One can argue that a specific semiosphere has a predominant narrative identity, in collective terms, but there are other narrative identities within that specific semiotic system, given its heterogeneity. Based on previous research works that have studied the concept of narrative identity in different types of discourse and texts, i.e. anarchist discourse, narratives of pain, and Mexican traditional toys as cultural texts (Zárate, 2011; Estrada and Zárate, 2016; Zárate & Rivera; Forthcoming), this paper aims to analyze the relationship between the concept of semiosphere and narrative identity drawing from Ricoeur’s notion of narrative identity (1996), as well as Lotman’s semiotic theoretical perspective (1999; 2000; 2005; 2013). Ricoeur has identified two distinct dimensions in narrative identity, ipse-identity and idem-identity. Ipse-identity is related to a continuity in time that answers to the question Who? (Latin: ipse, English: selfhood, German: Selbstheit). Meanwhile idem-identity, on the other side, has a continuity in time that responds to the question What? (Latin: idem, English: sameness, German: Gleichheit), and remains in time as a factor of dissimilarity (Ricoeur, 1996, p. 112). According to Lotman’s point of view, “The structural irregularity of the internal organisation of the semiosphere is determined, in part, by the fact that, having a heterogeneous nature, the semiosphere develops at different speeds and in different places. Different languages belong to different times and different quantitative cycles, thus natural languages develop at a significantly slower pace than mental-ideological structures. Therefore, its processes cannot be synchronous” (Lotman, 2005, p. 215). Lotman’ s semiotic point of view, in particular the concept of semiosphere, boundary, core, periphery, in addition to the previous stated notion of Ricoeur’s narrative identity, gives the opportunity to study the relationship between continuous / discontinuous semiotic processes and the plurality of narrative identities, collective and individual, that emerge in a given semiosphere. In this sense, one can argue that heterogeneity in the semiosphere is an important aspect in the creation of this plurality.