This research aims to introduce and examine the (atomic) notion of translation as an indispensable prerequisite for the ontology of the sign itself—as well as the organismic and systematic aspects of the semiosis-sensitive translation typology—proposed by Susan Petrilli who has much contributed for the development of meta translation theory over the last several decades. Specifically speaking, it seeks to stress and evaluate the value of the Petrillian perspective on translation viewing the Peircean notion of translativity as the key milestone for a new, Biosemiosphere-sensitive paradigm of the (meta) translative/ translational mechanism, which is conducive to the evolutionary (revision and) development of the conventional, narrow notion of (interlingual) translation and to the transhumanities-sensitive transdisciplinary communication. Employing and reviving the translative mechanism of the interpretant (underlying the Peircean triadic model of the sign ontology) and the global dimension of the Biosemiosphere (meaningfully interconnected with the Anthroposemiosphere thanks to Sebeok) in a transdisciplinarily organismic and cooperative way, Petrilli proposes that, by having another sign brought across boundaries and function as the interpretant of the sign itself, the sign's constitutive modality slash mechanism is (or, at least, entails) translation as such (Petrilli 2003; Petrilli 2012; Petrilli 2014) (cf. TRANSLATION, Lim, E. 2013; Lim, D. 2014a) and that it is highly feasible to systematically classify and specify the translation typology within the Biosemiosphere and, also, across the Anthroposemiosphere, especially, by investigating the translative nature (and the structural mechanism) of the sign itself. While paying due attention to Petrilli's (meta) translative notion applied to the realms of the (semiotic/ translational) meaning-making processes, the main body of the research introduces and describes what Petrilli considers as the major translation types on the basis of the new notion of translation as such. Subsequently, it shows that translation typology can be subclassified into intersemiosic/ endosemiosic/ anthroposemiosic/ intersemiotic/ interlinguistic/ endolinguistic/ endoverbal/ endolingual translation types (and, additionally, from endoverbal translation into interlingual/ endolingual translation types and from endolingual translation into diamesic/ diaphasic/ diglossic translation types) (Petrilli 2012: 234, quoted in Lim, E. 2013: 64). With such a microscopic and macroscopic approach to (the possible precursor of) meta translation theory, this research discovers and confirms that, despite the possible room for further discussion and task specification in practice, Petrilli's notion and typology of translation can work as the (meta) epistemological framework and analysis tool to (re-) investigate and (re-) analyze the fundamental principles and scopes of various translation phenomena in the global semiosphere(s). In addition, by means of (meta-/ inter-/ trans-) semiotic scrutinization, it becomes evident that the Petrillian translation paradigm can offer us various opportunities to develop the life-oriented transdisciplinary insight into meaning, semiosis, translation, language, and the world(s) (beyond the dichotomy of human/ language/ culture versus animal/ instinct/ nature), which can act as a potential yet critical catalyst for the evolutionary emergence/ establishment of the new transhumanities.
In conclusion, this research proposes that Petrilli's (meta) translation theory can play positive roles as a constructive (meta) epistemological and translative/ translational paradigm, with which all those "translators" in many disciplines can collaborate effectively and "translate" multidimensionally, especially, via critical (meta-/ trans-) semiotic investigation and open transdisciplinary comm- unication toward the development of our transhumanities.