DOCSLIB.ORG

Structuralism & Semiotics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Structuralism & Semiotics Structuralism & Semiotics Ferdinand de Saussure, Claude Levi-Strauss & Roland Barthes Outline Structuralism Starting Questions Context: Emergence & Transformation Basic Concepts Linguistics: F. de Saussure, Discussion Questions Narratology: Levi Strauss, Discussion Questions Examples for Practice Propp, etc. Example: “Bartleby the Scrivener” Semiotics –analysis of signs Starting Questions What is structuralism? And structural linguistics, structural anthropology? Do you agree with the basic assumptions of structuralism? Can we use structuralist narratology on “Bartleby the Scrivener”? Can you give an example where language “produces” reality? Historical Context: linguistics, anthropology, cultural semiotics 1) Ferdinand de Saussure, a Swiss linguist (1857~1913) 2) “…the French Jewish anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss fled the Nazi occupation of France in World War II, he escaped to New York City” and met Roman Jakobson (a Russian formalist). 3) Levi-Strauss – structuralist anthropologist 4) Roland Barthes -- (How to 41) Historical Context: From Structuralism to Post-Structuralism 1) (How to 45) Roland Barthes Michel Foucault (deconstruction) Derrida 2) Basic Differences between Structuralism Poststructuralism Structure singular, Multiplicity (chain of universal and/or stable differences) Language as a model Discourse Ferdinand de Saussure: Basic Concepts Language as a ‘system of signs’ rather than a naming process. A sign is composed of ‘sound- image’ and ‘concept,’ or signifier and signified. The relationship between signifier and signified is arbitrary. Language as a system of difference: “in language there are only differences without positive terms.’ meaning? Synchronic approach: with an analogy to chess game. Signification and value (How to pp. 41) System of Language Saussure: “Language is a system of inter- dependent terms in which the value of each term results solely from the simultaneous presence of others” (COURSE IN GENERAL LINGUISTICS 114) Two dimensions of language— a sign is always in paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations with other signs. Arbitrariness & Linearity 1. Sign, signified and signifier (COURSE IN GENERAL LINGUISTICS 114) Principle I: arbitrariness; e.g. onomatopeia; interjections Principle II: linear nature of the signifier; two axis—axis of simultaneities; axis of succession Chess game as an example of synchrony. “dog,” “chien” Onomatopoeia (擬聲字) & hieroglyphics e.g. Cock-a-doodle-do, cocorico & 喔喔啼; ruff & 汪汪 Language as a System of Difference A rose is a rose, because it is different from . ., and it appears in a sentence: “my love is like a red, red rose.” [ros] Carnation grass rose [doz] (p. of rise) Language as a System of Difference Subject＋Verb＋Object+ Predicate I saw a girl in red. (syntagmatic relations) am a boy relations paradigmatic a table Relation: toy boy (sound), table (noun; inanimate), Difference: Binaries girl (antinonyms) Relations & DifferenSign, Sound-Image, Concept, Value & Referent 1. Language as Organized Thought Coupled with Sound (or Concept with Sound-Image) 2. A sign’s position in a language =value 3. Linguistic value from a conceptual viewpoint * system of relations: exchange and comparison * the difference between signification (producing meanings) and value (a sign’s relation with other signs) * different languages // different conceptual frameworks 3. Linguistic value from a material viewpoint Arbitrary and differential are two correlative qualities. Letters –completely negative and differential. COURSE IN GENERAL LINGUISTICS Be awe Binaries wary scared Sign Value fear Signifier Signified Fright dread en-ed Paradigmatic Sytagmatic Synchronic Diachronic Metaphor Metonymy How to p. 72; distinction of synecdoche & metonymy De Saussure: Q & A What do you think about Saussure’s emphasis on signifier as sound-image? Is meaning construction in language completely arbitrary? How do we look at the phrase “a white horse is not a horse”白馬非馬; from Saussurean perspective? (is = “is not identical with”; “is not part of”) A White Horse is not a Horse 白馬非馬 「馬者，所以命形也；白者，所以命色也。命 色者非名形也。故曰：“白馬非馬”。」 公孫龍子 - 白馬論第二 1. [Original] White: color ≠ Horse: Shape， 2. “Horse”: large category ≠ White horse: small category 3. [Structuralist] White horse: a sign that refers to a concept of white horse, but not the real horse (referent). De Saussure sign = signifier and signified Signifier + Signified Referent [white Concept of Horse in horse] white horse real life Structuralist Narratology Levi-Strauss & Narrative Focalization Claude Levi-Strauss: Structuralist Anthropology Language as ‘at once the prototype of the cultural phenomenon and the phenomenon whereby all the forms of social life are established and perpetuated” (Structural Anthropology 358-9). Each system, that is, kinship, food, political ideology, marriage ritual, cooking, etc. constitutes a partial expression of the total culture, conceived ultimately as a single gigantic language.(Hawkes 34) Claude Levi-Strauss: Structuralist Anthropology (2) Kinship – incest taboo the importance of avuncular figures (uncles) and exchange of women; Savage Mind – bricoleur 1. The way the so-called ‘primitive’ man responds to the world around him. 2. ‘science of the concrete’: arranging the ‘minutiae’(small and often unimportant details) of the physical world in their profusion by means of a ‘logic’ foreign to us. Claude Levi-Strauss (3): Myth His approach: not to find how men think in myths, but ‘how myths think in men, unbeknown to them’ (qtd. Hawkes 41) To find the ‘unconscious’ structure of myth – basic elements as well as their combination—which underpin and formulate our total view of the world. Basic elements: mythemes ‘gross constituent units’ formed into a bundle of relations (bundle – a set of items sharing the same functional trait). “The Structural Study of Myth” Intro: 1. previous studies of myth 2. Basic question: why are myths all over the world so similar? 3. Theoretic framework: langue and parole 4. Summary of his main points and working hypothesis on myth and mythemes 5. Examples of bundles of relations – orchestra; deck of cards Example 1: Oedipus autochthony Example 2: the trickster of American mythology 1) trickster as mediator; 2) related to Freud Claude Levi-Strauss (3): Myth & Orchestra Myth always works simultaneously on two axes. .like an orchestral score “an orchestra score, to be meaningful, must be read diachronically along one axis—that is, page after page, and from left to right—and synchronically, along the other axis, all the notes written vertically making up one gross constitute unit, that is, one bundle of relations.” Myth & Orchestra Levi-Strauss Myth as Orchestra --with “melody” and “chords,” rhythm and their variations”; relations on two axes The “chords” in myths are repeated with variation 神話的和聲結構：二元對立 dualism. （Ref. 李亦園 pp. 2-3 《神話與意義》﹚ Myth & Orchestra: e.g. Oedipus Four columns –bundles; 1. overrating the blood relations; 2. underrating of blood relations; 3. monsters being slain—denial of the autochthonous origin of mankind; 4. difficulties in walking straight – autochthonous (indigenous) origin of mankind “Oedipus myth provides a kind of logical tool which relates the original problem –born from one or born from two? –to the derivative problem: born from different or born from the same? By a correlation of this type, the overrating of blood relations is to the underrating of blood relations as the attempt to escape autochthony (土著, 本地人) is to the impossibility to succeed in it” (Structural Study of Myth ) Levi-Strauss: Questions Do you agree with Levi-Strauss’ way of interpreting the Oedipus myth? Do we have other legends and myths to support his argument for a common structure for myths all over the world? Or mythemes as the basic units? Do we always think in binary terms? What can be the problems in binarism? Examples for Practice & Discussion The study of grammar used in sit com or sci-fi films, detective fiction e.g. Lucy e.g. hero in Star Trek Watson figure or the revelation of murder method vs. murderer Hermeneutic Circle “The Author is dead.” (Language writes us; we do not create meaning with language.) Role of exception – helps reveal the rule Binaries connected with social and cultural codes (How to p. 57) Structuralist narratology: Vladimir Propp Modeled after a Stence: Subject + predicate = Actant (Actor) + function 7 actors, or "spheres of action" (villain, hero, false hero, donor[provider], helper, dispatcher, princess [and her father]) and 31 functions. * An actant is not a character, but a role a character takes. Story & Discourse Story Discourse Story Plot Story Narrative fabula Sjuzet Functions: Focalization contractive (breaking/setting Free Indirect Discourse contract, alienation, reintegration ), Narrative Embedding Narrative Reliability (How to p. 62) disjunctive (departure, arrival), and performative (trial, task). Narrative Elements Kinds Narrator 1st, 2nd, 3rd person Omniscient, reliable, unreliable, internal, external, multiple Narratee Invoked, Implied reader Internal, external Narrative Function Verification, knowledge transmission, author surrogate, authority establishment, etc. Perspective Omniscient narrator: zero focalization Internal focalization (narrator as Focalization & Scope character)、external (narrator as bystander)、fixed, multiple, changing Plot Mise en abyme Double plot, multiple plot Narrative Functions 31 functions, 7 actants 3 pairs of actants, 3 syntagm Representation & Roland Barthes’
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hypertext Semiotics in the Commercialized Internet
    Hypertext Semiotics in the Commercialized Internet Moritz Neumüller Wien, Oktober 2001 DOKTORAT DER SOZIAL- UND WIRTSCHAFTSWISSENSCHAFTEN 1. Beurteiler: Univ. Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Dr. Wolfgang Panny, Institut für Informationsver- arbeitung und Informationswirtschaft der Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien, Abteilung für Angewandte Informatik. 2. Beurteiler: Univ. Prof. Dr. Herbert Hrachovec, Institut für Philosophie der Universität Wien. Betreuer: Gastprofessor Univ. Doz. Dipl.-Ing. Dr. Veith Risak Eingereicht am: Hypertext Semiotics in the Commercialized Internet Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktors der Sozial- und Wirtschaftswissenschaften an der Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien eingereicht bei 1. Beurteiler: Univ. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Panny, Institut für Informationsverarbeitung und Informationswirtschaft der Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien, Abteilung für Angewandte Informatik 2. Beurteiler: Univ. Prof. Dr. Herbert Hrachovec, Institut für Philosophie der Universität Wien Betreuer: Gastprofessor Univ. Doz. Dipl.-Ing. Dr. Veith Risak Fachgebiet: Informationswirtschaft von MMag. Moritz Neumüller Wien, im Oktober 2001 Ich versichere: 1. daß ich die Dissertation selbständig verfaßt, andere als die angegebenen Quellen und Hilfsmittel nicht benutzt und mich auch sonst keiner unerlaubten Hilfe bedient habe. 2. daß ich diese Dissertation bisher weder im In- noch im Ausland (einer Beurteilerin / einem Beurteiler zur Begutachtung) in irgendeiner Form als Prüfungsarbeit vorgelegt habe. 3. daß dieses Exemplar mit der beurteilten Arbeit überein
    [Show full text]
  • Title Peirce's General Theory of Signs Author(S)
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Kyoto University Research Information Repository Title Peirce's General Theory of Signs Author(s) Clare Thornbury Finding Meaning, Cultures Across Borders: International Citation Dialogue between Philosophy and Psychology (2011): 49-57 Issue Date 2011-03-31 URL http://hdl.handle.net/2433/143046 The copyright of papers included in this paper belongs to each Right author. Type Article Textversion publisher Kyoto University 49 Peirce's General Theory of Signs CLARE THORNBURY Institute of Education, University of London Charles. S Peirce was one ofthe founders ofPragmatism, alongside William James and John Dewey. This paper looks at Peirce's later work on his theory of signs, or semiotic. Peirce's semiotic is a broad one, including as signs things that other semioticians may reject. Peirce's semiotic includes a key division ofsigns into the three categories ofIcon, Index and Symbol. This trichotomy and the breadth ofPeirce's semiotic makes it well suited to, for example, a semiology of cinema. The basic structure ofthe sign in Peirce is also triadic, being a relation between sign-object-interpretant, and this brings us to a further appreciation of the sign as sign-action: a move from semiotic to semiosis. Peirce's approach to the philosophy of language goes beyond language to a theory of signs in general, and this 'semiotic' is deeply embedded within his broader systematic philosophical works. To understand it therefore, it is helpful to do two things: 1) to understand the breadth of Peirce's semiotic and 2) to differentiate it from other philosophical theories in the field.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Ii Review of Related Literature
    CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE This chapter covers the discussion of general theory of semiotics, general concept of Roland Barthes’ terms orders of signification that are denotative and connotative meaning and the definition of context and song lyrics in literature and also the preview of the previous studies. A. Definition of Semiotics Beyond the most basic definition as ―the study of signs‖, there is considerable variation among leading semioticians as to what semiotics involves. As Chandler (2002) cited from Eco (1976) that one of the broadest definitions is that of Umberto Eco, who states that ―semiotics is concerned with everything that can be taken as a sign‖. The study is involved by semiotics, not only as ―sign‖ of what we refer to call or say in daily speech, but as anything which ―stands for‖ something else. In the sense of semiotic, the form of words, images, sounds, gestures and objects are taken by the signs. Modern semioticians study the signs not in isolation but as part of ―sign-systems‖ of semiotics (such as a genre or medium or). They study how to make meanings and how to represent the reality. Knowledge to study human life’s sign is called Semiotics. It is acquiescent as the method of the study in the Association for Semiotics Studies’ first conference in 1974. A sign is something which means something else for someone. On the side of etymology, the Greek word 14 15 ―semeion” was taken to make the word of ―Semiotics‖ itself which has a ―sign‖ meaning. A sign thereat means a thing referring other thing.
    [Show full text]
  • Invitation to Peirce's Theory
    372 Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen Sign Systems Studies 43(4), 2015, 372–398 Signs systematically studied: Invitation to Peirce’s theory Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen Chair of Philosophy, Tallinn University of Technology Akadeemia tee 3, 12618 Tallinn, Estonia e-mail: [email protected] Abstract. Th is introductory presentation reviews noteworthy topics and concepts in Peirce’s interrelated kingdoms of the theory of signs, their classifi cation, categories, logic and semeiotic. Keywords: Charles Peirce, categories, signs, classifi cation, logic, semeiotic CHARLES SANTIAGO SANDERS PEIRCE (c.1839), son of the mathematician Benjamin P., brought up in a circle of physicists and naturalists, and specially educated as a chemist, derived his fi rst introduction to philosophy from the K.d.R.V. [Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, 1781] and other celebrated German works, and only later made acquaintance with English, Greek, and Scholastic philosophy. Accepting unreservedly Kant’s opinion that the meta- physical conceptions are merely the logical conceptions diff erently applied, he inferred that logic ought to be studied in the spirit of the exact sciences, and regarded Kant’s table of functions of judgment as culpably superfi cial. (MS L 107: 1, 26 October 1904, Auto-Biography for Matthew Mattoon Curtis, Draft C, marked “fi nal” by Peirce.) Th us begins Peirce’s sketch of his autobiography, which was never published in his life time.1 Peirce’s theory of signs is a colossal theory of representation, reasoning, meaning, communication and signifi cation, never made available in print in full.2 1 For partial publications of Peirce’s autobiography in MS L 107, see Ketner 1983 and Stuhr 1987.
    [Show full text]
  • The Object of Signs in Charles S. Peirce's Semiotic Theory
    University of Rhode Island DigitalCommons@URI Open Access Master's Theses 1977 The Object of Signs in Charles S. Peirce's Semiotic Theory William W. West University of Rhode Island Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/theses Recommended Citation West, William W., "The Object of Signs in Charles S. Peirce's Semiotic Theory" (1977). Open Access Master's Theses. Paper 1559. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/theses/1559 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for inclusion in Open Access Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE OBJECT OF SIGNS IN CHARLESS. PEIRCE'S SEMIOTIC THEORY OF WILLIAMW. WEST THESIS SUBMITTEDIN PARTIAL FULFILLMENTOF THE REQUIREMENTSFOR THE DEGREEOF MASTEROF ARTS IN PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITYOF RHODEISLAND 1977 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page . I INTRODUCTION. • • • • • • • • • • • • . .. • • • 1 Chapter I THE CATEGORIES• . .. •· .... 4 II SIGNS EXPLAINED 8 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • The First Trichotomy: The Sign Itself . ~ • • 15 Qualisign • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • 15 Sinsign • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 16 Legisign. • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • 17 The Second Trichotomy: The Sign-Object Relation ••••• . • ....... • • 18 Icon. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 19 Index • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 24 Symbol • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 28 The Third Trichotomy: Ho~ the Interpretant Represents th~ Object • • • • • • • • •
    [Show full text]
  • Georg Nees Geometry and the Cognitive Principle in Semiotics And
    Georg Nees Geometry and the Cognitive Principle in Semiotics and Esthetics Dedicated to Dietrich Mahlow on the occasion of his75th birthday 1 lntroduction Preliminary considerations to follow give some introduction to the other chapters of this paper, where specific remarks and references to Iiterature will also be found. One encounters geometric objects everywhere. Plane or solid forms can be discovered in plants and animals, in pieces of art, machines and designs. The geometric domain not only comprises simple forms like circle and triangle, but complicated surfaces and bodies as weil. Recently, the fractals have joined the great family of geometric patterns, irregular elements, which become evident in the ramifications of lightnings and rivers, likewise in the contour of mountains or even the bark of trees. Nowadays, of course, the majority of geometric forms will reach the beholder from the screens of television sets or computers. When drawing geometric figures and diagrams, one creates visible and manipulatable signs which refer to those ideal geometric objects which are subjected to the rules of mathematics, logic and calculus. Now, rule-conducted discussion of sig,ns is the concern of the science of semiotics. However, any earnest investigation of geometric signs must transcend even semiotics, because geometry, computation, finally semiotics itself are in numerous ways linked to the grand realm of the esthetic state. This will be fully perceived by anyone who has endeavoured to relate mentally e.g. the abstract circle to artfully constructed wheels and their dynamic laws, or simply to the graceful affinity of the sunflower to the sun. Though as soon as we take the side of computation and logical deduction, we have joined already a methodology which Leibniz preconceived as his 'characteristica universalis' which is, however, now generally known as 'cog-nitive'.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Umwelten in a Changing World
    Tartu Semiotics Library 18 Tartu Tartu Semiotics Library 18 Animal umwelten in a changing world: Zoosemiotic perspectives represents a clear and concise review of zoosemiotics, present- ing theories, models and methods, and providing interesting examples of human–animal interactions. The reader is invited to explore the umwelten of animals in a successful attempt to retrieve the relationship of people with animals: a cornerstone of the past common evolutionary processes. The twelve chapters, which cover recent developments in zoosemiotics and much more, inspire the reader to think about the human condition and about ways to recover our lost contact with the animal world. Written in a clear, concise style, this collection of articles creates a wonderful bridge between Timo Maran, Morten Tønnessen, human and animal worlds. It represents a holistic approach Kristin Armstrong Oma, rich with suggestions for how to educate people to face the dynamic relationships with nature within the conceptual Laura Kiiroja, Riin Magnus, framework of the umwelt, providing stimulus and opportuni- Nelly Mäekivi, Silver Rattasepp, ties to develop new studies in zoosemiotics. Professor Almo Farina, CHANGING WORLD A IN UMWELTEN ANIMAL Paul Thibault, Kadri Tüür University of Urbino “Carlo Bo” This important book offers the first coherent gathering of perspectives on the way animals are communicating with each ANIMAL UMWELTEN other and with us as environmental change requires increasing adaptation. Produced by a young generation of zoosemiotics scholars engaged in international research programs at Tartu, IN A CHANGING this work introduces an exciting research field linking the biological sciences with the humanities. Its key premises are that all animals participate in a dynamic web of meanings WORLD: and signs in their own distinctive styles, and all animal spe- cies have distinctive cultures.
    [Show full text]
  • Handbook-Of-Semiotics.Pdf
    Page i Handbook of Semiotics Page ii Advances in Semiotics THOMAS A. SEBEOK, GENERAL EDITOR Page iii Handbook of Semiotics Winfried Nöth Indiana University Press Bloomington and Indianapolis Page iv First Paperback Edition 1995 This English­language edition is the enlarged and completely revised version of a work by Winfried Nöth originally published as Handbuch der Semiotik in 1985 by J. B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart. ©1990 by Winfried Nöth All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. The Association of American University Presses' Resolution on Permissions constitutes the only exception to this prohibition. Manufactured in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging­in­Publication Data Nöth, Winfried. [Handbuch der Semiotik. English] Handbook of semiotics / Winfried Nöth. p. cm.—(Advances in semiotics) Enlarged translation of: Handbuch der Semiotik. Bibliography: p. Includes indexes. ISBN 0­253­34120­5 1. Semiotics—handbooks, manuals, etc. 2. Communication —Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Title. II. Series. P99.N6513 1990 302.2—dc20 89­45199 ISBN 0­253­20959­5 (pbk.) CIP 4 5 6 00 99 98 Page v CONTENTS Preface ix Introduction 3 I. History and Classics of Modern Semiotics History of Semiotics 11 Peirce 39 Morris 48 Saussure 56 Hjelmslev 64 Jakobson 74 II. Sign and Meaning Sign 79 Meaning, Sense, and Reference 92 Semantics and Semiotics 103 Typology of Signs: Sign, Signal, Index 107 Symbol 115 Icon and Iconicity 121 Metaphor 128 Information 134 Page vi III.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning and Knowing As Semiosis: Extending the Conceptual Apparatus of Semiotics
    352 Cary Campbell, Alin Olteanu, Kalevi KullSign Systems Studies 47(3/4), 2019, 352–381 Learning and knowing as semiosis: Extending the conceptual apparatus of semiotics Cary Campbell1, Alin Olteanu2, Kalevi Kull3 Abstract. If all knowing comes from semiosis, more concepts should be added to the semiotic toolbox. However, semiotic concepts must be defined via other semiotic concepts. We observe an opportunity to advance the state-of-the-art in semiotics by defining concepts of cognitive processes and phenomena via semiotic terms. In particular, we focus on concepts of relevance for theory of knowledge, such as learning, knowing, affordance, scaffolding, resources, competence, me- mory, and a few others. For these, we provide preliminary definitions from a semiotic perspective, which also explicates their interrelatedness. Redefining these terms this way helps to avoid both physicalism and psychologism, showcasing the epistemological dimensions of environmental situatedness through the semiotic understanding of organisms’ fittedness with their environments. Following our review and presentation of each concept, we briefly discuss the significance of our embedded redefinitions in contributing to a semiotic theory of knowing that has relevance to both the humanities and the life sciences, while not forgetting their relevance to education and psychology, but also social semiotic and multimodality studies. Keywords: affordance; competence; scaffolding; semiotic learning; semiotic resource; theory of knowledge; memory; umwelt Cary Campbell, Alin Olteanu, Kalevi Kull The theoretical strength and useful applicability of semiotics is largely dependent on the adequacy and richness of its conceptual apparatus. The greater part of the semiotic toolbox comes from a few classic authors, with considerable enrichment and diversification occurring between the 1960s and 1980s.
    [Show full text]
  • The Set of Signs
    The Set of Signs No matter what its type, a sign's principle function is to integrate. It represents and is defined by a triadic relation, the so-called triadic function of a sign, a function that is simultaneously the expression of the sign itself. Peirce’s ideas and representations [1], which Morris [2] furthered, up to a point, and which the so-called Stuttgart School of Semiotic (Max Bense, Elisabeth Walther et al, preoccupied mainly with applications in various fields) [3] are relatively well known and highly productive. I shall attempt here an analysis from the perspective of set theory, developing new concepts such as analytic and synthetic semiotics, as well as generative (different from Bense's). Take three non-empty sets: Means (“sign as a sign” in Peirce's terms, Mittel according to Bense), Objects (Objekte) and Interpretants (Interpretanten) [4]; or the set of Repertory (Repertoire), Sphere of objects (Bereich) and Field of meanings (Bedeutung) [5]. The sign is only--and no more than--the relation of a mean (m), an object (o), and an interpreter (i); that is : S = (m, o, i) ∈ M x O x I , which can be represented graphically Figure 1. and pictorially through the Venn diagram [6] of an intersection of the mentioned sets : Figure 2. It should be noted that the three sets are not univocally determined. From another perspective, the means can be objects, from another perspective, objects; objects are possible means; interpretants are possible means or objects. All this means is that the three sets are in fact two: I and 0, that is, the object- subject relation, which imposes the need for a linking factor.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 SIGNS, INSTRUMENTS and SELF-REFERENCE in BIOSEMIOTICS Eliseo Fernández, Linda Hall Library Seventh Annual International Gathe
    SIGNS, INSTRUMENTS AND SELF-REFERENCE IN BIOSEMIOTICS Eliseo Fernández, Linda Hall Library Seventh Annual International Gatherings in Biosemiotics University of Groningen, Netherlands, June 6-9, 2007 ABSTRACT We propose to explore some problems and deficiencies in current approaches to biosemiotics and offer some tentative solutions or improvements. For these purposes we approach our field not so much as a separate discipline but rather as a program for a radical re-conceptualization and generalization of theoretical biology in light of the essential role played by semiotic and instrumental notions in biological modeling. We consider a triple approach to this task. First: we examine the historical origins and development of the traditional exclusion or lack of integration of semiotic considerations in the life sciences. In particular, we examine these issues in connection with some historical parallels in the conceptual development of physics. Second: we sketch an attempt to integrate under a single perspective three elusive conceptions which appear ubiquitously, under diverse guises, in the work of several important biosemiotic theorists. These are the notions of triadicity , self-reference and final causation . Third: we carry out an analysis of the manifold meanings of the concept of instrument (organon ): its role in scientific modeling, its special status in living systems, and its connection to the three conceptions mentioned above. Finally, we show how the conclusions reached through these three approaches converge into a perspective that suggests new ways of relating signs to instruments . This in turn suggests the possibility of expanding Peircean semiotics to include the relations of the triadic action of signs (semiosis) to the action of various dyadic mediators (i.e., different types of instruments ).
    [Show full text]
  • University of Texas at Arlington Dissertation Template
    SEMIOTICS AND NEW URBANISM IN NORTH TEXAS: COMPARING DESIGNER INTENTION AND USER PERCEPTION by CHIA-YIN WU Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Arlington in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON December 2012 Copyright © by Chia-Yin Wu 2012 All Rights Reserved ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to take this opportunity to thank the individuals who made this document possible with their constant support. I would like to thank all my family members, especially my mother Shu-Yuan Lu my father Geng-Huang Wu, and my husband Chi-Hong Cheng, for their steadfast support and encouragement for my studies at UTA. I want to extend my sincerest appreciation to my thesis committee. First of all, to my thesis committee chairman, David Hopman, whose patience, encouragement, and friendship clearly directed me throughout this process. His guidance and insight have assisted me throughout this thesis and has inspired and enriched my growth as a researcher. Thanks also goes to my thesis committee members, Dr. Taner R. Ozdil and James Richards for sharing their experience, knowledge, and passion with me. Many thanks to my other professors, who have contributed to my education: Dr. Pat D. Taylor, for giving me the opportunity to come to the University of Texas at Arlington, and also John Fain, Claude Thompson, Bo Bass, and Gary O. Robinette for sharing their knowledge about the profession of landscape architecture. Appreciation is also extended to all the respondents for their willingness to share their time and perspectives with me.
    [Show full text]