DOCSLIB.ORG

Obveznosti Pri Predmetu Uvod V Teorijo Znaka

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Obveznosti Pri Predmetu Uvod V Teorijo Znaka Seminarske eksplikacije pri predmetu Uvod v teorijo znaka, študijsko leto 2011/2012 Študent/ka za seminar izbira iz sledečih zbornikov: 1. Robert E. Innis (ur), Semiotics, an Introductory Anthology, Indiana University Press 1985. (1) V. N. Vološinov, »Verbal Interaction« – Rok Kloboves (2) Karl Bühler, »The Key Principle: the Sign-Character of Language« – Katarina Kogovšek (3) Susanne K. Langer, »Discursive and Presentational Forms« (4) Claude Levy-Strauss, »Structural Analysis in Linguistics and in Anthropology« – Miha Turk (5) Gregory Bateson, »A Theory of Play an Fantasy« – Jure Bernik (6) Roman Jakobson, »Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics« – Alja Plesec (7) Charles Morris, »Signs and the Act« – Alen Grbec (8) Roland Barthes, »Rhetoric of the Image« – Bojan Zdešar (9) Meyer Schapiro, »On Some Problems in the Semiotics of Visual Arts: Field and Vehicle in Image-Sign« (10) Émile Benveniste, »The Semiology of Language« – Alja Denša (11) Umberto Eco »The Semantics of Metaphor« – Nina Misson (12) Rene Thom, »From the Icon to the Symbol« – Nejc Oblak (13) Thomas A. Sebeok, »Zoosemiotic Components of Human Communication« 2. A. P. Martinich, The Philosophy of Language, Ney York & Oxford: Oxford University Press 1996. (14) Carl G. Hempel, »Empiricist Criteria of Cognitive Significance: Problems and Changes« (15) Alonzo Church, »Intensional Semantics« (16) Alfred Tarski, »The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics« (17) H. P. Grice, »Meaning« – Matjaž Mehle (18) Donald Davidson, »Truth and Meaning« (19) P. F. Strawson, »Meaning and Truth« (20) J. L. Austin, »Performative Utterances« – Gašper Štrukelj (21) John R. Searle, »What is a Speech Act?« – Amir Ahmetović (22) John R. Searle, »A taxonomy of Illocutory Acts« (23) H. P. Grice, »Logic and Converastion« – Sebastian Baar (24) John R. Searle, »Indirect Speech Acts« (25) P. F. Strawson, »On Referring« (26) Keith Donnellan, »Reference and Definite Description« (27) Gareth Evans, »The Causal Theory of Names« (28) Hilary Putnam, »Meaning and Reference« (»The meaning of 'meaning'«) (29) David Kaplan, »Dthat« (30) John R. Searle, »Proper Names and Intentionality« (31) W. V. Quine, »Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes« – Iza Škerlj (32) Donald Davidson, »On Saying That« (33) David Kaplan, »Quantifying In« (34) Jon Barwise and John Perry, »Semantic Innocence ans Uncompromising Situations« (35) Saul Kripke, »A Puzzle about Belief« (36) Donald Davidson, »What Metaphors Mean« (37) A. P. Marinich, »A Theory of Methaphor« (38) W. V. Quine, »Meaning« (39) Donald Davidson, »Belief and the Basis of Meaning« (40) Donald Davidson, »A Nice Derangment of Epithaphs« (41) John R. Searle, »Indeterminacy, Empiricism, and The First Person« (42) John Lock, »Of Words« (43) John Cook, »Wittgenstein on Privacy« (44) Saul Kripke, »Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language« (45) David Lewis, »Languages and Language« – Maruša Vidrih (46) Noam Chomsky, »Language and Problems of Knowledge« – Ana Ina Palmer 3. Donald Favareau, Essential Readingsin Biosemiotics, Anthology and Commentary, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London & New York: Springer 2010. (47) Jakob von Uexküll, »The Theory of Meaning« (48) Charles Morris, »Excerpts from Signs, Language and Behavior« (49) Juri Mikhajlovič Lotman, »Excerpts from Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture« (50) Thomas A. Sebeok, »Biosemiotics: Its Roots, Proliferation and Prospects« (51) Heini K.P. Hediger, »Clever Hans Phenomenon from an Animal Psychologist’s Point of View« – Tjaša Bertoncelj (52) Martin Krampen, »Phytosemiotics« – Biljana Makuljević (53) Thure von Uexküll, Werner Geigges, and Jörg Herrmann, »Endosemiosis« (54) Giorgio Prodi, »Signs and Codes in Immunology« – Brin Blatnik (55) René Thom, »From Animal to Man: Thought and Language« – Tilen Rupar (56) Myrdene Anderson, John Deely, Martin Krampen, Joseph Ransdell, Thomas A. Sebeok, and Thure von Uexküll, »A Semiotic Perspective on the Sciences: Steps Toward aNew Paradigm« (57) Kalevi Kull, »Theoretical Biology on Its Way to Biosemiotics« (58) Friedrich S. Rothschild, »Laws of Symbolic Mediation in the Dynamics of Self and Personality« – Ines Pestar (59) Marcel Florkin, »Concepts of Molecular Biosemiotics« (60) Gregory Bateson, »Form, Substance and Difference« – Nina Cvetko (61) Howard H. Pattee, »The Physics and Metaphysics of Biosemiotics« (62) Terrence Deacon, »Excerpts from The Symbolic Species« (63) Jesper Hoffmeyer, »The Semiotics of Nature: Code-Duality« (64) Claus Emmeche, João Queiroz,and Charbel El-Hani, »Information and Semiosis in Living Systems: A Semiotic Approach« (65) Anton Markoš, »Excerpts from Readers of the Book of Life« (66) Søren Brier, »The Cybersemiotic Model of Communication: An Evolutionary View on the Threshold between Semiosis andInformational Exchange« (67) Günther Witzany, »Excerpts from The Logos of the Bios« – Matej Repič (68) Marcello Barbieri, »Biosemiotics: A New Understanding of Life« – Manja Gerold 4. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Filozofske raziskave (69) »Nekaj pripomb k logični formi«, Analiza, let. 1, št. 2, str. 87-92. – Petja Gorjup (70) »Avguštinska slika« (§§ 1-27a) (71) »Kazalna definicija in analiza« (§§ 27b-64) (72) »Določitev smisla« (§§ 65-88) (73) »Filozofija« (§§ 89–133) (74) »Splošna stavčna oblika« (§§ 134-142) (75) »Pomen in razumevanje« (§§ 143–184) K Wittgensteinu obvezna sekundarna literatura iz Baker & Hacker, Wittgenstein: Understanding and Meaning, Part II: Exegesis §§ 1–184 Navedeno literaturo lahko študent/ka dobi v elektronski obliki v času predavanj in govorilnih ur. Izvleček, ki naj obsega 3-5 strani (stran s 1,5 razmika, približno 30 vrstic po 60 znakov Times New Roman) na študent/ka pošlje do torka do polnoči pred sredinim nastopom po elektronski pošti na naslov [email protected]. Pred nastopom študent/ka razdeli 1-2 strani izročka. Nastop v celoti traja 30 minut, v tem času je za vprašanja in razpravo namenjenih 5-10 minut. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What Connects Biolinguistics and Biosemiotics?
    What Connects Biolinguistics and Biosemiotics? Prisca Augustyn This paper reviews the background, fundamental questions, current issues, and goals of biolinguistics and biosemiotics. The purpose of this paper is to give a brief history of these movements, to clarify common objectives and areas of overlap, to evaluate recent articulations of their respective future agendas, and to address some aspects of focus and disciplinary prejudice that may stand in the way of productive collaboration concerning the biology of language. Keywords: biolinguistics; biosemiotics; Chomsky; Jacob; Lorenz; Peirce; Sebeok; Uexküll 1. Origins of Biolinguistics and Biosemiotics While the scholarly agendas of biolinguistics and biosemiotics may seem very different in scope, they unequivocally share a common interest in human language as a species-specific cognitive tool. They also share a philosophical core that is anchored in the concepts of Peircean abduction and Uexküllian Umwelt (cf. Augustyn 2009) on the one hand, and an interest in the building blocks of life and its underlying principles that has connected language to research in cell biology (cf. Barbieri 2010) on the other hand. Uexküll’s concept of Umwelt — the subjective species-specific world created by an organism — is central to the ethological approach to human language shared by biolinguists and biosemioticians; and both movements have interacted in different ways with molecular biology to explore the Bauplan of human language and/or the semiotic capacities of various species. Examining the ways in which these interests intersect and diverge in biolinguistics and biosemiotics is the main objective of this paper. Like Peirce, Uexküll approached nature and culture through the analysis of signs and sign processes; and his concept of Funktionskreis has been reinterpreted as a general model of semiosis.
    [Show full text]
  • Encounter with Prof. Kalevi Kull on a Biosemiotics View on Life, Cognition, Consciousness Tartu University, Oct
    Encounter with prof. Kalevi Kull on a Biosemiotics view on life, cognition, consciousness Tartu University, Oct. 9, 2015 Final edit by Kalevi Kull By Bartaku, part of Frontiers in Retreat residency at Hiap Legend: KK: Kalevi Kull - Btk: Bartaku KK So, you have shown an interest in biosemiotic approach. Just a little clarification from the outset. It is important to distinguish between semiotic approach and the gene- deterministic approach - known under the names of sociobiology or evolutionary psychology or egoistic gene approach. Why do I say that? Because the latter has introduced a certain “pseudo-intentionality”, or pseudo-teleology into the explanations of biological phenomena and organisms’ behaviour. Just an example: one of the consequences or interpretations of that Dawkinsian approach implies that cultural plants use humans in order to distribute themselves around the world. Funny, you could use it nicely in some fiction on plant consciousness. But I would say it is not serious, although it seems to be serious for some scientists. Particularly if we apply it to humans then there appear additional mistakes. The biologists of biosemiotic approach have argued quite fundamentally that the same phenomena have a much better explanation. We can point to some logical mistakes in the application of that earlier model. When speaking about communication on the level of plants — organisms that do not yet have a nervous system in a true sense — then you have to make clear what type of communication it is; what it can access and what not; what type of distinctions there are made and what cannot be done by vegetative life.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas A. Sebeok and Biology: Building Biosemiotics
    Cybernetics And Human Knowing. Vol. 10, no. 1, pp. xx-xx Thomas A. Sebeok and biology: Building biosemiotics Kalevi Kull1 Abstract: The paper attempts to review the impact of Thomas A. Sebeok (1920–2001) on biosemiotics, or semiotic biology, including both his work as a theoretician in the field and his activity in organising, publishing, and communicating. The major points of his work in the field of biosemiotics concern the establishing of zoosemiotics, interpretation and development of Jakob v. Uexküll’s and Heini Hediger’s ideas, typological and comparative study of semiotic phenomena in living organisms, evolution of semiosis, the coincidence of semiosphere and biosphere, research on the history of biosemiotics. Keywords: semiotic biology, zoosemiotics, endosemiotics, biosemiotic paradigm, semiosphere, biocommunication, theoretical biology “Culture,” so-called, is implanted in nature; the environment, or Umwelt, is a model generated by the organism. Semiosis links them. T. A. Sebeok (2001c, p. vii) When an organic body is dead, it does not carry images any more. This is a general feature that distinguishes complex forms of life from non-life. The images of the organism and of its images, however, can be carried then by other, living bodies. The images are singular categories, which means that they are individual in principle. The identity of organic images cannot be of mathematical type, because it is based on the recognition of similar forms and not on the sameness. The organic identity is, therefore, again categorical, i.e., singular. Thus, in order to understand the nature of images, we need to know what life is, we need biology — a biology that can deal with phenomena of representation, recognition, categorisation, communication, and meaning.
    [Show full text]
  • A Short History of Biosemiotics
    Biosemiotics (2009) 2:221–245 DOI 10.1007/s12304-009-9042-8 ORIGINAL PAPER A Short History of Biosemiotics Marcello Barbieri Received: 20 March 2009 /Accepted: 14 April 2009 / Published online: 6 May 2009 # Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009 Abstract Biosemiotics is the synthesis of biology and semiotics, and its main purpose is to show that semiosis is a fundamental component of life, i.e., that signs and meaning exist in all living systems. This idea started circulating in the 1960s and was proposed independently from enquires taking place at both ends of the Scala Naturae. At the molecular end it was expressed by Howard Pattee’s analysis of the genetic code, whereas at the human end it took the form of Thomas Sebeok’s investigation into the biological roots of culture. Other proposals appeared in the years that followed and gave origin to different theoretical frameworks, or different schools, of biosemiotics. They are: (1) the physical biosemiotics of Howard Pattee and its extension in Darwinian biosemiotics by Howard Pattee and by Terrence Deacon, (2) the zoosemiotics proposed by Thomas Sebeok and its extension in sign biosemiotics developed by Thomas Sebeok and by Jesper Hoffmeyer, (3) the code biosemiotics of Marcello Barbieri and (4) the hermeneutic biosemiotics of Anton Markoš. The differences that exist between the schools are a consequence of their different models of semiosis, but that is only the tip of the iceberg. In reality they go much deeper and concern the very nature of the new discipline. Is biosemiotics only a new way of looking at the known facts of biology or does it predict new facts? Does biosemiotics consist of testable hypotheses? Does it add anything to the history of life and to our understanding of evolution? These are the major issues of the young discipline, and the purpose of the present paper is to illustrate them by describing the origin and the historical development of its main schools.
    [Show full text]
  • Obveznosti Pri Predmetu Uvod V Teorijo Znaka
    Seminarske eksplikacije pri predmetu Uvod v teorijo znaka, študijsko leto 2012/2013 Študent/ka za seminar izbira iz sledečih zbornikov: 1. Robert E. Innis (ur), Semiotics, an Introductory Anthology, Indiana University Press 1985. (1) V. N. Vološinov, »Verbal Interaction« – Jošt Žagar, 15. maj 2013 (2) Karl Bühler, »The Key Principle: the Sign-Character of Language« (3) Susanne K. Langer, »Discursive and Presentational Forms« (4) Claude Levy-Strauss, »Structural Analysis in Linguistics and in Anthropology« (5) Gregory Bateson, »A Theory of Play an Fantasy« – Arijana Birsa, 22. maj 2013 (6) Roman Jakobson, »Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics« (7) Charles Morris, »Signs and the Act« (8) Roland Barthes, »Rhetoric of the Image« (9) Meyer Schapiro, »On Some Problems in the Semiotics of Visual Arts: Field and Vehicle in Image-Sign« (10) Émile Benveniste, »The Semiology of Language« (11) Umberto Eco »The Semantics of Metaphor« – Biljana Jovanović, 15. maj 2013 (12) Rene Thom, »From the Icon to the Symbol« (13) Thomas A. Sebeok, »Zoosemiotic Components of Human Communication« 2. A. P. Martinich, The Philosophy of Language, Ney York & Oxford: Oxford University Press 1996. (14) Carl G. Hempel, »Empiricist Criteria of Cognitive Significance: Problems and Changes« (15) Alonzo Church, »Intensional Semantics« (16) Alfred Tarski, »The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics« (17) H. P. Grice, »Meaning« – Zerina Škrgić, 15. maj 2013 (18) Donald Davidson, »Truth and Meaning« – Neža Drucker, 27. maj 2013 (19) P. F. Strawson, »Meaning and Truth« – Ruben Franko, 27. maj 2013 (20) J. L. Austin, »Performative Utterances« (21) John R. Searle, »What is a Speech Act?« (22) John R.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Considerations on Visual Communication and Production of Meaning in Plant Kingdom
    Lucrări Ştiinţifice – vol. 58 (2) 2015, seria Agronomie SOME CONSIDERATIONS ON VISUAL COMMUNICATION AND PRODUCTION OF MEANING IN PLANT KINGDOM Olga PÂNZARU1 e-mail: opanzaru @yahoo.com Abstract Using a semiotic approach, our research has focused on two directions: primarily, on visual communication and how meaning is produced and conveyed in visually complex messages or images coming from plants, and secondly, how do viewers construct their own meanings from this visual communication. We took photos of several vegetal scenes and then investigated the production of meanings and the significance of some visual messages/signs coming from the plants under study. Our analysis aimed to highlight the relationships between the components of the visual image, the relationships between the producers of the visual image, as well as the relationships between the components of the image and those who are viewing it. The researches in the field of Biosemiotics have demonstrated that all living organisms are systems producing “meaning” with the help of signs, signs which acquire the ability to transfer information, in other words they are communicative systems which communicate by signs, and communication can be defined as an interaction based on sign relations. The notion of image within plant kingdom is related to indexicality, as essential means of visual representation, and the global significance of the visual message, that is, the meaningful communication is constituted by interaction of indexical and plastic signs. Thus, Semiotics has facilitated a better understanding not only of the complexity of the living world, but also of the communicative force of the image, based on sign relations, within plant kingdom.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Biosemiotics?
    Biosemiotics (2008) 1:1–3 DOI 10.1007/s12304-008-9009-1 EDITORIAL What is Biosemiotics? Marcello Barbieri Published online: 13 February 2008 # Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008 The discovery of the genetic code took place between 1961 and 1966, and almost immediately inspired the idea of a deep link between biology and semiotics. The manifesto of this new synthesis was written by George and Muriel Beagle in 1966 with a single simple sentence: “The deciphering of the genetic code has revealed our possession of a language much older than hieroglyphics, a language as old as life itself, a language that is the most living language of all—even if its letters are invisible and its words are buried in the cells of our bodies” (Beadle and Beadle 1966). In 1974, Marcel Florkin coined the term ‘biosemiotics’ for the study of this molecular language, or, more precisely, for the study of semiosis (the production of signs) at the molecular level (Florkin 1974). At about the same time, a parallel development was taking place in linguistics. The idea that animals have feelings, psychologies and even minds has been entertained in various ways throughout the centuries, but for a long time is has been taken almost for granted that only man is a semiotic animal, i.e. that only man makes use of signs. That idea was explicitly challenged for the first time in 1963, when Thomas Sebeok suggested that animal communication is also based on signs, and proposed the term ‘zoosemiotics’ for the new science of animal semiosis (Sebeok 1963, 1972).
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    Semiotic Review 6: Vegetal Ontologies - article published May 2018 https://semioticreview.com/ojs/index.php/sr/article/view/40 Semiotic Thresholds, Between Arts and Biological Science: Green Technology and the Concept of Phytomining Mindaugas Gapševičius, John Tredinnick-Rowe, Juan Pablo Diaz, Lina Rukevičiūtė, Brian Degger [email protected] Abstract: This paper documents the creative process of the Between Arts and Biological Science: Green Technology and the Concept of Phytomining project. The project represents an iterative series of concepts, models, and installations about the Anthropocene which culminates in design ideas for the creation of a functional environmental remediation system. The paper is given in three parts: historical conception, small scale modelling and the creation of a working phytoremediation system. Phytoremediation systems use plants to extract, sequester, and/or detoxify pollutants; common examples include heavy metals and human waste. Such solutions tend to be mechanically simple but biologically complex. The rationale behind the creation of this system was to create an autonomous remediation process that could function without external input, such as one that would be needed if economic or environmental resources are scarce, as is common in times of political, economic or environmental crises. This project is an exploration of how biological and technological systems can be integrated using plants and algae as a test medium - primarily Taraxacum officinale and Chetomorpha algae. The work uses several theoretical post- hoc constructions to explore the nature of design in remediation systems, these being: the Anthropocene, and phytosemiotics. This paper works at the art-engineering interface as it illustrates the process of going from conceptual models to full-scale construction of a working system.
    [Show full text]
  • Signs: an Introduction to Semiotics
    An Introduction to Semiotics THOMAS A. SEBEOK Signs: An Introduction to Semiotics Second Edition UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS Toronto Buffalo London © University of Toron to Press Incorporated First Edition 1994, reprinted 1999 Second Edition 2001 Toronto Buffalo London Prin ted in Canada ISBN 0-8020-3634-1 (cloth) ISBN 0-8020-8472-9 (paper) Prin t on acid-free paper Toronto Studies in Semiotics and Communication Editors: Marcel Danesi, Umberto Eco, Paul Perron, Peter Schultz, Thomas A. Sebeok National Library of Canada Cataloguing in Publication Data Sebeok, Thomas A., 1920- Signs: an introduction to semiotics 2nd ed. (Toronto studies in semiotics and communication) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8020-3634-1 (bound) ISBN 0-8020-8472-9 (pbk.) 1. Semiotics. 2. Signs and symbols. I. Title. II. Series. P99.S38 2001 302.2 C200 1-901772-3 University of Toronto Press acknowledges the financial assistance to its pub­ lishing program of the Canada Council for the Arts and the Ontario Arts Council. University of Toronto Press acknowledges the financial support for its publish­ ing activities of the Government of Canada through the Book Publishing Industry Development Program (BPIDP). Contents Preface to the Second Edition ix Foreword: Thomas A. Sebeok and Semiotics Marcel Danesi xi 1 Basic Notions 3 The Object of Semiotics 4 Definingthe Sign 5 Structural Properties 6 Semiosis and Representation 8 Types of Signs 8 Nonverbal Communication 11 2 The Study of Signs 25 A Biological Approach to the Study of-Signs 27 Messages 31 The
    [Show full text]