符號學作為美學、文本分析的研究方法論，普遍在傳播學研究領域中被使用，臺灣以往有關傳播符號學的論文多半是探討符號的連結與應用，舉凡論述、影像、文字、聲音、圖像等的符號分析，研究的方向多朝向探究意符與意指之間的任意連結，帶有其特殊的文化意涵，運用意識形態理論或雙層符號系統中神話的意指作用分析，來詮釋符號運作的深層文化意涵。然而，這些研究面向主要將符號的概念帶進與文化意涵連結的專斷穩固性與符號的不變性探討，透過符號的運作體系來詮釋文本，對於符號方法論的反身思維卻少有看見，許多研究者將研究焦點放在詮釋符號的目的，卻忽略了對符號語言體系的反思檢視，如：何以研究者會如此詮釋符號？是什麼樣的體系在影響研究者的詮釋？這特殊符號系統的結構是如何運作形成的？符號語言學之父Ferdinand de Saussure將語言分析帶進一個結構性的符號系統分析，強調語言是一套符碼系統的運作；電影符號學大師Christian Metz聲稱電影可以視為一種語言，卻非一套語言系統；研究物體系的著名學者Jean Baudrillard提出物體系不同於語言結構，不構成穩定的符碼系統，而是處於演變狀態。這些重要的原典論著不僅使用結構主義符號學的研究方法，更將符號的討論回歸到符號系統的反思。因此本文的目的在探究符號學方法論的反身自省，重新探討符號的可變性思維、共時與歷時分析方法的檢討、返回符號系統的思考、研究者的反思自省等議題，這些符號學方法論上的問題需要重新被關照，如此在符號詮釋的研究中，才能更深一步地返回詮釋體系的探討。

Being a significant methodology of esthetic and textual analyses, semiotics often applies to the research field of communication studies. Most of the academic researches of communication semiotics in Taiwan focus on the articulation and practices of the signs. Those studies analyze and discuss the arbitrary relation between signifier and signified and the specific cultural meaning of signs. Moreover, the researchers use theories of ideology or two semiological systems to interpret the cultural myth in the process of signification. The investigation of the arbitrariness and immutability of signs in cultural system and the interpretation of signs are the central concerns in those studies. However, the reflexivity of the semiotic methodology is irregularly discussed. The sign system itself as a tool of interpretation is seldom investigated and rethought. Why did the researcher interpret signs as they would be? What kind of sign system influences the researcher's interpretation? How does this certain structure of sign system practice in the process of interpretation? Those are reflexive thoughts in semiotic researches. Ferdinand de Saussure, the father of semiotic linguistics, developed the structuralist analysis of linguistics and emphasized language as a practice of code system. Christian Metz, the master of cinema semiotic studies, brought up that film could be seen as a language, but never a language system. Jean Baudrillard, the famous scholar on the study of the system of objects, indicated that, unlike a language system, the system of objects was not constructed by a fixed and immutable system. These important discourses could remind researchers of returning to the investigation of sign system. Thus, the aim of this article is to rethink the reflexivity of semiotic studies. Those questions such as the mutability of signs, the application of synchronic and diachronic finding methods, the reinvestigation of sign system, and the reflexivity of the researchers world be discussed and rethought. From reflexive thinking, returning to the concern of interpretation system would help semiotic researchers toward a deeper discussion of sign practice.