Whereas it is generally held that Peirce’s logic contributed largely to a proof of his pragmatism, particularly in the 1907 manuscript R318, the paper adopts an alternative approach and posits that after 1903, Peirce’s conception of the sign and the way it functions evolved significantly in the period leading to and including the various versions of this never-to-be-published article which set out his conception of pragmatism in 1907. The paper suggests that in attempting to explain his pragmatism in manuscript R318, Peirce was consciously departing from earlier conceptions of the sign and the way it relates to its two correlates. It suggests that this departure nevertheless contributed to the continuing evolution of his logic, and shows how R318 anticipates features of the systems described in the 23 December 1908 letter to Lady Welby and subsequent drafts while nevertheless being a completely different approach to signification. It finally suggests that there is a potential inconsistency in the definition of semiosis given in the manuscript and the theoretical distribution of the interpretant system described therein. The present paper is offered as one possible account of some stages in the evolution of Peirce’s logic.
{"title":"Pragmatism, logic, and manuscript R318","authors":"Tony Jappy","doi":"10.1515/css-2024-2021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2024-2021","url":null,"abstract":"Whereas it is generally held that Peirce’s logic contributed largely to a proof of his pragmatism, particularly in the 1907 manuscript R318, the paper adopts an alternative approach and posits that after 1903, Peirce’s conception of the sign and the way it functions evolved significantly in the period leading to and including the various versions of this never-to-be-published article which set out his conception of pragmatism in 1907. The paper suggests that in attempting to explain his pragmatism in manuscript R318, Peirce was consciously departing from earlier conceptions of the sign and the way it relates to its two correlates. It suggests that this departure nevertheless contributed to the continuing evolution of his logic, and shows how R318 anticipates features of the systems described in the 23 December 1908 letter to Lady Welby and subsequent drafts while nevertheless being a completely different approach to signification. It finally suggests that there is a potential inconsistency in the definition of semiosis given in the manuscript and the theoretical distribution of the interpretant system described therein. The present paper is offered as one possible account of some stages in the evolution of Peirce’s logic.","PeriodicalId":52036,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Semiotic Studies","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142223460","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Peirce’s pragmatic maxim is closely related to his conception of abduction. The acquisition of the actual effect required by the method of scientific reasoning expressed by Peirce’s maxim must be accomplished by resorting to abductive logic. Abductive logic starts from a surprising fact, derives a hypothetical explanation about that fact, and finally arrives at the possibility that the hypothesis is true. This is the process of abductive reasoning, as provided by Peirce, which is distinct from induction and deduction and generates explanatory views. Peirce opposed a unified and unchangeable concept of causality. He used different interpretations of causality to illustrate the considerable differences in people’s understanding of cause and effect in different periods. The concept of pragmatism, as developed from the pragmatic maxim to abduction and then to scientific inference to the best explanation, is precisely what Peirce initially proposed, and inference to the best explanation is the starting point and the final result of the pragmatic maxim.
{"title":"The relation of Peirce’s abduction to inference to the best explanation","authors":"Yi Jiang","doi":"10.1515/css-2024-2022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2024-2022","url":null,"abstract":"Peirce’s pragmatic maxim is closely related to his conception of abduction. The acquisition of the actual effect required by the method of scientific reasoning expressed by Peirce’s maxim must be accomplished by resorting to abductive logic. Abductive logic starts from a surprising fact, derives a hypothetical explanation about that fact, and finally arrives at the possibility that the hypothesis is true. This is the process of abductive reasoning, as provided by Peirce, which is distinct from induction and deduction and generates explanatory views. Peirce opposed a unified and unchangeable concept of causality. He used different interpretations of causality to illustrate the considerable differences in people’s understanding of cause and effect in different periods. The concept of pragmatism, as developed from the pragmatic maxim to abduction and then to scientific inference to the best explanation, is precisely what Peirce initially proposed, and inference to the best explanation is the starting point and the final result of the pragmatic maxim.","PeriodicalId":52036,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Semiotic Studies","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142178448","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I argue that the introduction of the normative sciences in Peirce’s 1903 Harvard Lectures was prompted by ethical concerns related to his pragmatic maxim and his pragmatism, generally. In the new formulation of the maxim, Peirce shows the relation between theory and practice more clearly. At the same time, since theoretical beliefs can translate to practical ones, this shows how the practical application of theoretical science can be used for any purpose, good or ill. I show how Peirce uses an Aristotelian strategy to identify a highest end as a test of the moral character of practical maxims, namely, whether the means and ends derived from the maxim are conducive to that end.
{"title":"The role of the normative sciences in the evolution of Peirce’s pragmatism","authors":"James Jakób Liszka","doi":"10.1515/css-2024-2023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2024-2023","url":null,"abstract":"I argue that the introduction of the normative sciences in Peirce’s 1903 Harvard Lectures was prompted by ethical concerns related to his pragmatic maxim and his pragmatism, generally. In the new formulation of the maxim, Peirce shows the relation between theory and practice more clearly. At the same time, since theoretical beliefs can translate to practical ones, this shows how the practical application of theoretical science can be used for any purpose, good or ill. I show how Peirce uses an Aristotelian strategy to identify a highest end as a test of the moral character of practical maxims, namely, whether the means and ends derived from the maxim are conducive to that end.","PeriodicalId":52036,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Semiotic Studies","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142178340","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Every football statue transcends mere physical representation; it stands as a public monument constructed to commemorate and honor specific subjects. The football statue involves an intricate interplay of communication factors and functions, potentially transforming into a message imbued with encyclopedic signs to serve its communicative purposes. Importantly, the football statue, as a communication phenomenon, extends beyond a simple semiotic relation between the statue and a viewer. We must also consider the addresser’s intentions, including strategies for engaging the viewer as an addressee. This duality involves referencing both historical and spatial contexts (the physical environment) beyond the message itself. And various semiotic means – also poetic – capture the viewer’s attention and maintain contact. We understand the semiotics of football statues from the perspectives of Eco (encyclopedia, intentio auctoris, model reader), Jakobson (communication model), Peirce (icon, index, symbol, collateral experience), and Barthes (relay, anchorage). Our analytical descriptions/examples solely concern UK statuary after an examination of 89 statues.
{"title":"Football statues and semiotics","authors":"Bent Sørensen","doi":"10.1515/css-2024-2024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2024-2024","url":null,"abstract":"Every football statue transcends mere physical representation; it stands as a public monument constructed to commemorate and honor specific subjects. The football statue involves an intricate interplay of communication factors and functions, potentially transforming into a message imbued with encyclopedic signs to serve its communicative purposes. Importantly, the football statue, as a communication phenomenon, extends beyond a simple semiotic relation between the statue and a viewer. We must also consider the addresser’s intentions, including strategies for engaging the viewer as an addressee. This duality involves referencing both historical and spatial contexts (the physical environment) beyond the message itself. And various semiotic means – also poetic – capture the viewer’s attention and maintain contact. We understand the semiotics of football statues from the perspectives of Eco (encyclopedia, <jats:italic>intentio auctoris</jats:italic>, model reader), Jakobson (communication model), Peirce (icon, index, symbol, collateral experience), and Barthes (relay, anchorage). Our analytical descriptions/examples solely concern UK statuary after an examination of 89 statues.","PeriodicalId":52036,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Semiotic Studies","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142178447","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Peirce’s concept of “community” is a philosophical notion closely intertwined with society. The production of knowledge within a community entails the characteristics of the “knowledge production chain” revealed by Peirce’s pragmatic maxim. Knowledge can only effectively grow within an open community that the dynamism of maxim has implied. The openness of the community essentially consists of two dimensions: internal structural openness and external orientation openness. Internal structural openness refers to the dynamic operation of the knowledge structure within a community. External orientation openness refers to the borderless nature of the community, that is, it can be open to other communities, accommodate the knowledge elements of others, and form its own developmental vitality. The open community relies on signs, where the mediating function sustains its operation. Signs partition and combine elements of experience, thereby carrying concepts and conveying information.
{"title":"Open community in Peirce’s pragmatism","authors":"Jining Chen, Deping Lu","doi":"10.1515/css-2024-2020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2024-2020","url":null,"abstract":"Peirce’s concept of “community” is a philosophical notion closely intertwined with society. The production of knowledge within a community entails the characteristics of the “knowledge production chain” revealed by Peirce’s pragmatic maxim. Knowledge can only effectively grow within an open community that the dynamism of maxim has implied. The openness of the community essentially consists of two dimensions: internal structural openness and external orientation openness. Internal structural openness refers to the dynamic operation of the knowledge structure within a community. External orientation openness refers to the borderless nature of the community, that is, it can be open to other communities, accommodate the knowledge elements of others, and form its own developmental vitality. The open community relies on signs, where the mediating function sustains its operation. Signs partition and combine elements of experience, thereby carrying concepts and conveying information.","PeriodicalId":52036,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Semiotic Studies","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142223462","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Peirce’s philosophy of language is woven around his pragmatic maxim. From early on in his scholarship to late, Peirce expanded his pragmatism into a fabric of semiotics. In this paper, Peirce’s pragmatism is taken to be an integral part of his semiotic system, and his method of making ideas clear is accounted for in terms of his theory of signs. For Peirce, a sign stands for or represents something in connection with some interpretant. This claim applies to linguistic expressions: words and sentences. A sign or a term refers to an object determined by its interpretant. In further analysis, object represented goes the way from immediate object to dynamic object, and interpretant from immediate through dynamic to logical interpretant. Departing from the prevailing scheme of sense–reference ascription, Peirce’s pragmatism is a method of determining meaning rather than a theory of what meaning is, and further, it is a semantic theory rather than a linguistic pragmatics. Making meaning clear goes through a semiotic process where linguistic signs, objects in the world, and the minds of speaker and hearer are intimately interrelated; it follows that Fregean anti-psychologism goes astray in the search for meaning.
{"title":"Peirce’s philosophy of language","authors":"Zhifang Zhu","doi":"10.1515/css-2024-2025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2024-2025","url":null,"abstract":"Peirce’s philosophy of language is woven around his pragmatic maxim. From early on in his scholarship to late, Peirce expanded his pragmatism into a fabric of semiotics. In this paper, Peirce’s pragmatism is taken to be an integral part of his semiotic system, and his method of making ideas clear is accounted for in terms of his theory of signs. For Peirce, a sign stands for or represents something in connection with some interpretant. This claim applies to linguistic expressions: words and sentences. A sign or a term refers to an object determined by its interpretant. In further analysis, object represented goes the way from immediate object to dynamic object, and interpretant from immediate through dynamic to logical interpretant. Departing from the prevailing scheme of sense–reference ascription, Peirce’s pragmatism is a method of determining meaning rather than a theory of what meaning is, and further, it is a semantic theory rather than a linguistic pragmatics. Making meaning clear goes through a semiotic process where linguistic signs, objects in the world, and the minds of speaker and hearer are intimately interrelated; it follows that Fregean anti-psychologism goes astray in the search for meaning.","PeriodicalId":52036,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Semiotic Studies","volume":"60 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142223459","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this study, we apply the methodology of semiotic or interpretive grammar, based on the Peircean ontological Categories and developed in previous work with respect to Mandarin Chinese, to Vedic Sanskrit, a language whose grammar we have previously shown to be constrained by Peircean Thirdness or [+3]. We show the Peircean Category of Thirdness, with all of the paradigmatic and syntagmatic configurations implied thereby, to be richly exemplified throughout Sanskrit grammar, at the morphosyntactic, lexical, and phonological levels. In particular, the Peircean Triad implied by [+3] is found to permeate the syntagmatic structuring not only of clauses, but also of the morphology within both nouns and finite verbs, and even the ordering of phonemes. We also describe the operation of the constraint [+3] paradigmatically in noun declension, verb conjugation, lexical variation, and consonant classification. We conclude that, while “interpretive grammar,” as with all other forms of grammatical description, can never be framed in a way that excludes all exceptions and “messiness,” a semiotic approach to a systematic description has a significant advantage over conventional “descriptive” grammars in furnishing a unified account of different levels of language, from morphosyntax all the way down to phonology, and of both syntagmatic and paradigmatic structures.
{"title":"A semiotic grammar of Vedic Sanskrit","authors":"Steven Bonta","doi":"10.1515/css-2024-2018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2024-2018","url":null,"abstract":"In this study, we apply the methodology of semiotic or interpretive grammar, based on the Peircean ontological Categories and developed in previous work with respect to Mandarin Chinese, to Vedic Sanskrit, a language whose grammar we have previously shown to be constrained by Peircean Thirdness or [+3]. We show the Peircean Category of Thirdness, with all of the paradigmatic and syntagmatic configurations implied thereby, to be richly exemplified throughout Sanskrit grammar, at the morphosyntactic, lexical, and phonological levels. In particular, the Peircean Triad implied by [+3] is found to permeate the syntagmatic structuring not only of clauses, but also of the morphology within both nouns and finite verbs, and even the ordering of phonemes. We also describe the operation of the constraint [+3] paradigmatically in noun declension, verb conjugation, lexical variation, and consonant classification. We conclude that, while “interpretive grammar,” as with all other forms of grammatical description, can never be framed in a way that excludes all exceptions and “messiness,” a semiotic approach to a systematic description has a significant advantage over conventional “descriptive” grammars in furnishing a unified account of different levels of language, from morphosyntax all the way down to phonology, and of both syntagmatic and paradigmatic structures.","PeriodicalId":52036,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Semiotic Studies","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141189345","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Betül Çanakpınar, Murat Kalelioğlu, Veli Doğan Günay
In recent years, semiotics has put “life” at the center of the subject of study. There is the desire to be successful in the lifestyle and the desire to convey the right knowledge to the recipient or the correct use of practices in life. A semiotic theory developed by Jacques Fontanille recently showed that strategy can also be used in semiotic analysis. So, the way of life that Fontanille talks about is not just strategy. The process we call “lifestyle” has an order from small to large: There are basic signs, texts, objects, actants, practices, action phases, strategies, and finally lifestyle. In this study, we question the function of strategy, but generally of productive pursuit, in the analysis of political discourses. In our study, we reveal the approach of semiotics to political discourses that concern the whole world and discuss whether they are valid in every society. We emphasize political semiotics, which is used to understand the general structure of political discourses, and show the general functioning of political discourses with Greimas’ Actantial Model. We conclude that politicians can influence target audiences by using various methods and discourse strategies.
{"title":"Political discourse and semiotics","authors":"Betül Çanakpınar, Murat Kalelioğlu, Veli Doğan Günay","doi":"10.1515/css-2024-2014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2024-2014","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, semiotics has put “life” at the center of the subject of study. There is the desire to be successful in the lifestyle and the desire to convey the right knowledge to the recipient or the correct use of practices in life. A semiotic theory developed by Jacques Fontanille recently showed that strategy can also be used in semiotic analysis. So, the way of life that Fontanille talks about is not just strategy. The process we call “lifestyle” has an order from small to large: There are basic signs, texts, objects, actants, practices, action phases, strategies, and finally lifestyle. In this study, we question the function of strategy, but generally of productive pursuit, in the analysis of political discourses. In our study, we reveal the approach of semiotics to political discourses that concern the whole world and discuss whether they are valid in every society. We emphasize political semiotics, which is used to understand the general structure of political discourses, and show the general functioning of political discourses with Greimas’ Actantial Model. We conclude that politicians can influence target audiences by using various methods and discourse strategies.","PeriodicalId":52036,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Semiotic Studies","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141189346","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In both Chinese and Western literary theory, there are several fundamental perspectives on the exploration of “the source of textual meaning,” which can be categorized into ontological, entitative, and generative types. Future research must integrate the “source” perspective with the “trigger” perspective, while overcoming the postmodern cultural pluralist limitations of “multiple symbiosis.” This article adopts the perspective of a “multi-source symbiosis” of textual meaning and maintains that textual meaning possesses characteristics of multiple sources, co-generation, and dynamic transformation. The “multi-source symbiosis” of textual meaning does not emphasize “differences,” but rather strives for “consensus.” The objectivity of the source of textual meaning and the regularity of textual understanding and interpretation are the prerequisites for agreement on textual meaning. The trigger mechanism for the symbiosis of textual meanings lies in three aspects: disclosing textual meanings in reading behavior, proliferating textual meanings in critical activities, and multi-source triggering of textual meanings in literary events. “Multi-source symbiosis” creates a heteroglossic state of textual meaning, with the ultimate goal of establishing a common understanding of textual meaning.
{"title":"Multi-source symbiosis of textual meaning","authors":"Jun Zeng","doi":"10.1515/css-2024-2012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2024-2012","url":null,"abstract":"In both Chinese and Western literary theory, there are several fundamental perspectives on the exploration of “the source of textual meaning,” which can be categorized into ontological, entitative, and generative types. Future research must integrate the “source” perspective with the “trigger” perspective, while overcoming the postmodern cultural pluralist limitations of “multiple symbiosis.” This article adopts the perspective of a “multi-source symbiosis” of textual meaning and maintains that textual meaning possesses characteristics of multiple sources, co-generation, and dynamic transformation. The “multi-source symbiosis” of textual meaning does not emphasize “differences,” but rather strives for “consensus.” The objectivity of the source of textual meaning and the regularity of textual understanding and interpretation are the prerequisites for agreement on textual meaning. The trigger mechanism for the symbiosis of textual meanings lies in three aspects: disclosing textual meanings in reading behavior, proliferating textual meanings in critical activities, and multi-source triggering of textual meanings in literary events. “Multi-source symbiosis” creates a heteroglossic state of textual meaning, with the ultimate goal of establishing a common understanding of textual meaning.","PeriodicalId":52036,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Semiotic Studies","volume":"2022 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141189351","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Although published only two years after Eliot’s famous modernist poem “The Waste Land” (1922), Miyazawa Kenji’s 52-line “Haru to Shura” (1924) is already very nearly as modern. The two poems, examined here using my expanded version of Riffaterre’s semiotic theory, have analogous propositional structure. One proposition concerns the faithless majority of mankind; the other involves a heavenly personage of potentially rehabilitating power. In Miyazawa’s case, the former is represented by Japanese peasants; the latter is the “Shura” – normally an unruly member of the lowest rank of Buddhist demigods. Miyazawa’s modernist message reverses the roles of these two personae: the Shura only wants to be recognized by the peasant he spies below his abode in the clouds. The peasant comes off as the lesser of the two beings because of his obdurate fixation on the soil. Miyazawa enhances the contrast of roles by painting the spring landscape – normally a season of burgeoning nature – in somber colors. This is a spring (haru) in which no birds sing, and the ranks of cypress trees are black. Commentaries by Japanese critics, plus one by one of my students, are examined: none can distance themselves from common sociolectic concepts of the seasons and the peasant population. Miyazawa, a devout Buddhist, is thus expressing a novel view of the people’s attitude to religion which they themselves are culpably unaware of. Their attitude is thus very close to that of the various personages in Eliot’s poem.
{"title":"Sparks from the Clouds: a modern Buddhist poem","authors":"John A. F. Hopkins","doi":"10.1515/css-2024-2017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2024-2017","url":null,"abstract":"Although published only two years after Eliot’s famous modernist poem “The Waste Land” (1922), Miyazawa Kenji’s 52-line “<jats:italic>Haru to Shura</jats:italic>” (1924) is already very nearly as modern. The two poems, examined here using my expanded version of Riffaterre’s semiotic theory, have analogous propositional structure. One proposition concerns the faithless majority of mankind; the other involves a heavenly personage of potentially rehabilitating power. In Miyazawa’s case, the former is represented by Japanese peasants; the latter is the “Shura” – normally an unruly member of the lowest rank of Buddhist demigods. Miyazawa’s modernist message reverses the roles of these two personae: the Shura only wants to be recognized by the peasant he spies below his abode in the clouds. The peasant comes off as the lesser of the two beings because of his obdurate fixation on the soil. Miyazawa enhances the contrast of roles by painting the spring landscape – normally a season of burgeoning nature – in somber colors. This is a spring (<jats:italic>haru</jats:italic>) in which no birds sing, and the ranks of cypress trees are black. Commentaries by Japanese critics, plus one by one of my students, are examined: none can distance themselves from common sociolectic concepts of the seasons and the peasant population. Miyazawa, a devout Buddhist, is thus expressing a novel view of the people’s attitude to religion which they themselves are culpably unaware of. Their attitude is thus very close to that of the various personages in Eliot’s poem.","PeriodicalId":52036,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Semiotic Studies","volume":"386 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141197318","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：