I’m not sure that the insight you mention is “trivial” in any sense. Sure, saying “Cars are not about Transportation” may be rather trivial today, but there are a lot of “X is not about Y” insights that are a lot less obvious. If the theoretical framework of semiotics helps us with creating such insights, talking about them, perhaps validating them, that arguably is enough to see it as providing value.
The question is whether the theoretical framework of semiotics ever actually helped with such insights. Like, whether semioticians have ever achieved anything concrete that wouldn’t have been possible without the triadic sign relation.
I’m not sure that the insight you mention is “trivial” in any sense. Sure, saying “Cars are not about Transportation” may be rather trivial today, but there are a lot of “X is not about Y” insights that are a lot less obvious. If the theoretical framework of semiotics helps us with creating such insights, talking about them, perhaps validating them, that arguably is enough to see it as providing value.
The question is whether the theoretical framework of semiotics ever actually helped with such insights. Like, whether semioticians have ever achieved anything concrete that wouldn’t have been possible without the triadic sign relation.