here an index of the technical points covered in the full Style Sheet, to which authors may have recourse for resolving particular difficulties they may encounter in constructing the details of their Reference list. In the above-cited issue of TAJS (4.3-4, 193-215), a synoptic Overview of the Style Sheet begins on p. 191, covering page citations (p. 194), and the placing of punctuation and capitalization (p. 195). Detailed discussion of the Reference list “me­chan­ics” begins at p. 196, covering multiple author entries (p. 196),  and entries for works of art (p. 198), books (p. 198), journals (p. 199), anthologies or collections (p. 199), heterogeneous parts of works (p. 200), access texts of different date from originals (pp. 192, 201), posthumous editions and translations (p. 203, 211), ancient sources (p. 203), unpublished materials (p. 205), newspapers and magazines (p. 205). The use of q.v. and other miscellany is discussed beginning on p. 206, including limitation of the Reference List to actually cited works, the use of brackets, block quotes, and the like (p. 208). Limit cases in the application of the historical layering principle are discussed beginning on p. 209, such as works of unknown origin or collective authorship (p. 207) and the use of non-Gregorian methods of dating (p. 208), and the rule for resolving conflicts between publication and composition dates (that publication dates are normally to be preferred when occurring prior to the death of the sourcepp. 210-214).


[1]For the further convenience of authors, we may also give here an index of the technical points covered in the full Style Sheet, to which authors may have recourse for resolving particular difficulties they may encounter in constructing the details of their Reference list. In the above-cited issue of TAJS (4.3-4, 193-215), a synoptic Overview of the Style Sheet begins on p. 191, covering page citations (p. 194), and the placing of punctuation and capitalization (p. 195). Detailed discussion of the Reference list “me­chan­ics” begins at p. 196, covering multiple author entries (p. 196),  and entries for works of art (p. 198), books (p. 198), journals (p. 199), anthologies or collections (p. 199), heterogeneous parts of works (p. 200), access texts of different date from originals (pp. 192, 201), posthumous editions and translations (p. 203, 211), ancient sources (p. 203), unpublished materials (p. 205), newspapers and magazines (p. 205). The use of q.v. and other miscellany is discussed beginning on p. 206, including limitation of the Reference List to actually cited works, the use of brackets, block quotes, and the like (p. 208). Limit cases in the application of the historical layering principle are discussed beginning on p. 209, such as works of unknown origin or collective authorship (p. 207) and the use of non-Gregorian methods of dating (p. 208), and the rule for resolving conflicts between publication and composition dates (that publication dates are normally to be preferred when occurring prior to the death of the sourcepp. 210-214).