DOCSLIB.ORG

Polyglotism and Polychronism in Yuri Lotman / Entre Tempos E Espaços: Poliglotismo E Policronismo Em Iúri Lotman

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Polyglotism and Polychronism in Yuri Lotman / Entre Tempos E Espaços: Poliglotismo E Policronismo Em Iúri Lotman ARTICLES http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2176-457338782 Between Times and Spaces: Polyglotism and Polychronism in Yuri Lotman / Entre tempos e espaços: poliglotismo e policronismo em Iúri Lotman Anna Maria Lorusso* ABSTRACT Even if Lotman’s theory has often been presented as a semiotic theory based on categories of space, temporal categories are crucial as well. And as we can speak of polyglotism as one of the main features of culture, we should speak of polychronism as well. In each state of culture, in fact, we find many temporal codes, and the internal dialogue is not only based on codes coming from different spaces (in the normal sense of polyglotism), but also as coming from different times (in the sense of a sort of polychronism). Lotman’s reflections about this aspect of culture could be very useful in order to understand some aspects of our society, where we find a form of presentism, the temporal dimension corresponding to localism within the spatial dimension, which globalization has produced. KEYWORDS: Lotman; Semiosphere; Auto-communication; Translation; Perspectivism RESUMO Não obstante a teoria de Lotman tenha sido frequentemente apresentada como uma teoria semiótica baseada em categorias de espaço, as categorias temporais também se destacam em sua relevância. Se se pode pensar o poliglotismo como um dos principais mecanismos da cultura, também deveríamos considerar igualmente o policronismo. Na verdade, em cada momento da cultura encontramos muitos códigos temporais cujo diálogo interno não se baseia apenas em códigos provenientes de diferentes espaços (no sentido comum de poliglotismo), mas também em códigos de tempos distintos (no sentido de uma espécie de policronia). As reflexões de Lotman sobre tal mecanismo da cultura poderiam contribuir para entender alguns aspectos de nossa sociedade em que encontramos uma forma de presentismo, a dimensão temporal correspondente ao localismo dentro da dimensão especial, produzido pela globalização. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Lotman; Semiosfera; Autocomunicação; Tradução; Perspectivismo * University of Bologna - Dept. of Philosophy and Communication, Bologna, Italy; http://orcid.org/0000- 0002-2813-6511; [email protected] Bakhtiniana, São Paulo, 14 (4): 83-98, Oct./Dec. 2019. 83 All content of Bakhtiniana. Revista de Estudos do Discurso is licensed under a Creative Commons attribution-type CC-BY 4.0 BR In a society where immigration and mobility are increasingly prevalent, the experience of polyglotism is becoming more and more widespread. We live in cities where people hail from very different backgrounds, where we are surrounded by shops selling products belonging to cultures so far from our own, with the effect that we grow accustomed to names that were once exotic (Indian saris, pseudo-Palestinian keffiyeh, Chinese woks, Arabic kebabs). We listen to music that exposes us to the languages of other cultures: a Babel where polyglotism is the rule and where the semantic repertoires are rapidly changing. However, there is not only an ethnic and geographic polyglotism, linked to the different backgrounds of the members of our society. Another way to think of cultural polyglotism is to reflect upon the different temporal codes which coexist in a state of culture, thinking not only of the dialogue between languages that hail from different spaces (in the normal sense of polyglotism), but from different times (in the sense of a sort of polychronism). My goal here is to offer a brief theoretical reflection on this dimension, referring to the theory of Yuri Lotman, which gives a particular semiotic centrality to the temporal dimension.1 At the end of this contribution, we will see also some risks of this ‘polychronism’, first of all a contemporarisation of the past that risks to reduce it just to a repertoire of quotes without specificity. 1 Lotman and his Approach to Time In order to consider that special kind of polyglotism referred to here as polychronism, Lotman’s theory of culture is very useful, because many pages in his texts speak about the fact that there are different temporalities in a same single state of culture. We will refer in particular to the following essays, which present an actual theory of time in the cultural space: Part II: The Semiosphere and Part III: Cultural memory, History and Semiotics in Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic theory of Culture (LOTMAN, 1990); Chapter 3, Gradual progress; Chapter 4: Continuity and 1 For an overview of the Lotman’s theory and its relevance for a cultural semiotic approach, see Lorusso, 2015, chapter 2. 84 Bakhtiniana, São Paulo, 14 (4): 83-98, Oct./Dec. 2019. All content of Bakhtiniana. Revista de Estudos do Discurso is licensed under a Creative Commons attribution-type CC-BY 4.0 BR discontinuity; Chapter 11, The logic of explosion; Chapter 12, The moment of unpredictability; Chapter 19, Perspectives, and Chapter 20, On place of conclusions in Culture and Explosion (LOTMAN, 2009). As Remm (2010) and Gherlone (2014) have pointed out, Lotman’s theory looks more like a spatial theory of culture than a temporal one; the semiosphere is theorized as a synchronic space, in which the question of borders (a spatial dimension therefore) and that of the functional organization of an organic ecosystem are central. However, if we consider his late writings (from 1990 onwards), we can see how any spatial understanding of the cultural sphere always includes a temporal dimension. The spatiality of cultural space is not separate from its temporality, but rather analogous and interchangeable to it. The opposition of categories of space and time is introduced according to the needs of the processes of cultural (self-)description. Accordingly, the beginning and end can be seen as spatial or temporal (or spatio-temporal) categories (REMM, 2010, p.11; emphasis in original). According to Lotman, culture is made up of layers (a spatial metaphor) that develop at different speeds. Such different speeds can vary from the slowness of a tired progress to the explosiveness of a sudden and unforeseen change. The latter is defined by Lotman as an explosion. The last contributions by Lotman (published under the title, Culture and Explosion) are devoted to precisely this temporal heterogeneity. As he notes: Culture, whilst it is a complex whole, is created from elements which develop at different rates, so that any one of its synchronic sections reveals the simultaneous presence of these different stages. Explosions in some layers may be combined with gradual development in others. This, however, does not preclude the interdependence of these layers. Thus, for example, dynamic processes in the sphere of language and politics or of morals and fashion demonstrate the different rates at which these processes move. And although more rapid processes may exert an accelerating influence on those that move more slowly, and whilst the latter may appropriate for themselves the self-description of those that move more quickly and thus accelerate their own development their dynamics are not synchronic (LOTMAN, 2009, p.12). Bakhtiniana, São Paulo, 14 (4): 83-98, Oct./Dec. 2019. 85 All content of Bakhtiniana. Revista de Estudos do Discurso is licensed under a Creative Commons attribution-type CC-BY 4.0 BR The fact that there are different speeds between the different organs of a culture is not a disease of the system, according to Lotman, because, indeed, it is the friction between slow processes and accelerated movements that generates the new. “The aggression of one does not subdue but, rather, stimulates the development of the opposite tendency” (LOTMAN 2009, p.12). To evolve according to a unique rhythm that is entirely its own can mean maturing, but not profoundly changing, because truly innovative change takes place through the contact with otherness, foreignness, thus through the contact with a different process. Thus, the coexistence of time periods and different speeds is something necessary for cultural life. Just as culture needs polyglotism, in the same way it needs polychronism. Lotman’s metaphor of the museum (that precedes Culture and Explosion, but which is clearly in line with that book) is well known: he uses it in order to explain what he means by the synchronic state of a culture, how many temporal codes and temporal pasts it includes: Imagine a museum hall where exhibits from different periods are on displays, along with inscriptions in known and unknown languages, and instructions for decoding them; there are also the explanations composed by the museum staff, plans for tours and rules for the behaviour of the visitors. Imagine also tour-leaders and visitors in this hall, and imagine all this as a single mechanism (which in a certain sense it is). This is an image of the semiosphere (LOTMAN, 1990, p.127). The semiosphere, which is synonymous with culture, is a multichronic space, where any subject has different kinds of relationships, horizontal relationships (with the other texts and other languages that circulate in the historical context in which he or she is, inside and outside his or her own environment) and vertical relationships (the way texts and codes of the past have influenced the present day and model, in a way, the future). It is exactly this overall set of “horizontal” and “vertical” relationships that constitutes the specificity of each culture state; it is this network of relationships that defines that fleeting, ever-changing, reticular, mobile, widespread entity that culture is. It is necessary to keep in mind – Lotman writes just at the end of Culture and Explosion – the fact that the system has a memory of its past states and an anticipation of potential 86 Bakhtiniana, São Paulo, 14 (4): 83-98, Oct./Dec. 2019. All content of Bakhtiniana. Revista de Estudos do Discurso is licensed under a Creative Commons attribution-type CC-BY 4.0 BR “future states.” Thus, semiotic space is simultaneously multi-dimensional in both the synchronic and diachronic sense.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Semiosphere, Between Informational Modernity and Ecological Postmodernity Pierre-Louis Patoine Et Jonathan Hope
    Document généré le 28 sept. 2021 03:48 Recherches sémiotiques Semiotic Inquiry The Semiosphere, Between Informational Modernity and Ecological Postmodernity Pierre-Louis Patoine et Jonathan Hope J. M. Lotman Résumé de l'article Volume 35, numéro 1, 2015 Parmi les notions développées par Lotman, celle de sémiopshère est certainement celle qui a été la plus commentée. Dans cet article, nous URI : https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1050984ar explorons ses dimensions écologiques et biologiques, en remontant au concept DOI : https://doi.org/10.7202/1050984ar de biosphère proposé par Vernadsky et à la vision environnementale de l’art qui apparaît chez Lotman dès La Structure du texte artistique. Notre enquête Aller au sommaire du numéro expose les aspects biosémiotiques de la pensée lotmanienne, aspects qui permettent l’émergence, en son sein, d’un modèle cyclique, homéostatique de la culture, contrebalançant ainsi une vision moderniste où l’art participe à un progrès naïvement linéaire. Éditeur(s) Association canadienne de sémiotique / Canadian Semiotic Association ISSN 0229-8651 (imprimé) 1923-9920 (numérique) Découvrir la revue Citer cet article Patoine, P.-L. & Hope, J. (2015). The Semiosphere, Between Informational Modernity and Ecological Postmodernity. Recherches sémiotiques / Semiotic Inquiry, 35(1), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.7202/1050984ar Tous droits réservés © Association canadienne de sémiotique / Canadian Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d’auteur. L’utilisation des Semiotic Association, 2018 services d’Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d’utilisation que vous pouvez consulter en ligne. https://apropos.erudit.org/fr/usagers/politique-dutilisation/ Cet article est diffusé et préservé par Érudit.
    [Show full text]
  • Semiosphere As a Model of Human Cognition
    494 Aleksei Semenenko Sign Systems Studies 44(4), 2016, 494–510 Homo polyglottus: Semiosphere as a model of human cognition Aleksei Semenenko Department of Slavic and Baltic Languages Stockholm University 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] Abstract. Th e semiosphere is arguably the most infl uential concept developed by Juri Lotman, which has been reinterpreted in a variety of ways. Th is paper returns to Lotman’s original “anthropocentric” understanding of semiosphere as a collective intellect/consciousness and revisits the main arguments of Lotman’s discussion of human vs. nonhuman semiosis in order to position it in the modern context of cognitive semiotics and the question of human uniqueness in particular. In contrast to the majority of works that focus on symbolic consciousness and multimodal communication as specifi cally human traits, Lotman accentuates polyglottism and dialogicity as the unique features of human culture. Formulated in this manner, the concept of semiosphere is used as a conceptual framework for the study of human cognition as well as human cognitive evolution. Keywords: semiosphere; cognition; polyglottism; dialogue; multimodality; Juri Lotman Th e concept of semiosphere is arguably the most infl uential concept developed by the semiotician and literary scholar Juri Lotman (1922–1993), a leader of the Tartu- Moscow School of Semiotics and a founder of semiotics of culture. In a way, it was the pinnacle of Lotman’s lifelong study of culture as an intrinsic component of human individual
    [Show full text]
  • The Semiosphere, Between Informational Modernity and Ecological Postmodernity Pierre-Louis Patoine and Jonathan Hope
    Document generated on 09/29/2021 12:07 a.m. Recherches sémiotiques Semiotic Inquiry The Semiosphere, Between Informational Modernity and Ecological Postmodernity Pierre-Louis Patoine and Jonathan Hope J. M. Lotman Article abstract Volume 35, Number 1, 2015 The notion of semiosphere is certainly one of Lotman’s most discussed ideas. In this essay, we propose to investigate its ecological and biological dimensions, URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1050984ar tracing them back to Vernadsky’s concept of biosphere and to Lotman’s DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/1050984ar environmental vision of art articulated in his early work, The Structure of the Artistic Text. Our investigation reveals how the biosemiotic undercurrents in See table of contents Lotmanian thought enable the emergence of a cyclical, homeostatic model of culture that counterbalances a Modernist vision of art as a force working for unquestioned linear progress. Publisher(s) Association canadienne de sémiotique / Canadian Semiotic Association ISSN 0229-8651 (print) 1923-9920 (digital) Explore this journal Cite this article Patoine, P.-L. & Hope, J. (2015). The Semiosphere, Between Informational Modernity and Ecological Postmodernity. Recherches sémiotiques / Semiotic Inquiry, 35(1), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.7202/1050984ar Tous droits réservés © Association canadienne de sémiotique / Canadian This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit Semiotic Association, 2018 (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online. https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/ This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit. Érudit is a non-profit inter-university consortium of the Université de Montréal, Université Laval, and the Université du Québec à Montréal.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstracts 325 LINNAR PRIIMÄGI. the Border of the Semiosphere Yuri M
    Abstracts 325 LINNAR PRIIMÄGI. The border of the semiosphere Yuri M. Lotman’s idea of “semiosphere” resulted from the concept of a “collective memory” as a “model of the “culture as such””. Its genuine meaning can be unveiled by comparison with the “biosphere” of Vladimir Vernadsky, the “monads” of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, the “Ent” of Parmenides, the “transfinite number” of Georg Cantor, the fractal theory of Benoit Mandelbrot and the “morphology” of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Keywords: semiosphere, collective memory, Yuri Lotman, biosphere, Vladimir Vernadsky, monad, Leibniz, Parmenides, transfinite number, Georg Cantor, fractal, Benoit Mandelbrot, morphology, J. W. Goethe. BERK VAHER. Creating self in utopian exoticism: Abdul Mati Klarwein's “Milk N' Honey” Inspired by the recent resurgence of academic interest in exoticism, the article elaborates on some of the theoretical vindications of the phenomenon by concentrating on its aspects as the Romantic/Modernist artist’s ultimate act of creating Self through the Other. Not being content with the (largely Westernised) genuine exotic cultures, an exote creates his/her own hybrid utopian sign system where elements of various exotic cultures are blended in order to resolve the overabundance of competing identities and establish a superior, transcendent and all-inclusive identity. The artist Abdul Mati Klarwein is a complex and exciting example of this practice. His aesthetic and spiritual act of creating a utopian exotic Self in the book “Milk N’ Honey” (1973) is essentially a radical rewriting of the Old and New Testaments, including pictures from his self-designed Aleph Sanctuary chapel and texts blending black slang with Jewish humour.
    [Show full text]
  • Mediaobrazovanie), 2019, 59(2)
    Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie), 2019, 59(2) Copyright © 2019 by Academic Publishing House Researcher s.r.o. Published in the Slovak Republic Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie) Has been issued since 2005 ISSN 1994-4160 E-ISSN 1994-4195 2019, 59(2): 243-248 DOI: 10.13187/me.2019.2.243 www.ejournal53.com The Heritage of Yuri Lotman, Umberto Eco and Vladimir Propp in the Context of Media Literacy Education Alexander Fedorov a , * a Rostov State University of Economics, Russian Federation Abstract The material for this article was the works of V. Propp, Y. Lotman and U. Eco in the context of semiotic approaches and media educational opportunities. The author of the article fully agrees with U. Eco's opinion that modern society is unthinkable without (self) media education of a person, because in the near future our society will split into two – those who do without critical selection of received information in their contacts with the media, and those who are able to select and process information. At the same time, it is necessary to teach people to choose the most important and useful things, because if they do not learn to do so, access to all this information will be completely useless. Thus, the selection and processing/reasoning/analysis of media texts is the basis of media competence in the 21st century. Studying the media and virtual world requires knowledge and skills from different fields. In this context, the scientific heritage of V. Propp, Y. Lotman and U. Eco is truly inexhaustible and fits perfectly into the main spectrum of media education tasks, both at higher and secondary schools.
    [Show full text]
  • Tartu Paper Chang
    1 Is Language a Primary Modeling System?--On Jurj Lotman's Semiosphere Professor Han-liang Chang National Taiwan University Paper presented at the International Conference on Cultural Semiotics: Cultural Mechanisms, Boundaries, Identities, in observance of Jurj Lotman’s 80s Anniversary, University of Tartu Tartu, Estonia, 26 February - 2 March 2002 The well-known distinction of primary modeling system versus secondary modeling system suggested by Lotman and others (Lotman 1977) is a lasting legacy of the Ta rtu School's that has been adhered to, modified, and refuted by semioticians of culture and nature (Sebeok 1991, 1994, Sebeok and Danesi 2000).1 Adherence aside, modifications and refutations have focused on the issue whether or not language is a primary modeling system (hereinafter PMS) and, if not, what alternative can be made available to replace it. For both biosemiosis and anthroposemiosis, language can only be a secondary modeling system (hereinafter SMS) on top of the biological experience of Unwelt. As Sebeok and Danesi have recently observed: [L]anguage is, by definition, a secondary cohesive modeling system providing humans with the resources for extending primary forms ad infinitum. From a biosemiotic perspective, the language code can be defined as the cohesive system providing the modeling resources for converting what von Uexküll (1909) called 'concrete living existence' into 'active plans.' (2000: 108) Here our co-authors are reiterating Sebeok's entrenched position over the decades. He had observed in 1989, "Solely in the genus Homo have verbal signs emerged. To put it in another way, only hominids possess two mutually sustaining repertoires of signs, the zoosemiotic nonverbal, plus, superimposed, the anthroposemiotic verbal."(1991: 55).
    [Show full text]
  • Revolutions and Collective Emotions / Lótman Continua a Surpreender
    ARTIGOS http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2176-457338371 Lótman continua a surpreender: revoluções e emoções coletivas / Lotman Continues to Astonish: Revolutions and Collective Emotions Laura Gherlone* RESUMO Entre 1988 e 1993, Iúri M. Lótman formulou algumas proposições sobre “a voz da massa anônima”: uma voz coletiva que, em certas situacões ligadas a crises de caráter cultural, é portadora de paixões violentas que podem produzir interferências profundas no curso da história. Em seus últimos trabalhos, o semioticista russo postulou, diante disso, a noção de uma semiótica das emoções como objeto de estudo para entender a dinâmica cultural, em especial de períodos tidos como revolucionários ou de transição, a saber, quando a massa anônima é capaz de manipular os eventos ou quando, revendo o passado, confere aos eventos uma interpretação distorcida. Lótman focalizou, principalmente, a relação entre as grandes fraturas históricas, os mecanismos de autopropagação do medo e a criação cultural de bodes expiatórios. O presente estudo visa abordar a reflexão de Lótman sobre perseguição, com especial atenção à figura da mulher durante o fenômeno de caça às bruxas. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Iúri Lotman; Semiótica das emoções; Semiótica do medo; Comportamento social; Caça às bruxas; Bode espiatório ABSTRACT Between 1988 and 1993, Yuri Lotman composed a series of reflections on “the voice of the anonymous mass”: a collective voice that, in particular situations linked to a cultural crisis, is the bearer of striking passions, which can deeply influence history. In his late works, the Russian semiotician postulated, therefore, the idea of a semiotics of emotions as an object of study to understand the dynamics of culture, especially during periods perceived as revolutionary or transitional―namely, when the anonymous mass manipulates the events or, when looking back, gives them a distorted interpretation.
    [Show full text]
  • Vygotsky, Bakhtin, Lotman: Towards a Theory of Communication in the Horizon of the Other
    Semiotica 2016; 213: 75–90 Laura Gherlone* Vygotsky, Bakhtin, Lotman: Towards a theory of communication in the horizon of the other DOI 10.1515/sem-2015-0031 Abstract: Shortly before his death, Yuri Lotman (1922–1993), by now blind, dictated some considerations on the concept of ‘alien,’‘stranger’ (chuzhdoe): a concept that de facto weaves all of his thirty-year reflections on the relationship between language, meaning, and culture and that, until the end, appears as the mark of a speculative orientation focused on the ethics of otherness. A profound influence on Lotman’s thinking in this direction was exercised by two leading figures of the Russian intellectual tradition: the psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1896–1934) and the philosopher, critic, and literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin (1895–1975). It is no wonder the Tartu-Moscow Semiotic School dedicated to them volumes IV (1969) and VI (1973), respectively, of the Trudy po znakovym sistemam, the review on sign systems launched in 1964 by the Department of Russian Literature of the University of Tartu. The horizon of otherness, and the consequent emphasis on the relational nature of man, fill in fact as much of Vygotsky’s theoretical reflection on the human mind as does Bakhtin’son literary creation (slovesnost’). This article intends to explore the concept of “dialog” as thematized in Vygotsky’s and Bakhtin’s studies, theoretical roots of the Lotmanian idea of communication as a dialogical semiotic act. Keywords: Vygotsky, Bakhtin, Lotman, language, communication, dialogicity 1 Introduction Lotman’s attention to the idea of an “others’ world” (chuzhoi mir)1 as a cultural problem became very intense beginning in the second half of the 1980s, when he framed Vygotsky’s studies on the historical-cultural dimension of the mental processes of socialization and Bakhtin’s studies on the aesthetic-existential 1 Cf.
    [Show full text]
  • Semiotics ­ Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia Semiotics from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    11/03/2016 Semiotics ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Semiotics From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Semiotics (also called semiotic studies; not to be confused with the Saussurean tradition called semiology which is a part of semiotics) is the study of meaning­making, the study of sign processes and meaningful communication.[1] This includes the study of signs and sign processes (semiosis), indication, designation, likeness, analogy, metaphor, symbolism, signification, and communication. Semiotics is closely related to the field of linguistics, which, for its part, studies the structure and meaning of language more specifically. The semiotic tradition explores the study of signs and symbols as a significant part of communications. As different from linguistics, however, semiotics also studies non­linguistic sign systems. Semiotics is often divided into three branches: Semantics: relation between signs and the things to which they refer; their signified denotata, or meaning Syntactics: relations among or between signs in formal structures Pragmatics: relation between signs and sign­using agents or interpreters Semiotics is frequently seen as having important anthropological dimensions; for example, the late Italian novelist Umberto Eco proposed that every cultural phenomenon may be studied as communication.[2] Some semioticians focus on the logical dimensions of the science, however. They examine areas belonging also to the life sciences—such as how organisms make predictions about, and adapt to, their semiotic niche in the world (see semiosis). In general, semiotic theories take signs or sign systems as their object of study: the communication of information in living organisms is covered in biosemiotics (including zoosemiotics). Syntactics is the branch of semiotics that deals with the formal properties of signs and symbols.[3] More precisely, syntactics deals with the "rules that govern how words are combined to form phrases and sentences".
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction: an Evolutionary History of Biosemiotics
    Chapter 1 Introduction: An Evolutionary History of Biosemiotics Donald Favareau Abstract1 The present chapter is intended to provide an introductory overview to the history of biosemiotics, contextualizing that history within and against the larger currents of philosophical and scientific thinking from which it has emerged. Accordingly, to explain the origins of this most 21st century endeavour requires effectively tracing – at least to the level of a thumbnail sketch – how the “sign” con- cept appeared, was lost, and now must be painstakingly rediscovered and refined in science. In the course of recounting this history, this chapter also introduces much of the conceptual theory underlying the project of biosemiotics, and is therefore intended to serve also as a kind of primer to the readings that appear in the rest of the volume. With this purpose in mind, the chapter consists of the successive examination of: (1) the history of the sign concept in pre-modernist science, (2) the history of the sign concept in modernist science, and (3) the biosemiotic attempt to develop a more useful sign concept for contemporary science. The newcomer to biosemiotics is encouraged to read through this chapter (though lengthy and of necessity still incomplete) before proceeding to the rest of the volume. For only by doing so will the disparate selections appearing herein reveal their common unity of purpose, and only within this larger historical context can the contemporary attempt to develop a naturalistic understanding of sign relations be properly evaluated and understood. 1 Pages 1–20 of this chapter originally appeared as The Biosemiotic Turn, Part I in the journal Biosemiotics (Favareau 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • Is Language a Primary Modeling System? on Juri Lotman's Concept
    Sign Systems Studies 31.2, 2003 Is language a primary modeling system? On Juri Lotman’s concept of semiosphere Han-liang Chang National Taiwan University No. 1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt Road, Taipei, 106 Taiwan e-mail: [email protected] Abstract. Juri Lotman’s well-known distinction of primary modeling system versus secondary modeling system is a lasting legacy of his that has been adhered to, modified, and refuted by semioticians of culture and nature. Adherence aside, modifications and refutations have focused on the issue whether or not language is a primary modeling system, and, if not, what alternatives can be made available to replace it. As Sebeok would concur, for both biosemiosis and anthroposemiosis, language can only be a secondary modeling system on top of the biological experience of Umwelt or human sensory system. This paper proposes to explore the possibility of a “pre- verbal” modeling system suggested by Lotman’s spatial concept of semiosphere, and discuss its implications in cross-cultural dialogue. The well-known distinction of primary modeling system versus secon- dary modeling system suggested by Lotman and others (Lotman 1977) is a lasting legacy of the Tartu School’s that has been adhered to, modified, and refuted by semioticians of culture and nature (Sebeok 1991; 1994; Sebeok, Danesi 2000).1 Adherence aside, modifications and refutations have focused on the issue whether or not language is a primary modeling system (hereinafter PMS) and, if not, what alterna- 1 It would be inaccurate to attribute this distinction to Lotman. Sebeok (1991: 49) identifies A. A. Zaliznjak, V.
    [Show full text]
  • Remix and the Dialogic Engine of Culture: a Model for Generative Combinatoriality
    Martin Irvine Communication, Culture & Technology Program Georgetown University Remix and the Dialogic Engine of Culture: A Model for Generative Combinatoriality [Prepublication version of a chapter in to appear in The Routledge Companion to Remix Studies, ed. Eduardo Navas, et al. (New York: Routledge, 2014). This version for personal use only, not citation.] Is the cliché “everything is a remix” more than trivially true? The terms remix, appropriation, sampling, and mash-up are used so generally, in so many contexts, and at different levels of description that they don’t provide a useful vocabulary for explanation. 1 “Remix” has become a convenient metaphor for a mode of production assumed (incorrectly) to be specific to our post-postmodern era and media technologies (though with some earlier “precursors”), and usually limited to describing features of cultural artefacts as “outputs” of software processes (especially in music, video, and photography). “Remix” and related terms are used for genres and techniques of composition (collage, assemblage, music remix, appropriation), artistic practices (with a variety of self-reflexive, performative, and critical strategies), media and technology hybridization (new combinations of software functions, interfaces, and hardware implementations), and cultural processes (ongoing reinterpretation, repurposing, and global cross-cultural hybridization).2 What connects all these manifestations of remix and hybridity? It’s generally recognized that new works are created with references to other works, but the underlying generative principles for new combinations of meaning are only vaguely understood and foreign to the legal discourse for intellectual property. What else is “remix” telling us if we open up the cultural black box? First, we need to find ways to move beyond the barriers created in ordinary discourse and by social misrecognitions about meaning making in cultural genres.
    [Show full text]