Semiotic anthropology has never been the most influential paradigm in anthropology, even in the times of its greatest triumphs (structuralism of Claude Levi-Strauss). But todays rapid, dynamic cultural processes especially within communicative domain (ie. converging of media, increasing importance of communication forms via internet that challenging anthropological key concept of fieldwork and the perspective focused usually on the local, small, bounded communities, migrations and their “epidemiology of representations” as well as new forms of socio-cultural divisions), are factors that should turn more attention to semiotics again. Thus we would like to address several questions: What is the current potential of semiotics for anthropology and semiotic anthropology for the theory of culture? Do hybrids like cognitive-semiotics, cognitive sciences, or ideologically inspired cultural studies might contribute to semiotic anthropology’s theory and practice? Is there any potential within structural-semiotics (especially in its Tartu-Moscow incarnation and the concept of “semiosphere”) that semiotic anthropology could still utilize? Are there any national variants of the semiotic anthropology that might serve as bridge and inspirations for current research within different ethnological traditions? How can we translate some effects of semiotic analysis into public debate (current pre-condition to strengthen the “symbolic capital”)? The debate over those questions should contribute to development of semiotic anthropology and the theory in anthropology in general.