Pub Date : 2020-12-31DOI: 10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.08
Rasmus Rebane
Despite the common knowledge that there is something “Pythagorean” about Charles Peirce’s phenomenology and classification of signs there is a manifest lack of inquiries into the matter. Perhaps there is too little to go on, as Pythagoras himself did not leave us any writings to consult. Nevertheless, much of ancient Greek philosophy bears an unmistakable Pythagorean stamp, and Iamblichus’ bio - graphy of Pythagoras provides us with enough to get such inquiries started. This paper examines the development of triads, beginning with the Pythagorean one (body, soul, and intellect) and proceeds to those of Immanuel Kant (Experience, Understanding, and Reason) and Peirce’s compatriot and family acquaintance Pliny Earle Chase (Motivity, Spontaneity, and Rationality). The article concludes with an examination of the various triads in Peirce’s early writings, especially around the time of his discovery of Chase’s “Intellectual symbolism”.
{"title":"Peirce Chase’ing Pythagoras","authors":"Rasmus Rebane","doi":"10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.08","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.08","url":null,"abstract":"Despite the common knowledge that there is something “Pythagorean” about Charles Peirce’s phenomenology and classification of signs there is a manifest lack of inquiries into the matter. Perhaps there is too little to go on, as Pythagoras himself did not leave us any writings to consult. Nevertheless, much of ancient Greek philosophy bears an unmistakable Pythagorean stamp, and Iamblichus’ bio - graphy of Pythagoras provides us with enough to get such inquiries started. This paper examines the development of triads, beginning with the Pythagorean one (body, soul, and intellect) and proceeds to those of Immanuel Kant (Experience, Understanding, and Reason) and Peirce’s compatriot and family acquaintance Pliny Earle Chase (Motivity, Spontaneity, and Rationality). The article concludes with an examination of the various triads in Peirce’s early writings, especially around the time of his discovery of Chase’s “Intellectual symbolism”.","PeriodicalId":44467,"journal":{"name":"Sign Systems Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43832928","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-31DOI: 10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.05
Stephen Pax Leonard
Attempts have been made to examine how speakers frame linguistic varieties by employing social semiotic models. Using ethnographic data collected over many years, this article applies such a model to Iceland, once described as the ‘e-coli of linguistics’ – its size, historical isolation and relative linguistic homogeneity create conditions akin to a sociolinguistic laboratory. This semiotic model of language ideologies problematizes the prevailing discourse of linguistic purism at a time of sociolinguistic upheaval. The analysis shows how an essentializing scheme at the heart of Icelandic language policy ensured that linguistic “anomalies” such as “dative disease” and “genitive phobia” indexed essential differences. “Impure” language was indicative of un-Icelandicness. Once monolingual (indeed monodialectal), the Icelandic speech community is increasingly characterized by innovative linguistic transgressions which thus far have not been instrumentalized by language policy makers. It is shown how a semiotic model can help us analyse the function of language ideologies more generally.
{"title":"A semiotic approach to language ideologies: Modelling the changing Icelandic languagescape","authors":"Stephen Pax Leonard","doi":"10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.05","url":null,"abstract":"Attempts have been made to examine how speakers frame linguistic varieties by employing social semiotic models. Using ethnographic data collected over many years, this article applies such a model to Iceland, once described as the ‘e-coli of linguistics’ – its size, historical isolation and relative linguistic homogeneity create conditions akin to a sociolinguistic laboratory. This semiotic model of language ideologies problematizes the prevailing discourse of linguistic purism at a time of sociolinguistic upheaval. The analysis shows how an essentializing scheme at the heart of Icelandic language policy ensured that linguistic “anomalies” such as “dative disease” and “genitive phobia” indexed essential differences. “Impure” language was indicative of un-Icelandicness. Once monolingual (indeed monodialectal), the Icelandic speech community is increasingly characterized by innovative linguistic transgressions which thus far have not been instrumentalized by language policy makers. It is shown how a semiotic model can help us analyse the function of language ideologies more generally.","PeriodicalId":44467,"journal":{"name":"Sign Systems Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46283115","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-31DOI: 10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.13
K. Kull
Jakob von Uexküll’s (1864–1944) work was influential at the time of the biosemiotic turn in semiotics in the 1990s and, together with the hermeneutic and phenomenological approaches, laid the basis for a semiotic turn in biology without losing a connection to the morphology and physiology of organisms. His work appears to be attractive and promising in transforming the culture–nature divide into an understanding of the difference between the living and the non-living. The biological study of subjectivity makes the Uexküllian approach pertinent to the 21st-century changes both in the humanities and in biology, as the acceptance of his theoretical biology marks the start of a post-Darwinian era after the long period of neo-Darwinism that dominated the 20th-century biological thought. A review and bibliography of 20th-century Uexküll studies was published in 2001; the following provides a bibliography of Uexküll studies in the two decades after 2001.
Jakob von Uexküll（1864-1944）的工作在20世纪90年代符号学的生物计量学转向时具有影响力，与解释学和现象学方法一起，为生物学的符号学转向奠定了基础，同时又不失与生物体形态和生理学的联系。他的作品似乎很有吸引力，很有希望将文化——自然划分为对活人和非活人之间区别的理解。对主体性的生物学研究使Uexküllian的方法与21世纪人文科学和生物学的变化相关联，因为他的理论生物学的接受标志着在20世纪生物学思想中占主导地位的长期新达尔文主义之后，后达尔文主义时代的开始。2001年出版了20世纪Uexküll研究综述和参考书目；以下是2001年后20年Uexküll研究的参考书目。
{"title":"Uexküll studies after 2001","authors":"K. Kull","doi":"10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.13","url":null,"abstract":"Jakob von Uexküll’s (1864–1944) work was influential at the time of the biosemiotic turn in semiotics in the 1990s and, together with the hermeneutic and phenomenological approaches, laid the basis for a semiotic turn in biology without losing a connection to the morphology and physiology of organisms. His work appears to be attractive and promising in transforming the culture–nature divide into an understanding of the difference between the living and the non-living. The biological study of subjectivity makes the Uexküllian approach pertinent to the 21st-century changes both in the humanities and in biology, as the acceptance of his theoretical biology marks the start of a post-Darwinian era after the long period of neo-Darwinism that dominated the 20th-century biological thought. A review and bibliography of 20th-century Uexküll studies was published in 2001; the following provides a bibliography of Uexküll studies in the two decades after 2001.","PeriodicalId":44467,"journal":{"name":"Sign Systems Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46567070","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-31DOI: 10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.02
Volkhard Krech
If religion is a socio-cultural meaning system as part of the socio-cultural sphere, then how does it relate to mental, organic, and physical processes that belong to the environment of religion? Th e article contributes to answering this question by referring to semiotics, systems theory, and theoretical biology. Th e starting point is understanding religious evolution as a co-evolution to societal evolution, namely, as one of the latter’s internal diff erentiations. In turn, societal evolution is a co-evolution to mental, organic, and physical evolution. Th ese evolutionary spheres mutually constitute one another’s environments. Th e eigenstate of the socio-cultural sphere consists of language activated via communication. Language is the replicator of socio-cultural processes corresponding to the function of the genome in organic processes. Th e diff erentiation of spheres in general evolution concerns respective organic, mental, and socio-cultural substrates, while the substrate-neutral structure of the two evolutionary dimensions of organic and societal processes, including religion, is revealed as semiotic patterns that organic and societal processes have in common. Organic and religious processes of generating information are isomorphic. Th us, semiosis mediates between religious communication and its environment.
{"title":"What we can learn from semiotics, systems theory, and theoretical biology to understand religious communication","authors":"Volkhard Krech","doi":"10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.02","url":null,"abstract":"If religion is a socio-cultural meaning system as part of the socio-cultural sphere, then how does it relate to mental, organic, and physical processes that belong to the environment of religion? Th e article contributes to answering this question by referring to semiotics, systems theory, and theoretical biology. Th e starting point is understanding religious evolution as a co-evolution to societal evolution, namely, as one of the latter’s internal diff erentiations. In turn, societal evolution is a co-evolution to mental, organic, and physical evolution. Th ese evolutionary spheres mutually constitute one another’s environments. Th e eigenstate of the socio-cultural sphere consists of language activated via communication. Language is the replicator of socio-cultural processes corresponding to the function of the genome in organic processes. Th e diff erentiation of spheres in general evolution concerns respective organic, mental, and socio-cultural substrates, while the substrate-neutral structure of the two evolutionary dimensions of organic and societal processes, including religion, is revealed as semiotic patterns that organic and societal processes have in common. Organic and religious processes of generating information are isomorphic. Th us, semiosis mediates between religious communication and its environment.","PeriodicalId":44467,"journal":{"name":"Sign Systems Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42686410","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-31DOI: 10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.03
M. Uslu
The aim of this article is to expand on the concept of semiocide which, in broad terms, is the destruction of signs and semiosis. Taking its point of departure from Ivar Puura’s article on the concept, this essay attempts to find conceptual parallels and historical examples of the term, expanding its range through a critique of its original conception. Departing from the initial conservatism of Puura’s definition, the article will argue for a more diverse understanding of the term, suggesting a view that positions semiocide not just as a descriptor for lamentable losses, but also as a potential avenue for emancipatory praxis, whereby established, hegemonic and oppressive meanings can be undermined and new possibilities of representation and identity explored.
{"title":"Semiocide: An introduction to semiotics of destruction of the meaningful","authors":"M. Uslu","doi":"10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.03","url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this article is to expand on the concept of semiocide which, in broad terms, is the destruction of signs and semiosis. Taking its point of departure from Ivar Puura’s article on the concept, this essay attempts to find conceptual parallels and historical examples of the term, expanding its range through a critique of its original conception. Departing from the initial conservatism of Puura’s definition, the article will argue for a more diverse understanding of the term, suggesting a view that positions semiocide not just as a descriptor for lamentable losses, but also as a potential avenue for emancipatory praxis, whereby established, hegemonic and oppressive meanings can be undermined and new possibilities of representation and identity explored.","PeriodicalId":44467,"journal":{"name":"Sign Systems Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42795019","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-31DOI: 10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.04
K. Bankov
This paper explores digital culture with the tools of cultural semiotics in general, and then employing the semiosphere model in particular. Web 2.0 platforms are taken as the major cultural dispositive of our time, as the most representative way in which the internet shapes digital culture. Most of the global population is currently immersed in digital culture. In the first part of the paper the striking similarities between Web 2.0 platforms and the semiosphere are explored and equivalences between the elements of the classic (Lotman’s) semiotic model and these platforms, or platfospheres, are identified. The second part explores the fundamental difference between the “genetic code” at the centre of the semiosphere (as conceived by Lotman), and the computer code and commercial algorithms at the core of the platfospheres that are responsible for their cultural operation. Then the parallels are examined that arise between the past cultural reality, in which the intellectual elite and academics were the driving force of culture, and the contemporary proactive (or even aggressive) core of the platfospheres, in which secret and patent-protected algorithms shape a cultural reality exclusively motivated by the logic of commercial success.
{"title":"Platfospheres and sociocultural explosion of Web 2.0: The commercial centre of the digital semiosphere","authors":"K. Bankov","doi":"10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.04","url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores digital culture with the tools of cultural semiotics in general, and then employing the semiosphere model in particular. Web 2.0 platforms are taken as the major cultural dispositive of our time, as the most representative way in which the internet shapes digital culture. Most of the global population is currently immersed in digital culture. In the first part of the paper the striking similarities between Web 2.0 platforms and the semiosphere are explored and equivalences between the elements of the classic (Lotman’s) semiotic model and these platforms, or platfospheres, are identified. The second part explores the fundamental difference between the “genetic code” at the centre of the semiosphere (as conceived by Lotman), and the computer code and commercial algorithms at the core of the platfospheres that are responsible for their cultural operation. Then the parallels are examined that arise between the past cultural reality, in which the intellectual elite and academics were the driving force of culture, and the contemporary proactive (or even aggressive) core of the platfospheres, in which secret and patent-protected algorithms shape a cultural reality exclusively motivated by the logic of commercial success.","PeriodicalId":44467,"journal":{"name":"Sign Systems Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44757812","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-31DOI: 10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.07
Katalin Kroó
В настоящей статье повесть Ф. М. Достоевского Записки из подполья рассматривается через концептуализацию литературной традиции в семиотическом контексте, в трех взаимосвязанных аспектах: (1) дискурсивные формы отрицания и его смысловые перспективы (апофатизм); (2) семантизация идеи полноты и (3) ориентированность художественного текста на осмысление семиотической природы изображаемого мира и изображающего (мета)поэтического языка. Если апофатизм в семиотическом плане проблематизирует парадоксальность попытки уловить невыражаемое в интенсивных формах языковой динамики, и познавать перспективы существования личности в описании форм несуществования или амбивалентного / непродуктивного существования, то придавая семиотическую установку изложению характерологии, с ее личностным центром, стремлением к завоеванию опыта полного существования / полноты, в повести Достоевского происходит богатая семантизация семиотического явления беспризнаковости / лишения признаковости в определении познаваемого объекта. В статье прослеживается семантическое моделирование полноты и ее дискредитация в направлениях (а) причинно-следственной мотивации; (б) временной сегментации; (в) детализации в форме исчерпывающего деления объекта описания. Семиотическая динамика в Записках из подполья связана с проблематизацией маркированных противоречий (как в плане характерологии, так и идей – тезисов и антитезисов) и с разработкой – в качестве форм их совместного сохранения – семантического образования инклюзивности. Оно восходит к монодуалистической антиномии, имеющей глубокие корни в религиозно-философской традиции русской культуры. В итоге текстовая динамика произведения Достоевского в статье интерпретируется в рамках модели трансформации: одно то же, что другое (беспризнаковое унифицирование объектов познания) → или–или (взаимоисключительность в выборе маркированных индивидуализированных атрибутов объектов познания) → и то, и другое (соединение противопоставленностей, единство противоречий). В такой трансформационной модели заложено толкование семиотической креативности, в свете которой Достоевский определяет понятие культурной традиции. Ее динамику характеризует процессуальность и открытость. Dostoevsky’s Notes from the Underground in the light of literary tradition: A semiotic approach. In the paper, Dostoevsky’s novella Notes from the Underground is interpreted through the conceptualization of literary tradition within a semiotic framework, from three interconnected angles: the interpretation of (1) the discursive forms of negation (apophatism); (2) the semantization of the idea of ‘plenitude’ (fullness, totality, completeness); (3) the text’s concentrated reflection on the semiotic nature of the modelled world and its (meta) poetic language. Apophatic poetics calls attention to the conflictual relationship between the signifier and the signified, including the paradoxical situation in which intensive sign articulation/expression is given to some substance considered to be une
在这篇文章中，F。页：1陀思妥耶夫斯基的地下笔记是通过文学传统的概念化，在符号学的背景下，从三个相互关联的方面来考虑的：（1）否定的话语形式及其意义视角（apofatism）；（2）完整性思想的语义化，以及（3）艺术文本对所描绘世界的符号学性质和所描绘的诗意语言的理解的导向性。如果符号学层面上的apofatism挑战了一种悖论，即试图在语言动态的强化形式中捕捉到无法表达的东西，并在描述不存在或矛盾/非生产性存在的形式中认识到人格的存在前景，那么通过将符号学的态度赋予特征学的陈述及其人格中心，在陀思妥耶夫斯基的中篇小说中，为了获得完全存在/完整的经验，对符号学现象进行了丰富的语义化，这种现象在确定可识别对象时具有无意义/缺乏特征性。本文追踪了因果动机方向（a）中完整性的语义建模及其破坏；（B）时间分割；（c）以描述对象完全划分的形式提供的详细信息。地下笔记中的符号学动态与标记矛盾的问题化有关（在特征学和思想方面，即论文和反论文），以及作为其共同保存形式的包容性语义形成。它可以追溯到一个单元论的反义词，它深深植根于俄罗斯文化的宗教和哲学传统。因此，陀思妥耶夫斯基作品的文本动态在转化模型的框架内被解释：与另一个相同（知识客体的无条件统一）→或–或（知识客体标记个性化属性的选择中的相互排他性）→两者（对立的结合、矛盾的统一）。这种转变模式是对符号学创造力的解释，陀思妥耶夫斯基从中定义了文化传统的概念。它的动态特点是程序性和公开性。Dostoevsky’s Notes from the Underground in the light of literary tradition: A semiotic approach. In the paper, Dostoevsky’s novella Notes from the Underground is interpreted through the conceptualization of literary tradition within a semiotic framework, from three interconnected angles: the interpretation of (1) the discursive forms of negation (apophatism); (2) the semantization of the idea of ‘plenitude’ (fullness, totality, completeness); (3) the text’s concentrated reflection on the semiotic nature of the modelled world and its (meta) poetic language. Apophatic poetics calls attention to the conflictual relationship between the signifier and the signified, including the paradoxical situation in which intensive sign articulation/expression is given to some substance considered to be unexpressable. Signification here strives to gain epistemological knowledge about the potentials of the existence of personality through its definition in terms of non-existence or ambivalent, unproductive existence. The character definition，putting in centre stage–within the problematics of personhood and personality–the protagonist’s desire to achieve the state of plenitude，also gains a semiotic orientation through the conflict between being endowed with vs.being deprived of individual semantic attributes accorded to the object of cognition（individualization vs.generalization）.The paper examines the semantic modelling of ‘plenitude’ and explains the various means that this model is discredited by the object’s lack of individual semantic attributes in (a) causality; (b) temporal segmentation; (c) the forms of exhaustive detailing. Individual object identification is also interpreted as preserving oppositions at the levels of literary character (his contradictions) and abstract notions (theses and antitheses) in which conflicting elements constitute an organic whole. This can be traced back to monodualistic antinomies deeply rooted in the Russian philosophy of religion.
{"title":"Записки из подполья Ф. М. Достоевского в свете литературной традиции: Семиотическая постановка вопроса","authors":"Katalin Kroó","doi":"10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.07","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.07","url":null,"abstract":"В настоящей статье повесть Ф. М. Достоевского Записки из подполья рассматривается через концептуализацию литературной традиции в семиотическом контексте, в трех взаимосвязанных аспектах: (1) дискурсивные формы отрицания и его смысловые перспективы (апофатизм); (2) семантизация идеи полноты и (3) ориентированность художественного текста на осмысление семиотической природы изображаемого мира и изображающего (мета)поэтического языка. Если апофатизм в семиотическом плане проблематизирует парадоксальность попытки уловить невыражаемое в интенсивных формах языковой динамики, и познавать перспективы существования личности в описании форм несуществования или амбивалентного / непродуктивного существования, то придавая семиотическую установку изложению характерологии, с ее личностным центром, стремлением к завоеванию опыта полного существования / полноты, в повести Достоевского происходит богатая семантизация семиотического явления беспризнаковости / лишения признаковости в определении познаваемого объекта. В статье прослеживается семантическое моделирование полноты и ее дискредитация в направлениях (а) причинно-следственной мотивации; (б) временной сегментации; (в) детализации в форме исчерпывающего деления объекта описания. Семиотическая динамика в Записках из подполья связана с проблематизацией маркированных противоречий (как в плане характерологии, так и идей – тезисов и антитезисов) и с разработкой – в качестве форм их совместного сохранения – семантического образования инклюзивности. Оно восходит к монодуалистической антиномии, имеющей глубокие корни в религиозно-философской традиции русской культуры. В итоге текстовая динамика произведения Достоевского в статье интерпретируется в рамках модели трансформации: одно то же, что другое (беспризнаковое унифицирование объектов познания) → или–или (взаимоисключительность в выборе маркированных индивидуализированных атрибутов объектов познания) → и то, и другое (соединение противопоставленностей, единство противоречий). В такой трансформационной модели заложено толкование семиотической креативности, в свете которой Достоевский определяет понятие культурной традиции. Ее динамику характеризует процессуальность и открытость. \u0000Dostoevsky’s Notes from the Underground in the light of literary tradition: A semiotic approach. In the paper, Dostoevsky’s novella Notes from the Underground is interpreted through the conceptualization of literary tradition within a semiotic framework, from three interconnected angles: the interpretation of (1) the discursive forms of negation (apophatism); (2) the semantization of the idea of ‘plenitude’ (fullness, totality, completeness); (3) the text’s concentrated reflection on the semiotic nature of the modelled world and its (meta) poetic language. Apophatic poetics calls attention to the conflictual relationship between the signifier and the signified, including the paradoxical situation in which intensive sign articulation/expression is given to some substance considered to be une","PeriodicalId":44467,"journal":{"name":"Sign Systems Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41379456","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-31DOI: 10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.12
K. Staiano-Ross
The author has used the term ‘biocultural semiotics’ in her previous work, but has never defined this field. She presents twelve propositions that describe and motivate a biocultural semiotics. The author draws on thirty years of field work in Belize and her previous research in cultural and bio-semiotics in support of each of the propositions. Propositions include: biology and culture are so bound as to make a discussion of either without inclusion of the other impossible; both umwelt and the sign are central; every sign is an act of communication; every sign has many interpretant(s); perception is influenced by our physical and cultural umwelt; self is critical to our vision of our place in this umwelt; epigenetic phenomena influence how genes are expressed and effect/affect both phenotype and behaviour; body boundaries are cultural and political creations; the body is a political body and its ownership is always contested; disease and its congeners are cultural constructs; sickness and its signs are created as part of an ongoing personal, social, and political narrative; today we face both uncertainty and opportunity in the natural and cultural sciences. She argues that semiotics possesses the language and methodologies to achieve an understanding of the biological/cultural relationship.
{"title":"Propositions for a biocultural semiotics","authors":"K. Staiano-Ross","doi":"10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.12","url":null,"abstract":"The author has used the term ‘biocultural semiotics’ in her previous work, but has never defined this field. She presents twelve propositions that describe and motivate a biocultural semiotics. The author draws on thirty years of field work in Belize and her previous research in cultural and bio-semiotics in support of each of the propositions. Propositions include: biology and culture are so bound as to make a discussion of either without inclusion of the other impossible; both umwelt and the sign are central; every sign is an act of communication; every sign has many interpretant(s); perception is influenced by our physical and cultural umwelt; self is critical to our vision of our place in this umwelt; epigenetic phenomena influence how genes are expressed and effect/affect both phenotype and behaviour; body boundaries are cultural and political creations; the body is a political body and its ownership is always contested; disease and its congeners are cultural constructs; sickness and its signs are created as part of an ongoing personal, social, and political narrative; today we face both uncertainty and opportunity in the natural and cultural sciences. She argues that semiotics possesses the language and methodologies to achieve an understanding of the biological/cultural relationship.","PeriodicalId":44467,"journal":{"name":"Sign Systems Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41383251","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-31DOI: 10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.10
M. Konstantinov
Engaging with the methods of studying contemporary digital audiovisual art is a dominant topic in contemporary theories of art. Against this background, the article offers a view onto some aspects of Juri Lotman’s and Gilles Deleuze’s studies on the cinema. As a rule, contemporary studies of digital audiovisual art take place in the context of interdisciplinary studies. One of the methodological principles of such studies consists in adopting a structural and semiotic approach. As of today, this methodological approach to studying audio-visual art is most developed in semiotics of the cinema, which is why in this article visual semiotics in general is viewed through semiotics of the cinema (proceeding from the approach of Juri Lotman). Also, the philosophical understanding of the nature of the cinema offered by Gilles Deleuze has proven fundamental for the study of contemporary audio-visual art. The two authors were contemporaries, but represented different scholarly paradigms: while Juri Lotman was an adherent of structuralism, Gilles Deleuze was a poststructuralist who criticized the structuralist approach. Yet despite this principal difference, both scholars still arrived at similar conclusions as concerns several questions regarding the understanding of the cinema and its very nature. In the present paper I focus on the features of these authors’ approach to spatial and temporal relations in the cinema, audiovisual relations in film as a heterogeneous form of the work of art, virtuality and mythologism in the viewer’s perception of cinema. The differences and similarities in academic approaches to cinema, developed by Lotman and Deleuze, indicate a common direction in the development of the cinema and visual arts theory, which seems relevant for the study of contemporary audio-visual arts.
{"title":"Juri Lotman, Gilles Deleuze and their approaches to cinema: Points of intersection","authors":"M. Konstantinov","doi":"10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.10","url":null,"abstract":"Engaging with the methods of studying contemporary digital audiovisual art is a dominant topic in contemporary theories of art. Against this background, the article offers a view onto some aspects of Juri Lotman’s and Gilles Deleuze’s studies on the cinema. \u0000As a rule, contemporary studies of digital audiovisual art take place in the context of interdisciplinary studies. One of the methodological principles of such studies consists in adopting a structural and semiotic approach. As of today, this methodological approach to studying audio-visual art is most developed in semiotics of the cinema, which is why in this article visual semiotics in general is viewed through semiotics of the cinema (proceeding from the approach of Juri Lotman). Also, the philosophical understanding of the nature of the cinema offered by Gilles Deleuze has proven fundamental for the study of contemporary audio-visual art. \u0000The two authors were contemporaries, but represented different scholarly paradigms: while Juri Lotman was an adherent of structuralism, Gilles Deleuze was a poststructuralist who criticized the structuralist approach. Yet despite this principal difference, both scholars still arrived at similar conclusions as concerns several questions regarding the understanding of the cinema and its very nature. In the present paper I focus on the features of these authors’ approach to spatial and temporal relations in the cinema, audiovisual relations in film as a heterogeneous form of the work of art, virtuality and mythologism in the viewer’s perception of cinema. \u0000The differences and similarities in academic approaches to cinema, developed by Lotman and Deleuze, indicate a common direction in the development of the cinema and visual arts theory, which seems relevant for the study of contemporary audio-visual arts.","PeriodicalId":44467,"journal":{"name":"Sign Systems Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47024351","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-31DOI: 10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.14
Nelly Mäekivi, Silver Rattasepp
Nils Lindahl Elliot has significantly contributed to semiotic analysis of nature and to the ways in which it is mediated, especially with his transdisciplinary social semeiotic approach that he developed in Mediating Nature (2006). This book propelled his recognition in the field of semiotic studies, especially amongst the ecosemiotic community. In Lindahl Elliot’s newest book Observing Wildlife in Tropical Forests. 1: A Geosemeiotic Approach he delves even deeper into transdisciplinary inquiry of observing wildlife, using what he calls a geosemeiotic approach (with the extra “e” serving as a tribute to Peirce). More traditionally, geosemiotics is seen as a research field that studies social meanings of signs, discourses and actions as related to a specific place (Scollon, Scollon 2003). Although both Lindahl Elliot’s and Scollon and Scollon’s approaches incorporate Peircean semiotics when introducing the nature of signs, and consider the specificity of the place of communication in its widest sense to be of utmost importance, the essences of these approaches could not be further from each other. While geosemiotics turns its attention to visual semiotics, interaction order and semiotics of place, geosemeiotics emphasizes the encounter of dynamical bodies; while geosemiotics is concerned with humans, geosemeiotics stresses the coming together of human and more-than-human bodies which constitute assemblages. These are just some cursory differences between geosemiotics and geosemeiotics; what Lindahl Elliot actually proposes is a new transdisciplinary approach, which encompasses different perspectives (semeiotic, geographic, ecological and socioanthropological) on wildlife observation, forming his multifaceted theory into a single coherent framework.
{"title":"Observing wildlife through the eyes of Nils Lindahl Elliot","authors":"Nelly Mäekivi, Silver Rattasepp","doi":"10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.14","url":null,"abstract":"Nils Lindahl Elliot has significantly contributed to semiotic analysis of nature and to the ways in which it is mediated, especially with his transdisciplinary social semeiotic approach that he developed in Mediating Nature (2006). This book propelled his recognition in the field of semiotic studies, especially amongst the ecosemiotic community. In Lindahl Elliot’s newest book Observing Wildlife in Tropical Forests. 1: A Geosemeiotic Approach he delves even deeper into transdisciplinary inquiry of observing wildlife, using what he calls a geosemeiotic approach (with the extra “e” serving as a tribute to Peirce). More traditionally, geosemiotics is seen as a research field that studies social meanings of signs, discourses and actions as related to a specific place (Scollon, Scollon 2003). Although both Lindahl Elliot’s and Scollon and Scollon’s approaches incorporate Peircean semiotics when introducing the nature of signs, and consider the specificity of the place of communication in its widest sense to be of utmost importance, the essences of these approaches could not be further from each other. While geosemiotics turns its attention to visual semiotics, interaction order and semiotics of place, geosemeiotics emphasizes the encounter of dynamical bodies; while geosemiotics is concerned with humans, geosemeiotics stresses the coming together of human and more-than-human bodies which constitute assemblages. These are just some cursory differences between geosemiotics and geosemeiotics; what Lindahl Elliot actually proposes is a new transdisciplinary approach, which encompasses different perspectives (semeiotic, geographic, ecological and socioanthropological) on wildlife observation, forming his multifaceted theory into a single coherent framework.","PeriodicalId":44467,"journal":{"name":"Sign Systems Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46041828","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：