Writing a bibliographical article on the topic of the philosophy of communication is not an easy task. The works that have been written under that umbrella range from critical assessments of media to discussions of public debate. “Philosophy of communication” combines two ambiguous disciplines, philosophy and communication. Communication is commonly said to be at the “crossroads” of many disciplines. Marshall McLuhan is taken for granted by many communication scholars, but he was a professor of English literature. What should one—or a theory—be or do in order to fall within the “communication” umbrella? Tackling philosophy is not any easier. Many sociologists, anthropologists, semioticians, and linguists, as well as communication theorists, have been philosophers at some point in their career. For example, Ferdinand de Saussure’s contribution to semiotics is no lesser than C. S. Peirce’s, and yet the latter is called a philosopher while the first is a linguist. Should we, in this entry on the “philosophy of communication” include Peirce and leave aside Saussure? With so many ambiguities regarding communication and philosophy separately, how can one decide, then, what philosophy of communication (together) should be? When reading communication studies articles, philosophical references range from Aristotle and Arendt to Kierkegaard or Levinas, along with some more “obviously” communication or language thinkers such as Habermas or Wittgenstein. There is therefore an important element of decision on our part in assessing the contributions of some authors to the study of communication and in deciding whether it is “philosophical” in nature. We chose to look at where communication studies literature has drawn the line between what constitutes philosophy or not. Furthermore, there are few journals devoted to philosophy of communication proper, perhaps with the exception of Empedocles: European Journal for the Philosophy of Communication (published by Intellect Books) and the International Communication Association’s Communication, Culture & Critique. This scarcity makes it harder to identify a well-established set of interests, theories, and methods. That is why this article is divided mainly according to the types of works discussed, rather than attempting to find coherence where there is in fact little. The Classical and Major Texts section, for its part, is further subdivided according to the general theoretical families of authors. Gratitude is extended to Joëlle Basque, Mathieu Chaput, Alexandre Laurin, and Dominique Trudel for their assistance and contributions.