Notes

Introduction 1. In this regard, about action-network theory and distributed cognition, see Latour, 2005; Hutchins, 1995 and 2001; Fusaroli, Granelli, and Paolucci, 2011.

1 The Structuralist Perspective 1 . The Prague School was founded by several major Russian and Czech lin- guists and was active between 1926 and 1939. The most important figure was the Russian prince Nicolaj Trubetzkoy, who was joined, among oth- ers, by linguist , the literary critic Rene Wellek and the aesthetician Jan Mukarovsky. Linguists of other nationalities also collabo- rated with the Prague School, such as Martinet, from France. After presenting their thesis to the Congress of Slavists in Prague (1929), the Prague School were active throughout Europe and published the Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague . The School’s most signifi- cant work was Fundamentals of Phonology , which Trubetzkoy finished in 1938. The activities of the Prague Linguistic Circle (as the School was also known) ceased after Trubetzkoy’s death in 1938 and the outbreak of World War II. The School developed the concept of function in language, with language defined as “a system of means of expression adequate for a partic- ular purpose.” Notably, it does not adopt the category of “function” taken by the Copenhagen linguistic circle (which also includes another key figure in , Louis Hjelmslev), which is derived from mathematics. Given that the language is not substance but form, it is specified within a network of functions (understood in the mathematical sense as devices that connect one or more logical objects), which indicate the relationship between the linguistic elements, both when they are alternative (aut-aut functions ) and when they are present together in the chain (et-et functions). 2 . “Glocal” (a word created by sociologist Roland Robertson in 1995; see Featherstone, Lash, and Robertson, 1995) refers to the “condition” in the contemporary world in which globalization coexists with localization, in a series of experiences in which the space–time limits (particularly those 194 ● Notes

dealing with space) are no longer a constraint, thus making these expe- riences repeatable and translatable in countless other new “elsewheres.” Identities are therefore so deeply immersed in a cultural environment in which forms hailing from the past and from faraway places coexist (see, e.g., the so-called ethnic shops in many Italian cities, which bring objects from faraway places into our daily life), as they are readapted to local requirements. On this issue see also Sedda, 2008 and 2010. 3 . Saussure (who is arguably Barthes’s main reference point) would prefer to speak in terms of semiology, but, as we have already said in the introduc- tion, we consider it quite useless to distinguish between /semiotics/ and / semiology/, as nowadays there is (and it is our aim to strengthen) a unique semiotic paradigm. 4 . The phases that Irvine and Gal (2000) indicate as basis of the ideological process (iconization, fractal recursivity, and erasure) are, e.g., very close to the semiotic approach. 5 . Barthes started discussing connotation in his reflection on ideology in Myth, Today (Barthes, 1957a); he then thoroughly analyzed the same cat- egory from a theoretical point of view in Elements of Semiology (1964a), and through the individual case of the advertisement of Panzani pasta in “Rhetoric of the Image” (1964b). He then returned to the subject using a systematic approach in The Fashion System (1967). 6 . “Textualist” here indicates the last stage of Barthes’s work in which he was less interested in the “scientific” (i.e., linguistic-semiologic) analysis of the contemporary , and instead focused on writing, plurality of sense, and, finally, autobiographical tales. I personally do not agree with the idea that there is a clear-cut separation in the different stages of Barthes’s work, however, he himself, at the very beginning of Semiotic Challenge (Barthes, 1985) identifies three moments of his work: the moment of wonder , which spanned Writing Degree Zero to Myth, Today , and whose topic is discourse; the subsequent stage, science , from 1957 to 1963 (including fashion stud- ies) focused on the research of a systematic understanding of society, lin- guistic in nature; and last, the moment of text , spanning his “Introduction à l’analyse structurale” to S/Z , in which Barthes reflects on the significant practices and the structuring of sense, rather than structures, and on the activity of writing rather than its analysis. 7 . The Empirics code is that which identifies proairetisms , that is, behavior. The Person code is the one that identifies the semes, with which the players of a text are represented. The Science code identifies the cultural citations of a science or a wisdom; the Truth code identifies the hermeneuticisms , or rather, “the terms through which an enigma is centred, positioned, formu- lated, suspended and then solved” and, last, the Symbol code deals most directly with plurivalence and reversibility of terms (see Barthes, 1970a). 8 . For more on this, please see Voloshinov, 1973 9 . Here we use “interpretant” in the way intended by Peirce; i.e., any sign (verbal, visual, behavioral) that interprets and speaks about other signs. Notes ● 195

The interpretant is not, therefore, a person or an interpreter, but a semiotic entity. We will return to this in chapter 3. 10. Deferral is what Derrida associates with the idea of trace and grammar . Every deferral leaves traces of its operation, building an archistructure, a genealogy of meaning, and is such that any spoken discourse compared to it is merely a secondary repetition. However, we do not wish to review Derrida’s grammatology theory in its entirety here (though almost all of this chapter is based on Of Grammatology ); rather, we are interested in developing a comparison between Derrida’s approach and the semiotic approach to themes and categories found in both fields. 11 . On this point, see also Culler, 1982, Chapter 5. 12 . Eco (1990) proposes a distinction between intentio operis, intentio aucto- ris , and intentio lectoris . While intentio auctoris and lectoris indicate two empirical properties (intentio auctoris being the intention of the empirical author, as such, not necessarily realized in the text, with the intentio lecto- ris expressing the will of the reader’s interpretation, which does not always respect the text), the intentio operis is the intention of the text, its intrinsic property, the strategy constructed by the text, which requires a range of skills in order to be correctly interpreted. 1 3 . A s e x p l a i n e d a b o v e , t h e t e x t Glas (a word whose French pronunciation is homophonous with glace ) is built like a mirror (glace , in French). 14 . We are referring here to Greimas’s actantial model (see Greimas, 1966). 15 . For a short but good description in English of the narrative theory of Greimas, see Luis H é bert, “The Canonical Narrative Schema,” available online at http://www.signosemio.com/greimas/canonical-narrative-schema.asp . 16 . We believe that this idea of “attestation” is in close proximity to Silverstein’s concept of “entextualization,” as we will see in chapter 4 . 17 . Here the legacy of Saussure and of his concept of meaning based on differ- ence is particularly apparent. 18 . The first two will hereafter be indicated by the acronyms HRW and MSF respectively. 19 . In the case of the MSF website (at the moment I am writing, April 2015), there are no photoblogs or visual essays, as in the HRW or Unicef websites. Thus the reader is free to build his/her own path, following eventually (as we did) a thematic thread. 2 0 . h t t p : / / w w w . h r w . o r g / f e a t u r e s / b u r m a - u n t o l d - m i s e r i e s . 21 . http://www.unicef.org/photography/photo_essays_all.php?pid=2AM 4082OMTP4 . 22. I got these words in italics from the section “Photoblog,” available on the MSF website until the end of 2014.

2 Unity and Pluralism: The Theory of Jurij Lotman 1 . For a overview of Lotman’s work in English, see Kull, 2011. 196 ● Notes

2 . By “Jakobson model” I mean a theory based on the idea that, in com- munication, the point is the passage of information (as a small “pack- age” of content) from a sender to a receiver. In this process, Jakobson distinguishes six functions: referential (related to context), aesthetic/ poetic (related to the language itself), emotive (related to the self- expression of the sender), conative (related to the addressing of receiver), phatic (related to the channel working) and metalingistic (related to the code). Jakobson’s view is that in each act of communication one of these functions is dominant, defining a “prevalent” genre of text (poetic, metatextual, etc.). Jakobson’s theory of communicative functions was first published in “Closing Statements: Linguistics and Poetics” (Sebeok, 1960, pp. 350–377). 3 . D e S a u s s u r e ’ s Course in General Linguistics (1916) contains sections on both synchronic and diachronic linguistics. However, the theory of sign and its value, on which semiotics is based, are included solely in the syn- chronic section. 4 . We have been unable to find an English translation of this essay and the other two from this anthology that we will refer to over the following pages. 5. A. Greimas and J. Fontanille in 1991 wrote a book whose title was The Semiotics of Passions. From States of Affairs to States of Feelings , where they read the problem of perception, sensibility, feeling, and culturalization of passions from a semiotic perspective. All these problems were referred to as being on a “patemic” level, different from the narrative level, the enuncia- tive level, the cognitive level, the iconic level (and so on) typical of texts. See Greimas and Fontanille, 1991. 6 . This is the point at which the analogies between Lotman’s position and Eco’s encyclopedic view of (on which we will focus in the next chapter) are quite strong. It is the encyclopedic network, according to Eco, that takes care of stabilizing or sedating certain interpretation paths, cer- tain recontextualizations or content/expression associations. It is the ency- clopedic paths within the network that stabilize certain types of memory, causing it to “forget” other contents. 7 . For more on the Lotman theory and the developments of contempo- rary scientific theories, see “Semiotiche” no. 5/07, Ananke, Turin, 2007, “Lotman,” edited by Manuel C àceres Sà nchez and, in particular, the essay by C à ceres S à nchez and Mirko Lampis. See also research by Kalevi Kull at Tartu University ( www.zbi.ee ). 8 . Lotman speaks in terms of “non-hereditary memory,” meaning everything that is not biological, as part of the genetic legacy of the individual. 9 . The reformulation of the historical past, with the subsequent oblivion of certain events, may reach some extreme cases, as with Holocaust denial. 10 . It is important to remember that in the early 1980s the Argentinian President Alfons ìn established a National Commission on the Disappeared Notes ● 197

(Comisió n Nacional sobre la Desaparició n de Personas—CONADEP), which, in 1984, submitted a report called “Nunca má s.” Acknowledging that the atrocities committed against thousands of young people were not occasional episodes that occurred during a state of emergency (which the military junta called the “dirty war”), but rather a habitual practice used by the junta to maintain control. 11 . For a further, more semiotical in-depth reading of the Madres practices, see Demaria and Lorusso, 2012. 12 . An isotopy is a semantic redundancy. When within a text there are many semic units belonging to the same semantic field (see war, entertainment, religion, etc.), we talk about it as spectacular, religious, or whatever it may be, isotopy. Of course, the presence of one or more isotopy means that a text is strongly coherent and intertwined. 13 . Their fears were, sadly, well justified. Azucena Villaflor, one of the original 14 Madres was indeed imprisoned, tortured, and “ disappeared.” 14 . As we pointed out earlier, this view of the Abuela movement as something wreaking havoc in the otherwise “normal” life of their biological grand- children is, of course, one-sided and not objective: it is the view of those Madres who distanced themselves from this group. However, many others have claimed that the Abuelas’ actions were legitimate and even appropri- ate, as they believed that the truth was something their grandchildren had a right to; not damage but, instead, compensation. 15 . We will use some aspectual features of temporality: punctual, durative, incoative. In linguistics the aspect represents the point of view an implicit observer has of the temporal process: he may perceive the action in its completeness (perfective aspect), in its initial moment (incoative aspect), in its repetition (iterative aspect), in its continuity (durative aspect), in its extemporaneousness, in its restrained nature (punctual aspect), and so on.

3 Interpretation and Culture: Umberto Eco’s Theory 1. The work collecting and editing Peirce’s papers started in 1931 and is still not complete. 2 . Peirce prefers the term “pragmaticism” to “pragmatism” to differentiate his theory from that developed by William James. 3 . Besides, Eco’s concept of adaptation also plays a central role at a percep- tion-cognitive level, in terms of primary iconism. 4 . One example in this respect is the controversial memories of dictatorships or cases of genocide, from Rwanda to Armenia. And indeed, even with more consolidated memories like those of the Holocaust, there are some people who, in spite of the global culture’s inclusion of the Nazi’s extermi- nation of the Jews in its own encyclopedia, still claim death camps never existed. As regards negationism, see Pisanty, 1998. 198 ● Notes

5 . This last book was first published in Canada (Eco, 2000). A similar Italian version is Dire quasi la stessa cosa (Eco, 2003), but this is not a direct trans- lation of the first. 6 . Hjelmslev separates systems from processes, restructuring Saussure’s dif- ference between langue and parole , and between syntagmatic and par- adigmatic relationships. While the language system is suprapersonal and abstract, the parole process and act represent the concrete expression of the language in its discursive and individual acts. 7 . Intra-linguistic translations are the actions of rewording and paraphrasing within the same language; inter-linguistic translations are translations in the current sense; inter-semiotic translations are transpositions from one language to another (i.e., from a novel to a movie). 8 . Which means jumping twice on one leg and twice on the other. 9 . Geertz never openly quotes Eco, as far as we know (neither does he quote other semioticians), but he has clearly read him, either directly or from secondary sources. 10. We are using the word “object” here with no intention of reification and, most of all, with no empirical-materialist assumption. By “object” we mean “cultural object,” any element of culture (material or immaterial) consid- ered as the matter of observation. 11 . This relationship is the basis for the distinction Eco makes between ratio facilis and ratio difficilis (Eco, 1975, p. 217 and further on), where “ratio” means the relationship between a signic function that unites expression and content. This relationship can be, in the languages (like the verbal language) that have a langue , a fully conventional relationship; conversely, it can also be fully idiosyncratic in these cases where there is no a pre- made type of expression already preformed and capable of expressing the contents in one’s mind, and therefore it is necessary to create one such rela- tionship starting from the content we wish to express. 1 2 . In 1975 the Marxist slant of this inspiration is made explicit and among Eco’s interlocutors and the authors he quotes, we also find Rossi-Landi, who is known chiefly for having made Marxist and semiotic theory com- municate with one another and translate themselves. Many of his writ- ings are, therefore, pertinent to the semiotics-culture-ideology issue (in particular, see Rossi-Landi, 1968, 1972, 1974). Here we will reproduce a programmatic statement that is a good indication of the overall tenor of his reflections and that we think it is still important to remember: “In no case shall linguistic work be understood as an interior activity of the subject, as an ‘intentional act’ or ‘mental operation’ that should take place necessar- ily in each individual’s conscious and unconscious psyche as realistically understood (which implies a residual of subjective idealism); in no case the study of this work may be perceived as gaining awareness of already exist- ing acts and operations; And lastly, in no case the results of said study shall be perceived as acts of enlightenments bestowed upon those who make Notes ● 199

these deeds or operation but are not, unluckily, aware of it. By follow- ing profound indications by Hegel and Marx—indications that are totally extraneous to the neo-idealistic mentality that, together with the biologis- tic one invalidates a large part of contemporary semiotics; the work we are talking about here is instead social praxis on one side and model-making on the other” (Rossi-Landi, 1972, p. 35). 13 . We speak of “heroism” not only in a positive sense, because we have seen that the traditional version of the Guy Fawkes’s legend is negative, but in the sense of a very strong egocentric protagonism. 14 . We are making reference here to the semiotic theory of passions presented by A. Greimas and J. Fontanille in 1991, through which they aim to inte- grate the semiotic comprehension of the logic of actions with a semiotic approach to the internal life (passions, feelings, etc.). 1 5. These are available on Youtube. We started studying them at the end of 2011 and over the course of more than a year we have noticed no signifi- cant differences. This is why here we do not refer to any videos in partic- ular within our specific corpus of analysis. You can select them randomly because they always confirm these features. 16 . We want to clarify that we interpret this symbol as referred to the subject- Anonymous and not to the “enemy,” the polemic object of Anonymous (the men in black who hold political and economic power). We know that this is a possible reading of the symbol, but the fact that it appears at the end of the theme (as a logo) makes us to lean toward the first interpretation: the headless suit is the symbol of Anonymous.

4 Ideas for an Archeological Semiotics 1 . The abduction is among the three forms of syllogism individuated since the time of Aristotle, alongside induction and deduction. Peirce, in par- ticular, has focused on abduction. With deduction, the conclusion arises automatically from the premises: date rule and the case, the result cannot be different and is simply making explicit what was already implicit in the evidence. Induction, on the other hand, allows us to hypothesize a rule from a case and a result. It is based on the assumption that certain reg- ularities observed in a phenomenon continue to appear in the same form also in the future. Unlike deduction, and like abduction, induction is not logically valid without external confirmation. The abduction, in which a hypothesis is established in order to explain a number of empirical facts, is (according to Peirce) the only form of reasoning that can improve our knowledge, because creating hypotheses allows us to imagine new ideas, to guess, to predict. In fact, all three identified inferences allow for an increase of knowledge, to a certain extent, but only abduction is entirely dedicated to this growth. It is also true, however, that abduction is the inference most prone to risk of error. 200 ● Notes

2 . By “communicative” we mean the fact that we focused in particular on the forms of communication with the Other, as represented by the group of “Madres of Plaza de Mayo.” 3 . We say “semantic” because the main interest of the analysis is in focusing how, through the transpositions from one media to the other, some central semantic values of the first identity of the hero Guy Fawkes were betrayed, marginalized, or kept alive. Bibliography

Alexander, J. 2003 Meanings of Social Life , New York: Oxford University Press. Anderson, B. 1991 Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism , London: Verso. Appadurai, A. 1996 Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimension of Globalization , Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. Assmann A. 1999 Erinnerungsraume: Formen Und Wandlungen Des Kulturellen Gedachtnisses , Munich: Beck (Eng. trans. Cultural Memory and Western Civilizations: Function, Medai, Archives, Cambridge University Press, 2011). Assmann, J. 1992 Das kulturelle Gedä chtnis: Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identitä t in fr ü hen Hochkulturen , Munich: Beck (Eng. trans. Cultural Memory and Early Civilization: Writing, Remembrance and Political Imagination, Cambridge University Press, 2011). Bal, M. 2002 Travelling Concepts in the Humanities , Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Barthes, R. 1957a Mythologies , Paris: Seuil (Eng. trans. Myth, Today , New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, 1972). 1957b “Histoire et sociologie du v ê tement,” in Les Annales , n. 3, 1957. 1964a El é ments de semiologie , Paris: Seuil (Eng. trans . Elements of Semiology, New York: Hill & Wang, 1977). 1964b “Rhé torique de l’image” Persée, Vol. 4, n. 4. 1966a “Introduction à l’analyse structurale des ré cits,” Communications , n. 8 (now in Barthes, 1985). 1966b “Entretien sur le structuralisme,” Aletheia , n. 4. 1966c Critique et verité , Paris: Seuil (Eng. trans. Criticism and Truth, London: Continuum, 2007). 1967 Le systhè me de la mode , Paris: Seuil (Eng. trans. The Fashion System , California: University of California Press, 1990). 202 ● Bibliography

1970a S/Z, Paris: Seuil (Eng. trans. S/Z : An Essay , New York: Hill & Wang, 1975). 1970b L’Empire des signes , Paris: Skira (Eng. trans. Empire of Signs , New York: Hill & Wang, 1983). 1977 Fragments d’in discours amoureux , Paris: Seuil (Eng. trans. A Lover’s Discourse , New York: Hill & Wang, 2010). 1985 L’aventure sé miologique , Paris: Seuil (Eng. trans. The Semiotic Challenge , California: University of California Press, 1994). Benveniste, E. 1954 “Probl è mes s é mantiques de la reconstruction,” in Word , vol. 10, nn. 2–3. 1962 “Les niveaux de l’analyse linguistique,” in Probl è mes de linguistique gé n é rale , Paris: Gallimard, 1966. 1966–1974 Vocabulaire dein institutions indo-europé ennes , Paris: Gallimard. Bergman, M. 2010 “C.S. Peirce on Interpretation and Collateral Experience,” in Signs, vol. 4, pp. 134–161. Bouissac, P. 1976 Circus and Culture: A Semiotic Approach , Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Bourdieu, P. 1962 “Cé libat et condition paysanne,” in “Etudes rurales,” 5–6. Today in Id., Le bal des c é libataires. Crise de la soci é t é paysanne en B é arn , Paris: Seuil, 2002, pp. 110–126. 1972 Esquisse d’une th é orie de la pratique pr é c é d é de trois é tudes d’ethnologie kab- yle , Paris: Seuil, 1972 (Eng. trans. Outline of a Theory of Practice , New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977). 1979 La distinction, Paris: Minuit (Eng. trans. Distinction , Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984). 1994 Raisons pratiques , Paris: Seuil (Eng. trans. Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998). Bouvard, M. G. 1994 Revolutionizing Motherhood: The Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo , Oxford: Oxford University Press. C á ceres Sá nchez (a cura di) 2007 SEMIOTICHE—Lotman , 5/07, Ananke, Torino, 2007. Clifford J. and Marcus G. E. (eds.) 1986 Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of , Berkeley: Berkeley University Press. Culler, J. 1982 On Deconstruction , Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Danesi, M. 1994 Cool. The Signs and Meanings of Adolescence , Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 2003 Forever Young. The “Teen-Aging” of Modern Culture , Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Bibliography ● 203

De Certeau, M. 1990 L’invention du quotidien , Paris: Gallimard (Eng. trans. The Practice of Everyday Life , California: University of California Press, 2011). Demaria, C. 2006 Semiotica e memoria. Analisi del post-conflitto , Roma: Carocci. 2007 “Reconciliation and Forgiving: The Power of Happy Memory,” in C. Go and B. McGuirk (eds.), Happiness and Post-Conflict , Nottingham: CCCP Press, pp. 55–73. 2011 “The Imaginary, the Imaginable, and the Un-imaginable. Memory and the Archive of Traumas,” Lexia, nn. 7–8, pp. 453–470. Demaria, C. and Daly, M. (eds.) 2009 The Genres of Post-Conflict Testimonies , Nottingham: CCCP Press. Demaria, C. and Lorusso, A. M. 2012 “A Ritual to Deal with an Unspeakable Trauma. The Case of the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo,” in Lexia Rivista di semiotica, 11–12 Culto, Torino, Ananke , pp. 327–356. Demaria, C. and Wright, C. (eds.) 2006 Post-Conflict : Ritual of Representations, London: Zoilus Press. Derrida, J. 1967a De la grammatologie, Paris: Minuit (Eng. trans. On grammatology , Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1974). 1967b L’ é criture et la difference , Paris: Minuit (Eng. trans. Writing and Difference , Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978). 1979 “Living On,” in Deconstruction and Criticism , ed. Harold Bloom. [Contributors to the volume include Bloom, Derrida, Paul de Man, J. Hillis Miller, and Geoffrey Hartman.] 1972 Marges—de la philosophie , Paris: Minuit (Eng. trans. Margins of Philosophy , Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982). 1974 Glas , Paris: Galilé e (Eng. trans. Glas , Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1986). Descola, P. 2005 Par-del à nature et culture , Paris: Gallimard (Eng. Trans. Beyond Nature and Culture , Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Dreyfus, H. L. and Rabinow, P. 1983 Michel Foucault: Beyond and Hermeneutics , Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Duranti, A. 1997 Linguistic , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Duranti, A. (ed.) 2001 : A Reader , New York: Wiley Blackwell. 2004 A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology , Oxford: Blackwell. Eco, U. 1962 Opera aperta , Milano: Bompiani. 1964 Apocalittici e integrati , Milano: Bompiani. 1968 La struttura assente , Milano: Bompiani. 204 ● Bibliography

1971 Il segno , Milano: Isedi. 1975 Trattato di semiotica generale , Milano: Bompiani (Eng. trans. A Theory of Semiotics, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1976). 1976 “Codice,” in Versus 14 , Milano: Bompiani. 1978 “Il pensiero semiotico di Jakobson,” in Jakobson, 1978. 1984 Semiotica e filosofia del linguaggio , Torino: Einaudi (Eng. trans. Semiotics and the , London: MacMillan, 1984). 1990 I limiti dell’interpretazione , Milano: Bompiani (Eng. trans. The Limits of Interpretation , Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990). 1993 La ricerca della lingua perfetta , Roma: Bari: Laterza (Eng. trans. The Search for the Perfect Language, Oxford: Blackwell, 1995). 1997 Kant e l’ornitorinco , Milano: Bompiani (Eng. trans. Kant and the Platypus , New York: Harcourt; London: Secker, 1999). 1999 “Experiences in Translation,” in Versus n. 82, Milano: Bompiani 2000a Experiences in Translation , Toronto: Toronto University Press. 2000b “Traduzione e interpretazione,” in Versus nn. 85–86–87, Milano: Bompiani. 2003 Dire quasi la stessa cosa , Milano: Bompiani. 2007 Dall’albero al labirinto , Milano: Bompiani. Eco, U. and Sebeok, T. (eds.) 1983 The Sign of Three. Peirce, Holmes, Dupin , Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Fabbri, P. 2009 “Introduzione,” in E. Benveniste, Essere di parola. Semantica, soggettività , cultura, a cura di P. Fabbri, Milano: Bruno Mondadori. Faccani, R. and Eco, U. (eds.) 1969 I sistemi di segni e lo strutturalismo sovietico , Milano: Bompiani. Featherstone, M., Lash, S., and Robertson R. (eds.) 1995 “Glocalization: Time-Space and Homogeneity-Heterogeneity,” in Global Modernities , London: Sage. Fontanille, J. 2008 Pratiques s é miotiques , Paris: PUF. Foucault, M. 1963 Naissance de la clinique , Paris: PUF (Eng. trans. The Birth of the Clinic , London: Taylor & Francis, 1973). 1966 Les mots et les choses , Paris: Gallimard (Eng. trans. The Order of Things: An of the Human Sciences , New York: Vintage Books, 1970). 1968a “Sur l’archologie des sciences. R é ponse au cercle d’ é pistemologie.” Today in Dits et é crits , Paris: Gallimard, 1994 (Eng. trans. “On the Archaeology of the Sciences: Response to the Epistemology Circle,” in P. Rabinow and N. Rose, eds., The Essential Foucault , New York: New Press, 2003, pp. 392–422). 1968b “R é ponse à una question,” in Esprit , n. 371, pp. 850–874. Today in Dits et é crits , Paris: Gallimard, 1994. 1969 L’arch é ologie du savoir , Paris: Gallimard (Eng. trans. The Archaeology of Knowledge , London: Tavostock, 1972). Bibliography ● 205

1971 “La gé n é alogie,l’histoire,” in S. Bachelard, Hommage à Jean Hyppolite, Paris: PUF. 1975a Surveiller et punir , Paris: Gallimard (Eng. trans. Discipline and Punish , London: Vintage, 1995). 1975b “Entretien sur la prison: le livre et sa m é thode,” in Magazine litté raire , n. 101, June. 1976 Histoire de la sexualit é . vol I La volont é de savoir , Paris: Gallimard (Eng. trans. The History of Sexuality , vol. I, London: Vintage, 1990). Frank, Arthur W. 2010 Letting Stories Breathe , Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fusaroli, R., Granelli, T., and Paolucci, C. (eds.) 2011 The External Mind. Perspectives on Semiosis, Distribution and Situation in Cognition—Versus , Milano: Bompiani, pp. 112–113. Geertz, C. 1973 The Interpretation of Cultures, New York: Basic Books. 1983 Local Knowledge. Further Essays in Interpretative anthropology , New York: Basic Books. Goodwin, C. and Duranti, A. (eds.) 1992 Rethinking Context , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Greimas, A. J. 1966 S é mantique structurale , Paris: Larousse (Eng. trans. Structural Semantics: An Attempt at a Method, Nebraska: University of Nebravska Press, 1984). 1970 Du sens , Paris: Seuil (Eng. trans. On Meaning: Selected Writings in Semiotic Theory , Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1987). 1976 S é miotique et sciences sociales , Paris: Seuil (Eng. trans. The Social Sciences, a Semiotic View , Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1990). 1985 Des dieux et des hommes. Etudes de mythologie lithuanienne , Paris: Puf (Eng. trans. Of Gods and Men: Studies in Lithuanian Mythology , Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1992). Greimas, A. J. and Court é s, J. 1979 Dictionnaire raisonn é de la th é orie du langage , Paris: Hachette (Eng. trans. Semiotics and Language: An Analytical Dictionary , Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1983). Greimas, A. J. and Fontanille, J. 1991 S é miotique des passions, Paris: Seuil (Eng. trans. Semiotics Of Passion: From States of Affairs to States of Feelings , Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1992). Gumperz, John. J. 1971[1968] “The Speech Community,” in Language and Social Context, Pier P. Giglioli, ed., New York: Viking Penguin, pp 219–231. Halbwachs, M. 1925 Les cadres sociaux de la m é moire , Paris: Alcan. 1950 La m é moire collective , Paris: Alcan. Hawkes, T. 2003 Structuralism and Semiotics , London: Routledge. 206 ● Bibliography

Hjelmslev, L. 1943 Prolegomena to a Theory of Language , Wisconsin: Regents of the University of Wisconsin. 1943b “Langue et parole,” in Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure , 2, pp. 29–44. 1954 “La stratification du langage,” in Word , 10, pp. 163–188. Hobsbawm, E. and Ranger, T. (eds.) 1983 The Invention of Tradition , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hodge, B. and Kress, G. 1988 Social Semiotics , Cambridge: Polity. 1993 Language as Ideology , London: Routledge. Hutchins, E. 1995 Cognition in the Wild, Cambridge: MIT Press. 2001 “Distributed Cognition,” in N. J. Smelser and P. B. Baltes (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences , New York: Elsevier Science, pp. 2068–2071. Irvine, J. T. and Gal, S. 2000 “Language Ideology and Linguistic Differentiation,” in Kroskrity, 2000. Jakobson, R. 1960 “Closing Statements: Linguistics and Poetics,” in Sebeok, 1960. 1963 Essais de linguistique g é n é rale , Paris: Minuit. 1971 Selcted Writings , vol II (Word and Language) , The Hague; Paris: Mouton. 1978b Six leç ons sur le son et le sens, Paris (Eng. trans. Lectures on Sound & Meaning , Cambridge: MIT Press, 1937). Kroskrity, P. V. 2000 Regimes of Languages , Santa Fe: School of American Research. Kull, K. 2011 “Yuri Lotman in English. Bibliography,” in Sign Systems Studies vol. 39, nn. 2/4. Kurzweil, E. 1980 The Age of Structuralism, New York: Columbia University Press. Lakoff, G. 2009 “The Obama Code,” in A. M. Lorusso and C. Paolucci, Versus n. 107–108, Lo spazio della politica. Uno sguardo semiotico , Milano: Bompiani, pp. 213–220. Landowski, E. 1980 “L’opinion publique et ses porte-parole,” in Actes Sé miotiques-Documents , vol. II, n. 12, 1980 (Eng. trans. “Public Opinion and Its Spokesmen,” in Paris School Semiotics , Amsterdam;Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1989). 1983a “La s é miotique dans le champ des recherches en sciences sociales,” in S é miotique et Bible , vol. 31, 1983, pp. 2–13 (Eng. trans. “Semiotics in Social Science Research,” in B. S. Jackson and D. Carzo (eds.), Semiotics, Law and Social Science , Rome: Gangemi, 1985). 1983b “De quelques conditions sé miotiques de l’interaction,” in A. J. Greimas and E. Landowski, Pragmatique et s é miotique, Actes S é miotiques-Documents , vol. V, n. 50, 1983, p. 20 [44], pp. 9–17 (Eng. trans. “Pragmatics and Semiotics: Some Bibliography ● 207

Semiotic Conditions of Interaction,” in Paris School Semiotics, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1989). 1989 La societ é r é fl é chie , Paris: Seuil. 1991 “Structural Semiotics and Sociosemiotics: A Selective Bibliography,” Bulletin de l’Association Internationale de S é miotique Juridique , vol. 7, 1991, pp. 8–9. 1997 Pr é sences de l’autre , Paris: PUF. 1998 “De la contagion,” E. Landowski (ed.), Sé miotique gourmande. Du goû t, entre esth é sie et socialit é , Nouveaux Actes S é miotiques , vol. X, nn. 55–6 , pp. 67–76 (Eng. trans. “On Contagion,” in I. Pezzini (ed.), Semiotic Efficacy and the Effectiveness of the Text. From Effects to Affects , Turnhout; Bologna: Brepols, 2001, pp. 301–309. 2004 Passions sans nom , Paris: PUF. 2005 Les interactions risqu ées , Nouveaux Actes Sé miotiques, Limoges: PULIM, pp. 101–103. Latour, B. 2004 Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy , Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 2005 Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory , Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1965 Le Geste et la Parole II. La Mé moire et les rythmes , Paris: Albin Michel. L é vi-Strauss, C. 1958 Anthropologie structurale , Paris: Plon (Eng. trans. , New York: Basic Books, 1963). 1964 Le cru et le cuit , Paris: Plon (Eng. trans. The Row and the Cooked , New York: Harper & Row, 1969). 1967 Du miel aux cendres , Paris: Plon (Eng. trans. From Honey to Ashes , New York: Harper & Row, 1973). 1968 L’origine des maniè res de table , Paris: Plon (Eng. trans. The Origin of Table Manners, New York: Harper & Row, 1978). 1971 L’ homme nu , Paris: Plon (Eng. trans. The Naked Man , New York: Harper & Row, 1981). Lorusso, A. M. 2006 La trama del testo , Milano: Bompiani. 2009 “Between Reality and Truth: New Forms of Testimony in Contemporary Autobiographies.” in C. Demaria and M. Dale (eds.), The Genre of Post-Conflict Testimonies , Nottingham: CCCP, pp. 181–198. 2010 Semiotica della cultura, Roma; Bari: Laterza. 2011 “A Semiotic Approach to the Category of Imaginary,” in Lexia n. 07/08, Immaginario, Torino, Aracne. 2012 “I corpus della cultura,” in M. Serra (coord.), En torno a la semi ó tica de la cultura. Actas del I Congreso Internacional del GESC, Fragua—Fundació n Ortega-Marañ on, Madrid. 208 ● Bibliography

Lotman, J. 1970 Struktura judozhestvennogo teksta , Moskva (Eng. trans. Analysis of the Poetic Text, Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1976). 1975 “Dekabrist v povsednevnoj ž izni (Bytovoe povedenie kak istoriko-psich- ologiceskaja kategorija),” in Literaturnoe nasledie dekabristov , a cura di V. G. Bazanov, V. E. Vacuro, Leningrad, Nauka (Eng. trans. Lotman and Uspenskij, 1984). 1977a Soviet Semiotics: An Anthology, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 1977b “Culture as Collective Intellect and the Problems of Artificial Intelligence,” in Lawrence Michael O’Toole and Ann Shukman (eds.), Dramatic Structure: Poetic and Cognitive Semantics (Russian Poetics in Translation 6), Oxford: Holdan Books, 1979, pp. 84–96. 1977c “The Text and the Structure of Its Audience,” in Paul Cobley (ed.), Communication Theories: Critical Concepts in Media and Cultural Studies , vol. 3, London: Routledge, 2006, pp. 64–70. 1977d “The Dynamic Model of a Semiotic System,” in Semiotica vol. 21, nn. 3/4, pp. 193–210. 1977e “Two Models of Communication,” in Daniel P. Lucid (ed.), Soviet Semiotics: An Anthology , Baltimore; London: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp 99–101. 1978 “Theme and Plot: The Theme of Cards and the Card Game in Russian Literature of the XIXth Century,” in PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature , vol. 3, n. 3, pp. 455–492. 1984 “On the Semiosphere.” Today in Sign Systems Studies vol. 33, n. 1, 2005. 1993 Kul’tura i vzryv, Moskva: Gnosis (Eng. trans. Culture and Explosion , Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2009). 1998 “La caccia alle streghe. Semiotica della paura,” in E/C , online journal of Italian Association of Semiotic Studies (www.ec-aiss.it ). Lotman, J. and Uspenskij, B. 1969 “O metajazyke tipologič eskich opisanij Kul’tury,” in Trudy po znakovym sistemam , Tartu (Eng. trans. “On the Metalanguage of a Typological Description of Culture,” in Mark Gottdiener, Karin Boklund-Lagopoulou, and Alexandros Ph. Lagopoulos (eds.), Semiotics , vol. 3, London: Sage Publications, 2003, pp. 101–125). 1971 “O semioti č eskom mechanisme kul’tury,” in Trudy po znakovym sistemam , Tartu (Eng. trans. “On the Semiotic Mechanism of Culture,” in New Literary History , vol. 9, no. 2, Soviet Semiotics and Criticism: An Anthology (Winter 1978), pp. 211–232. 1975 Tipologie della cultura , Milano: Bompiani. 1984 The Semiotics of Russian Culture , Ann Arbor: Dept. of Slavic Languages and Literatures, University of Michigan. Lotman, J., Uspenskij, B. A., Ivanov, V. V., Toporov, V. N., and Pjatigorskij, A. M. 1973 “Theses on the Semiotic Study of Cultures (As Applied to Slavic Texts).” Today Ü lle Pä rli (ed.), Theses on the Semiotic Study of Cultures , trans. Silvi Salupere, Tartu: University of Tartu, 1998, pp. 33–60. Bibliography ● 209

MacCannell, D. 1976 The Tourist, New York: Schocken. Marrone, G. 2009 Ludovico’s Cure. On Body and Music in “A Clockwork Orange ,” Toronto: Legas Publisher. 2001 Corpi sociali , Torino: Einaudi. 2010 L’invenzione del testo, Roma; Bari: Laterza. Mazzucchelli, F. 2012 “Urbicide/Urbicidio,” in P. Giaccaria and M. Paradiso (eds.), Mediterranean Lexicon / Lessico Mediterraneo , Roma: Societ à Geografica Italiana, pp. 297–311. Forthcoming “(Post-)Urbicide. Reconstructions and Ideology in some Cities of Former Yugoslavia,” in Miranda R. Gonç alves and F. Zullo (eds.), Topographies of Reconstruction, Nottingham: CCCP. Mukarowsky, Y. 1970 Aesthetic Function, Norm and Value as Social Facts , Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Nida, E. 1975 Language Structure and Translation, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Nora, P. 1984 Les lieux de la mé moire , Paris: Seuil. N ö th, W. 2010 “The Criterion of Habit in Peirce’s Definitions of the Symbol,” in American Philosophy, vol. 46, n. 1, pp. 82–93. N ü nning, V. (ed.) 2003 “Fictions of Memory,” Journal for the Study of British Cultures , n. 10, p. 1 Ochs, E. 1992 “Indexing Gender,” in Duranti and Godwin, 1992. Ochs, E. and Capps, L. 1996 “Narrating the Self,” in Annual Review of Anthropology vol. 25, pp. 19–43. Padoan, D. 2005 Le pazze. Un incontro con le Madri di Plaza de Mayo , Milano: Bompiani. Paolucci, C. 2010 Strutturalismo e interpretazione , Milano: Bompiani. Peirce, C.S. 1867–1913 The Essential Peirce, Selected Philosophical Writings , vols. 1 and 2, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. 1931–1935 Collected Papers , Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Pezzini, I. 2008 “ Shadow Writing. W.G. Sebald’s Syncretic Discourse,” in RSSI—Recherches s é miotiques/Semiotic Inquiry , ed. Jan Isabella Pezzini and Hilde von Gelder. 2009 “Television and Terrorism in Italy: Sergio Zavoli’s La notte della repubblica,” in Imagining Terrorism: The Rhetoric and Representation of Political Violence in Italy 1969–2009, ed. Pierpaolo Antonello and Alan O’Leary, Leeds: Legenda. Pisanty, V. 1998 L’irritante questione delle camera a gas , Milano: Bompiani 210 ● Bibliography

Polletta, F. 2006 It Was Like a Fever , Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Portis-Winner, I. 1982 Semiotics of Culture: The State of the Art , Toronto Semiotic Circle. Monographs, Working Papers and Prepublications. Toronto: Victoria University. Pottier, B. 1965 “La dé finition sé mantique dans les dictionnaires,” in Travaux de linguistique et de litt é rature, vol. III, n. 3, pp. 33–40. Pozzato, M. P. 2009 “Bricolage of Urban Spaces in an Italian Church. A Semiotic Approach in Real and Virtual Cities: Intertextuality and Intermediality,” in Real and Virtual Cities. Intertextual and intermedial Mindscapes , Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic, pp. 87–111. Pozzato, M. P. and Spaziante, L. 2005 “The ‘Fallen’ of Nassiriya: A National Ritual of Mourning,” in Post Conflict Cultures , Nottingham: Nottingham University Press, pp. 150–165. Propp, V. 1928 Morfologiia skakzi , Leningrad (Eng. trans. Morphology of the Folktale , Austin: University of Texas Press, 1968). 1946 Istoricheskie korni volshebnoi skazki , Leningrad, LGU (Eng trans. “Historical Roots of the Magical Tale,” in Theory and History of Folklore , Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1984). Quine, W. V. O. 1960 Word and Object , Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Ricoeur, P. 2000 La mé moire, l’histoire, l’oublie , Paris: Seuil. Rossi-Landi, F. 1968 Il linguaggio come lavoro e come mercato, Milano: Bompiani (Eng. trans. Language as Work and Trade: Semiotic Homology for Linguistics and Economics , Westport: Praeger, 1983). 1972 Semiotica e ideologia , Milano: Bompiani. 1974 Linguistics and Economics , Berlin: Mouton, 1975. 1985 Metodica filosofica e scienza dei segni, Milano: Bompiani. Rothberg, M. 2009 Multidirectional Memory, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Salerno, D. 2010 “Protecting the Community: Security Practices in London after 7/7,” http:// sas-space.sas.ac.uk/179 . Saussure, F. de 1916 Cours de linguistique gé n é rale , Paris: Payot (Eng. trans. Course in General Linguistics , New York: Philosophical Library, 1959). Sebeok, J. U. 1960 Style in Language, Cambridge: MIT Press. 1977 “Semiotics of Culture: Great Britain and North AmericaAuthor(s),” in Annual Review of Anthropology , vol. 6, pp. 121–135. Bibliography ● 211

Sedda, F. 2008 “Reflections on Glocal. On the Basis of the Semiotic Study of Culture,” in MATRIZes. Revista do Programa de Pó s-Graduaçã o em Ciê ncias da Comunica ção da Universidade de S ão Paulo , vol. 2, n. 1 (“Perspectivas autorais nos estudos de comunica çã o III”), pp. 1–20. www.matrizes.usp.br/index.php/matrizes/article/ download/190/322 . 2010 “Le forme del mondo. Radici, storie e orizzonti politici del glocal,” in Politica 2.0. Nuove tecnologie e nuove forme di comunicazione , a cura di Montanari F., Roma, Carocci, pp. 139–158 è in corso di pubblicazione in inglese in European Glocalization in Global Context, Roland Robertson (ed.), London: Palgrave, 2013. Silverstein, M. 1985 “Language and the Culture of Gender. At the Interesection of Structure, Usage and Ideology,” in E. Mertz and R. J. Parmentier (eds.), Semiotic Mediation: Sociocultural and Psychological Perspectives, Orlando: Academic Press. 2004 “‘Cultural’ Concepts and the Language-Cultre Nexus,” in Current Anthropology , vol. 45, n. 5, pp. 621–652. Silverstein, M. and Urban. G. (eds.) 1996 Natural Histories of Discourse , Chicago: Chicago University Press. Singer, M. 1980 “Signs of the Self: An Exploration in Semiotic Anthropology Author(s),” in , New Series, vol. 82, n. 3, pp. 485–507. Somers, M. 1992 “Narrativity, Narrative Identity, and Social Action: Rethinking English Working-Class Formation,” in Social Science History, Winter. 1994 “The narrative Constitution of Identity: A Relational and Network Approach,” in Theory and Society , 23. Sontag, S. 2003 Regarding the Pain of Others , London: Picador. Todorov, T. 1995 Les abuses de la mé moire , Paris: Arlé a. Traini, S. 2013 “The Difficult Coexistence of Hjelmslev and Peirce in the Semiotics of Umberto Eco,” in Versus n.117, Milan: Bompiani. 1978 “Foucault revolutionne l’histoire,” Afterword to P- Veyne, Comment on ecrit l’histoire , Paris: Seuil. Violi, P. 1992 “Le molte enciclopedie ,” in P. Magli, G. Manetti, and P. Violi (eds.), a cura di, Semiotica: storia teoria interpretazione. Saggi intorno a Umberto Eco, Milano: Bompiani. 1997 Significato ed esperienza , Milano: Bompiani (Eng. trans. Meaning and Experience , Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001). 2009 “Images as Testimony: use of photographs in literary reconstruction of cul- tural memory”, in Daly, M. & Demaria, C., (eds), The Genres of Post-conflict Testimonies , Nottingham and Seattle, CCCP Press, Nottingham, 2009, pp. 153–180. 212 ● Bibliography

2012 “Trauma Site Museums and Politics of Memory. Tuol Sleng, Villa Grimaldi and the Bologna Ustica Museum,” in Theory Culture and Society , vol. 29, n. 1, pp. 36–75. 2014 Paesaggi della memoria , Milano: Bompiani. Volli, U. 2008 Lezioni di filosofia della comunicazione, Roma; Bari: Laterza. Voloshinov, V. 1973 Marxism and the Philosophy of Language , New York: Seminar Press. Index

abduction/abductive, 138, 143, 187, 79, 81, 86, 88, 98, 101, 103, 110, 199 120–1, 124, 129–31, 137, 139, actant/actantial, 14, 195 140, 143–5, 147, 165–6, 167, 183, aesthetics/aesthetic, 32, 46, 54, 55, 64, 183, 186, 191, 192, 194, 196 65, 103, 117, 144, 178, 189, 193, common sense, 34, 80, 102, 139, 164, 196 173, 182, 184 Alexander, Jeffrey, 183 commonplace, 38, 139 Anderson, Benedict, 105 communication/communicative, 13, Appadurai, Arjun, 6 15, 22, 31, 36, 37, 38, 51, 55, 62, archeology/archeological, 18, 19, 105, 67–74, 88, 97, 98, 104, 106, 110, 144, 149, 159, 162–8, 170, 171, 117, 118, 119, 130, 131, 133, 134, 183 143, 144, 147, 174, 189, 196, 200 archive, 19, 98, 125, 162, 164, 165, 167, comparative (approach), 3, 25, 27, 54, 191, 192 64–5 Assman, Aleida, 101 competence, 15, 16, 57, 168, 184 Assman, Jan, 101 connotation/connotative, 35, 36, 37, attestation, 50, 159, 195 38, 40, 78, 124, 130, 133, 155, auto-model, 76 187, 194 axiological/axiologization, 32, 84 content (vs signifier), 5, 10, 15, 17, 32, 34, 35, 78, 79, 82, 120–4, 127–8, Bal, Mieke, 7 131–2, 138, 140, 143, 159, 182, Barthes, Roland, 29–39, 40, 42, 43, 188, 196, 198 49, 51, 67, 102, 118, 135, 139, context/contextual, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 15, 145, 194 16, 18, 19, 26, 33, 36, 41, 45, 63, behavioural text, 85 65, 68, 71, 77, 79, 86–8, 99, 106, Benveniste, Emile, 176 120–2, 124–6, 133, 136–8, 144, Bergman, Mats, 173 151, 158, 163, 165, 168–71, 172, border, 23, 26, 45, 48, 76–9, 87, 92, 176, 196 93, 96, 136, 182, 185 contextualization, 191–2 Bourdieu, Pierre, 174–7 contingency, 162, 166 convention/conventionality/ Clifford, James, 15 conventional, 18, 22, 24, 35, code, 2, 4, 9, 18, 21–2, 24, 25, 26, 27, 81–3, 86, 96, 107, 110–12, 144, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37–43, 67, 73–4, 173, 177, 181, 198 214 ● Index corpus, 51, 54–6, 58, 64, 107, 165, enunciation/enunciative (level), 15, 16, 185–8, 199 51, 56, 60, 62, 102–4, 112, 153, correlation, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 15–17, 21, 22, 157, 164, 165, 169, 170, 181, 184, 73, 101, 120, 131, 137, 138, 140, 186, 189, 190, 191, 196 144, 159, 167, 186, 188, 190, 192 episteme, 126, 164, 166, 169, 170 critical [approach], 10, 21, 29, 37, 40, expression/expressive, 5, 10, 13, 14, 15, 42, 43, 46, 118, 162, 167, 170 26, 33–5, 70, 78, 79, 82, 119, 120, Culler, Jonathan, 195 121, 122, 124, 127, 128, 131, 133, cultural studies, 1, 7, 10, 29 140–3, 190, 193, 196, 198 cultural unit, 11, 13, 46, 119, 120–7, externalism/externalization/ 130, 137, 143, 146, 147, 148, 151, externalized, 12–13, 102, 104, 157, 158, 164 105, 135 deferral, 43–9, 195 Featherstone, Mike, 193 Demaria, Cristina, 101, 197 figurative (level), 15, 16, 52, 56, 60, Derrida, Jacques, 21, 42–9, 51, 52, 195 62, 63 Descola, Philippe, 41 filter/filtering, 92–3, 98, 102, 103, 164, diachrony/diachronical, 11, 12, 25, 42, 172 68, 74, 88, 89, 93–5, 109, 159–62 Fontanille, Jacques, 196, 199 difference/differential/differentiality, form (vs content or meaning), 10, 11, 6, 7, 11, 18, 21, 27, 31, 33, 34, 12, 13, 15, 16, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 43–5, 47, 52, 57, 91–2, 119, 120, 35, 41, 48, 49, 167, 179–80, 193 134, 135, 137, 145 formalism, 87, 160 discursive (practice, act, position, Foucault, Michel, 9, 19, 126, 161, formation…), 16, 19, 30, 35, 162–8, 169, 170, 177, 181, 182, 36, 37, 38, 64, 112, 157, 163, 183, 185, 187–90, 192 164, 166–8, 170, 175, 181, 186, Frank, Arthur W., 184 189–91, 198 frontier, 78, 83. See border distinction/distinctive, 11, 44, 45, 46, function/functional, 7, 14, 18, 22, 31, 80, 174, 176 49, 68–73, 84, 87, 90, 91, 118, Duranti, Alessandro, 4, 15, 16, 170 125, 136, 140, 141, 193, 196, 198 Fusaroli, Riccardo, 193 Eco, Umberto, 2, 3, 4, 8, 13, 19, 21, 22, 29, 32, 35, 39, 42, 46, 47, 67, Geertz, Clifford, 3, 4, 5, 15, 16, 135–9, 117– 46, 148, 149, 151, 153, 159, 145, 198 164, 165, 166, 168, 171, 173, 179, general, 9, 12, 15, 16, 24, 29, 30, 31, 195, 196, 197, 198 39, 40, 67, 69, 90, 125, 165–6, effect of reality, 63 169, 178, 181 embodied, 174, 177 global/globality, 26, 90, 106, 123, 125, encyclopedia/encyclopedic, 18, 19, 67, 166, 167, 193 121–3, 125, 126, 129, 136, 143, glocal, 26, 193 147–9, 156–8, 164, 173, 179, 190, Goodwin, Charles, 170 196, 197 grammaticalized (system, model...), entextualization, 191–2, 195 78–9, 83, 182, 183, 192 Index ● 215

Granelli, Tommaso, 193 intersemiotic, 88 Greimas, Algirdas, 49–53, 57, 62, 67, intertexuality, 26, 48, 88 109, 122, 168, 195, 196, 199 invention, 102, 105, 141–3, 147, 149 Gumperz, John J., 15 Irvine, Judith T., 32, 194 isomorphism/isomorphic, 41, 71, 75 habit/habitus, 3, 11, 12, 60, 79, 102, 103, 104, 126, 127–8, 130–1, 139, Jakobson, Roman, 4, 22–3, 67, 68, 73, 143, 146, 171–8, 179, 181, 182, 91, 133, 193, 196 184–7, 191 Halbwachs, Maurice, 101, 102 Kress, Gunther, 40, 42 Hawkes, Terence, 24, 30 Kroskrity, Paul, V., 32 heterogeneity, 11, 72–5, 86, 91, 94, 98, Kull, Kalevi, 195, 196 119, 159 Kurzweil, Edith, 40 hierarchy, 49, 71, 75, 85, 89, 91, 136, 137, 165, 166 Lakoff, George, 34 Hjelmslev, Louis, 33–6, 46, 122, 127, Landowski, Eric, 39, 50 178–82, 185, 193, 198 langue (vs. parole), 5, 165, 178–81, 198 Hobsbawm, Eric, 102 Lash, Scott, 193 Hodge, Bob, 40, 42 Latour, Bruno, 14, 193 holism/holistic, 30, 32, 87, 133, 136, Leroi-Gourhan, André, 104 137, 159, 166, 168 level, 16, 28, 30, 32, 34, 38, 39, 46, 49, homogeneity, 11, 74, 92, 95 51–3, 56–66, 71, 72, 79, 85, 91, Hutchins, Edwin, 14, 15, 16, 193 92, 95, 165, 179–83, 185, 188–9, 191, 196, 197. See layer ideology/ideological, 9, 10, 19, 29, 31, Lévi-Strauss, Claude, 18, 21, 22–8, 40, 32, 36–42, 49, 50, 58, 101, 119, 49, 52, 54, 55, 67, 75, 137, 138, 139, 144, 145, 148, 153, 169, 184, 160 194, 198 linguistic anthropology, 1, 15, 135, 170 immanence/immanent, 26, 33, 70, 71, linguistics, 1, 6, 8, 21–5, 31, 36, 40, 67, 87, 92, 100, 168 72, 94, 160, 178, 179, 187, 196, 197 indexicality, 171–2 local, 11, 12, 15, 18, 29, 31, 93, 99, 121, inference/inferential/inferentiality, 27, 122, 124–6, 129, 131, 133, 136–8, 120, 121, 135, 138, 199, 200 146, 151, 156, 157, 159, 164, 165, information, 31, 39, 68, 69, 73, 74, 87, 167, 169, 182, 191, 193–4 88, 90, 92–4, 96, 102, 104, 120, logic of sense, 49–50, 67 196 Lorusso, Anna Maria, 197 instruction/instructional, 22, 100, Lotman, Juri, 2, 5, 29, 67–115, 117, 120–1, 165 132, 135, 137, 138, 140, 159, 161, integration/integrative, 34–6, 91 165, 166, 167, 168, 171, 182, 186, intentio operis, 47, 195 192, 195, 196 interpretant, 13, 44, 104, 123, 128–31, 138, 174, 194, 195 manipulation, 57, 100, 185 interpretative anthropology, 3, 15, 135, Marxism/Marxist/Marxian, 10, 33, 137 40–2, 145, 198 216 ● Index

Mazzucchelli, Francesco, 105 organization/organized/organizational, memory, 1, 10, 11, 19, 24, 68, 74, 84, 11, 18, 24, 28–9, 33, 43, 45, 88, 89, 90, 98–105, 106, 107, 114, 48–53, 64, 67, 68–77, 89, 90, 115, 148, 159, 161, 163, 167, 176, 94–6, 119, 121, 123, 125, 136, 189, 196 139, 143, 144, 165, 181, 182 metalanguage, 45, 46, 47 model/modelling, 14, 15, 17, 23–4, 27, Padoan, Daniela, 107, 112 50, 51, 53, 54, 63, 64, 70, 75–83, palimpsest, 19, 30, 36, 144, 146, 149, 85, 86, 95, 98, 101, 102, 106, 111, 161, 184, 186, 192 112, 150, 151, 152, 159, 183, 188, Paolucci, Claudio, 193 195, 196, 199 parole (vs langue), 32, 165, 178–81, 198 modelling system, 70, 78, 192 pathemic (level), 56, 61, 64 (semantic) model, 124–5, 136, 140, Peirce, Charles S., 2, 3, 4, 8, 11, 43, 146 44, 46, 122, 123, 127–35, 138, modes of signs production, 35, 139, 139, 140, 148, 171–8, 181, 194, 142–3 197, 199 Mukarowsky, Yan, 178, 189 pertinence/pertinentization, 5, 7, 54, myth, 5, 25–9, 36–8, 41, 48, 57, 70, 64, 106, 142 83, 118, 137, 139, 160, 183, 187, Pezzini, Isabella, 39, 79 194 phonology/phonological (method), 8, 24, 193 narrative (level, model, scheme…), 15, Pisanty, Valentina, 197 16, 17, 18, 49–51, 56–8, 60, 65, pluralism, 67, 72, 95 67, 75, 183, 184, 186, 189, 195, Polletta, Francesca, 184, 185 196 Portis-Winner, Irene, 4, 5 narrativity, 50 positionality/positional, 31, 34, 145, naturalization, 41, 102, 183 168 negotiation/negotiability, 10, 14, 119, Pottier, Bernard, 122 131–5, 143, 153, 158, 168, 178, Pozzato, Maria Pia, 39 181, 192 prague (school)/prague (thesis), 5, 8, network, 14, 15, 26, 37, 39, 48, 52, 64, 23, 178, 193 87, 88, 103, 121, 126, 135, 136, process (vs. system), 2, 11, 13, 31, 33, 137, 146, 148, 149, 161, 164, 166, 34, 37, 93, 94, 98, 102, 104, 120, 168, 169, 177, 178, 186, 193, 196 127, 131, 133, 139, 140, 143, 170, Nida, Eugene, 134 178, 191, 198 Nora, Pierre, 101 Propp, Vladimir, 160 norm/normative, 18, 19, 31, 121, 144, 164, 175, 178–86, 189, 191, 192 Quine, Willard Van Orman, 133 Nöth, Wilfried, 177 Ranger, Terence, 103 oblivion, 99–100, 103, 114–15, 165, regular/regularity/regularization, 3, 11, 196 14, 18, 19, 25, 35, 43, 55, 74, 86, Ochs, Elinor, 4, 15, 16, 170 92, 96, 123, 127, 136, 143, 144, organ/organic, 18, 48, 72, 84, 87, 89, 159, 164, 165, 171–3, 175–82, 90–4 185–7, 190–2, 199 Index ● 217 relativism, 80 structuralism/structuralist, 1, 2, 4, 6, representamen, 128–30, 172, 174 8, 11, 18, 21–66, 67, 68, 71, 74, rhetoric, 39, 144, 145, 148, 153, 156–8, 86, 119, 121, 122, 137, 160, 181, 194 184, 193 Ricoeur, Paul, 5, 101 structurality, 18, 49, 68 Robertson, Roland, 193 structure/structural, 4, 11, 14, 15, 18, Rossi Landi, Ferruccio, 41, 198, 199 22–4, 28, 30, 31, 33, 40–2, 43, Rothberg, Michael, 102, 104 46, 48–50, 52, 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, rule, 22, 24, 29, 31, 32, 34, 36, 38, 49, 72, 74, 75, 91–4, 96, 97, 100–2, 70, 78, 79, 80, 81, 102, 120, 121, 137, 138, 149, 159, 161, 164, 175, 131, 140, 143, 164, 165, 171, 178, 176, 186, 188, 189, 194 179, 182, 183, 186, 190 synchrony/synchronic, 11, 25, 34, 42, 68, 74, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 101, Salerno, Daniele, 156 159– 61 Saussure, Ferdinand de, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, syntax/syntactic, 34, 51, 120, 124 23, 31, 41, 43, 44, 74, 119, 122, 127, 160, 176, 179, 181, 194, 195, Tartu (school), 3, 4, 5, 8, 12, 18, 196 196 textualist, 6, 11, 38, 42, 194 Sebeok, Thomas, 3, 4, 138, 196 textualization, 16, 191–2, 195, 196 Sedda, Franciscu, 194 textualized (system, model…), 78–9, self-description, 14, 74, 75, 76, 83, 108 83, 182, 183 sememe, 124, 125, 130 Todorov, Tzvetan, 102 semiosphere, 67, 88–98, 101, 109, 113, topological, 76, 78, 83, 106 114, 115, 138 Traini, Stefano, 122 semiotic square, 52, 53 transformation, 19, 23, 27, 121, 137, series, 9–13, 15, 22, 23, 27, 51, 71, 164, 160, 161, 163, 165, 167, 171, 176, 169, 182, 185, 186–9 178, 185, 186, 190 sign production, 119, 139, 141–4 translation/translability, 10, 13, 16, 18, sign system, 3, 5, 70, 72, 73, 118 30, 39, 44, 45, 67, 73, 74, 86, 88, signification, 31, 38, 44, 48, 51, 117, 118, 92, 93, 97, 98, 99, 101, 130, 119, 121, 130, 131, 132, 143, 174 131–5, 161, 165, 167, 168, 174, 198 signified, 31, 33, 45, 122, 127, 188. trans-linguistics, 36 See signifier typology, 75, 82, 140, 142–3 signifier, 31, 33, 34, 35, 45, 122, 127, 136, 138, 140, 141, 188. See unconscious, 24, 26, 104, 191, 198 signified universalism/universalist, 38, 49, 146, Silverstein, Michael, 14, 16, 191, 192, 159 195 Urban, Greg, 191 Singer, Milton, 3 usage, 178–81, 185 social work/social praxis, 41, 42, 199 Uspenskij, Boris, 68, 69, 71, 73, 75–81, sociosemiotics, 39, 40 84–5, 98–100 Somers, Margaret, 184 Sontag, Susan, 65 Violi, Patrizia, 102, 105, 121, 125, 171 stereotype/stereotyping, 14, 17, 35, 36, Volli, Ugo, 104 38, 69, 93, 98, 102, 104, 139, 175 Voloshinov, Valentin, 194