DOCSLIB.ORG

Semiotic Insights Into Aristotle's Theory of Being

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Semiotic Insights Into Aristotle's Theory of Being ISSN 1392-0561. INFORMACIJOS MOKSLAI. 2012 61 Semiotic Insights into Aristotle’s Theory of Being: Definition and Model of Sign Algirdas Budrevičius Vilnius University, Faculty of Communication, Information and Communication Department, Associate Professor, Doctor Vilniaus universiteto Komunikacijos fakulteto Informacijos ir komunikacijos katedros docentas Universiteto g. 3, LT-01513 Vilnius, Lithuania Tel. (+370 5) 236 6119 E-mail: [email protected] This paper is aimed to develop a model of the sign as homomorphism (i.e. similarity of form) as the initial part of a strict and fundamental theory of sign. Many various signs—photographs, pictures, sculptures, diagrams, surface maps, etc.—might be viewed in terms of homomorphism. The proposed model of sign as a homomorphism is derived using Aristotle’s theory of being. Two principles of Aristotle’s theory—form and matter—are used as elementary ideas in the model of sign. The main peculiarity of the undertaken approach to semiotics is treating a sign and a signified object as derivative ideas; they are constructed as compounds of form and matter. To achieve more strictness, the model of sign is treated in terms of the system of Cartesian coordinates modified for the articulation of being. Intentionality is viewed as the key idea in the model of sign. The approach to the definition of sign presented in this paper can be viewed as an ontological alternative to Peirce’s one. Keywords: sign as homomorphism, Aristotle, hylomorphism, Cartesian coordinate system, ontology. 1. Introduction derstanding”. He viewed semiotics as the doctrine of signs and noted: “It is aptly Greeks used the name semeiotike to denote enough termed also logike, logic”. Its task the science of medical signs—symptoms. Philosophers—including Plato and Aris- was “to consider the nature of signs, the totle—viewed the idea of sign in a wider mind makes use of for the understanding context. Sign studies were a field of inter- of things, or conveying its knowledge to est also for the medieval and Renaissance others”. Signs are necessary “to commu- philosophers. Locke in 1690 cardinally ex- nicate our thoughts to one another, as well tended their scope. In his Essay concern- as to record them for our own use”, Locke ing human understanding, Locke divided claimed. science into three sorts—physica, practi- Locke’s semiotics took several forms ca, and semiotike—according to the “most during the last centuries. As logic, it be- general division of the objects of our un- came a flourishing domain of knowledge. 113 One of its branch—formal logic—made tools from logic. Greimas (1970), in par- a significant contribution to the informa- ticular, employed the square of opposi- tion revolution in the twentieth century. tions (the Boethian square)—a classical Charles Sanders Peirce in the beginning tool in logic. Other simple means of logic of the twentieth century changed signifi- are applied for a semiotic interpretation cantly the shape of semiotics by proposing of texts. Peirce also used ideas of logic in a philosophical account of the sign, based his classification of signs. Overall, semiot- on the universal categories of being. He ics actually still does not possess its own preserved Locke’s idea to relate semiot- unique methods. ics with logic. Ferdinand de Saussure, al- The current situation in semiotics most at the same time, proposed a different might be evaluated viewing it from at least approach to the study of signs, which he two different perspectives: as a domain of termed semiology. It became very popu- humanities and as a science. Philosophy lar among linguists, anthropologists and should be mentioned separately. Semiotics other researchers of various domains of as a philosophical study of signs has ac- humanities. The scope of semiology was cumulated many interesting ideas during limited to language and its social environ- its long history. The current state of semi- ment. Saussure’s approach differs signifi- otics, from this perspective, is similar to cantly from that of Locke and Peirce; in many other directions in philosophy. The particular, it does not include logic as its situation of semiotics as a domain of hu- ingredient part; it is related to logic only to manities, if compared with such domains the extent the language is related to logic. as linguistics, anthropology, various cul- Saussure did not use the powerful methods tural studies, might seem even a flourish- developed in logic. ing domain of knowledge. The scope of research in modern se- The evaluation of semiotics in terms of miotics ranges from the definition of its science, however, is not very optimistic. elementary ideas—including the idea of Semiotics as logic (according to Locke) to- sign—to semiotic accounts of mental, so- day is certainly a well-developed science. cial, cultural, political, and even computa- Its rest part—what is called semiotics in its tional phenomena. contemporary sense—should be analyzed In the middle of the twentieth century, in more detail. semiotics became very popular in aca- Locke placed semiotics next to phys- demic circles. The interest was provoked ics, what implied their implicit compari- mainly by the need and expectation to son as two sciences. Physics was already a find methodological tools for humanities; rather well-established science in the times earlier, Dilthey (1889) related a similar of Locke; semiotics, however, was actu- hope to hermeneutics—the theory of in- ally only a domain of philosophy. Today, terpretation. The expectations, however, the gap between physics and semiotics as mostly failed; semiotics did not become a two sciences is much wider: in fact, it is an methodology for humanities. abyss. Modern semiotics is a very young Strict and precise methods are rarely domain of knowledge. Even its name is used in semiotics. Some authors borrow not widely known beyond the academic 114 circles. Deely (2004) in the preface of his provide precise methods for the analysis of book has noted Basics of Semiotics: “The sign. Therefore, for more strictness, also image of the modern semiotic universe is the idea of the Cartesian coordinates is the same as that of astronomy in 1611”. employed. The latter is implicitly based in We should admit that semiotics, despite logic; therefore, in fact, I use the methods its long prehistory, still lacks a strict theo- of logic. I adapt the Cartesian system for retical ground similar to the one used in the articulation of being treated in terms of sciences. Only fragmentary, non-interre- Aristotle’s hylomorphism. The peculiar- lated theories exist. Semiotics still has not ity of my approach from the point of view reached the state when knowledge is being of semiotics is in viewing the basic semi- accumulated continuously to form a solid otic concepts—the sign and the signified system of facts and theories. In terms of object—as derivative ideas; traditionally, Kuhn (1962), it did not reach the state of a they are viewed as primary ideas. The two normal science. Locke’s idea—rather ex- elementary ideas from Aristotle’s theory of pectation—to view semiotics as important being—form and matter (or content)—are as physics is far from fulfilment. used as primary ideas instead. The ideas of This paper is aimed to contribute to de- the signified object and sign are derived on veloping the theory of sign. The concrete their ground. Models of other related semi- purpose is to make a little step in this direc- otic phenomena may also be derived using tion and to develop a model of the sign as this approach. a homomorphism (i.e. similarity of form) A short remark on the interpretation of as the initial part of a strict and fundamen- the classical texts analyzed in this paper tal theory of sign. should be added. Texts of Aristotle, Aqui- Many various signs—images, pho- nas, Bonaventura and some other authors tographs, pictures, sculptures, diagrams, are used here. The purpose, however, is graphical schemes, surface maps, city not the analysis and interpretation of these plans, etc.—may be viewed in terms of texts. The purpose is to propose a theory homomorphism. Therefore, developing of sign, inspired by the insights into the a model of sign as a homomorphism is classical texts; therefore, in some places an important task. Ambrosio (2010) has I purposefully deviate from their ideas. claimed that Peirce’s icon might be viewed The problem of the interpretation of clas- as a homomorphism. sical texts is considered in hermeneutics. The main object of this paper, hence, The reader’s intention might differ from is the sign as a homomorphism, or, more that of the author; interpretation, therefore, precisely, an ontologically defined sign as might also differ. a homomorphism. The paper consists of nine chapters: in- The approach of this paper aims to troduction (Chapter 1), an overview of the ground the account of sign in the theory of conceptions of sign (Chapter 2), analysis being and, in particular, to base the sign on and grounding of the approach (Chapter 3), the insights into Aristotle’s theory—hylo- derivation of the model of sign as a homo- morphism. The theory of being, however, morphism (Chapters 4—7), description of is a domain of philosophy, and it does not the relation of sign as a homomorphism to 115 Peirce’s conception of sign (Chapter 8), of signs, e.g., that of Peirce). In the lin- and conclusions (Chapter 9). guistic tradition, the concept is the signi- The text and the reference list of the fied. From the point of view of the logic paper are aimed to be compliant with the (Peirce’s tradition), the object is the signi- rules of the APA Publication Style. fied.T he meaning in the latter case is treat- ed as a separate component of the sign: the 2.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Learning/Teaching Philosophy in Sign Language As a Cultural Issue
    DOI: 10.15503/jecs20131-9-19 Journal of Education Culture and Society No. 1_2013 9 Learning/teaching philosophy in sign language as a cultural issue Maria de Fátima Sá Correia [email protected] Orquídea Coelho [email protected] António Magalhães [email protected] Andrea Benvenuto [email protected] Abstract This paper is about the process of learning/teaching philosophy in a class of deaf stu- dents. It starts with a presentation of Portuguese Sign Language that, as with other sign lan- guages, is recognized as a language on equal terms with vocal languages. However, in spite of the recognition of that identity, sign languages have specifi city related to the quadrimodal way of their production, and iconicity is an exclusive quality. Next, it will be argued that according to linguistic relativism - even in its weak version - language is a mould of thought. The idea of Philosophy is then discussed as an area of knowledge in which the author and the language of its production are always present. Finally, it is argued that learning/teaching Philosophy in Sign Language in a class of deaf students is linked to deaf culture and it is not merely a way of overcoming diffi culties with the spoken language. Key words: Bilingual education, Deaf culture, Learning-teaching Philosophy, Portuguese Sign Language. According to Portuguese law (Decreto-Lei 3/2008 de 7 de Janeiro de 2008 e Law 21 de 12 de Maio de 2008), in the “escolas de referência para a educação bilingue de alunos surdos” (EREBAS) (reference schools for bilingual education of deaf stu- dents) deaf students have to attend classes in Portuguese Sign Language.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Peirce's Semiotics and Epistemology
    DIAGRAMMATIC THINKING: NOTES ON PEIRCE’S SEMIOTICS AND EPISTEMOLOGY Luis Radford In this paper, I discuss the role of diagrammatic thinking within the larger context of cognitive activity as framed by Peirce’s semiotic theory of and its underpinning realistic ontology. After a short overview of Kant’s scepticism in its historical context, I examine Peirce’s attempt to rescue perception as a way to reconceptualize the Kantian “manifold of senses”. I argue that Peirce’s redemption of perception led him to a se- ries of problems that are as fundamental as those that Kant encountered. I contend that the understanding of the difficulties of Peirce’s epistemol- ogy allows us to better grasp the limits and possibilities of diagrammatic thinking. Keywords: Culture; Diagrammatic thinking; Kant; Peirce; Perception; Semiotics Pensamiento Diagramático: Notas sobre la Semiótica y la Epistemología de Peirce En este artículo se discute el papel que desempeña el concepto de pen- samiento diagramático en el contexto de la actividad cognitiva, tal y como es concebida dentro del marco de la teoría semiótica de Peirce y su subyacente ontología realista. Luego de presentar una visión general del escepticismo kantiano en su contexto histórico, se examina el esfuer- zo de Peirce por rescatar la percepción, esfuerzo que lo lleva a indagar de manera innovadora el “multiespacio de los sentidos” del que habla- ba Kant. Se mantiene que este esfuerzo lleva a Peirce a una serie de problemas que son tan fundamentales como los que Kant encontró en su propio itinerario epistemológico. Se sostiene que la comprensión de las dificultades intrínsecas a la epistemología de Peirce nos permite cernir mejor los límites y posibilidades de su pensamiento diagramático.
    [Show full text]
  • Semiotics As a Cognitive Science
    Elmar Holenstein Semiotics as a Cognitive Science The explanatory turn in the human sciences as well as research in "artifi- cial intelligence" have led to a little discussed revival of the classical Lockean sub-discipline of semiotics dealing with mental representations - aka "ideas" - under the heading of "cognitive science". Intelligent be- haviour is best explained by retuming to such obviously semiotic catego- ries as representation, gmbol, code, program, etc. and by investigations of the format of the mental representations. Pictorial and other "sub-linguisric" representations might be more appropriate than linguistic ones. CORRESPONDENCE: Elmar Holenstein. A-501,3-51-1 Nokendal, Kanazawa-ku Yoko- hama-shl, 236-0057, Japan. EMAIL [email protected] The intfa-semiotic cognitive tum Noam Chomsky's declaration that linguistics is a branch of psychology was understood by traditional linguists as an attack on the autonomous status of their science, a status which older structuralism endorsed by incorporating language (as a special sign system) into semiotics. Semiotics seemed to assure that genuinely linguistic relationships (grammatical and semantic relationships) were not rashly reduced to psychological or biological relationships (such as associations or adaptations). If it is looked at more closely in conjunction with the general development of the sciences in the 20th Century, the difference between Chomsky (1972: 28), who regards linguistics as a subfield of psychol- ogy, and Ferdinand de Saussure (1916: 33), for whom it is primarily a branch of "semiology", comes down to the fact that Saussure assigns linguistics in a descriptive perspective to universal semiotics, whereas Chomsky assigns it in an explanatory perspective to a special semiotics.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol. 62, No. 3; September 1984 PUTNAM's PARADOX David Lewis Introduction. Hilary Putnam Has Devised a Bomb That Threatens To
    Australasian Journal of Philosophy Vol. 62, No. 3; September 1984 PUTNAM'S PARADOX David Lewis Introduction. Hilary Putnam has devised a bomb that threatens to devastate the realist philosophy we know and love. 1 He explains how he has learned to stop worrying and love the bomb. He welcomes the new order that it would bring. (RT&H, Preface) But we who still live in the target area do not agree. The bomb must be banned. Putnam's thesis (the bomb) is that, in virtue of considerations from the theory of reference, it makes no sense to suppose that an empirically ideal theory, as verified as can be, might nevertheless be false because the world is not the way the theory says it is. The reason given is, roughly, that there is no semantic glue to stick our words onto their referents, and so reference is very much up for grabs; but there is one force constraining reference, and that is our intention to refer in such a way that we come out right; and there is no countervailing force; and the world, no matter what it is like (almost), will afford some scheme of reference that makes us come out right; so how can we fail to come out right? 2 Putnam's thesis is incredible. We are in the presence of paradox, as surely as when we meet the man who offers us a proof that there are no people, and in particular that he himself does not exist. 3 It is out of the question to follow the argument where it leads.
    [Show full text]
  • A Semiotic Framework to Understand How Signs in a Collective Design Task Convey Information: a Pilot Study of Design in an Open Crowd Context
    Avondale College ResearchOnline@Avondale Administration and Research Conference Papers Administration and Research 2013 A Semiotic Framework to Understand How Signs in a Collective Design Task Convey Information: A Pilot Study of Design in an Open Crowd Context Darin Phare University of Newcastle, [email protected] Ning Gu University of Newcastle, [email protected] Anthony Williams Avondale College of Higher Education, [email protected] Carmel Laughland University of Newcastle, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://research.avondale.edu.au/admin_conferences Part of the Architecture Commons Recommended Citation Phare, D., Gu, N., Williams, A. P., & Laughland, C. (2013). A semiotic framework to understand how signs in a collective design task convey information: A pilot study of design in an open crowd context. In M. A. Schnabel (Ed.), Cutting edge: 47th International Conference of the Architectural Science Association. Paper presented at the Architectural Science Association, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 13-16 November (pp. 473–482). Sydney, Australia: The Architectural Science Association. This Conference Proceeding is brought to you for free and open access by the Administration and Research at ResearchOnline@Avondale. It has been accepted for inclusion in Administration and Research Conference Papers by an authorized administrator of ResearchOnline@Avondale. For more information, please contact [email protected]. M. A. Schnabel (ed.), Cutting Edge: 47th International Conference of the Architectural Science Associa- tion, pp. 473–482. © 2013, The Architectural Science Association (ANZAScA), Australia A SEMIOTIC FRAMEWORK TO UNDERSTAND HOW SIGNS IN A COLLECTIVE DESIGN TASK CONVEY INFORMATION A pilot study of design in an open crowd context DARIN PHARE, NING GU, TONY WILLIAMS and CARMEL LAUGHLAND The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia [email protected], {ning.gu, tony.williams, carmel.laughlan }@newcastlee.edu.au Abstract.
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotle's Doctrine of Signs and Semiotic Reading of His
    167 ARISTOTLE’S DOCTRINE OF SIGNS AND SEMIOTIC READING OF HIS “PHYSICS” Anna MAKOLKIN1 АРИСТОТЕЛЕВСКОЕ УЧЕНИЕ О ЗНАКАХ И СЕМИОТИЧЕСКОЕ ЧТЕНИЕ ЕГО «ФИЗИКИ» Анна МАКОЛКИН Abstract. The purpose of this contribution is twofold– to introduce contemporary scholars to the forgotten Aristotle’s Doctrine of Signs and demonstrate how it can be constructively applied to the new analysis of his famed “Physics” and provide its re-interpretation. Subject to such semiotic analysis, Aristotle’s “Physics” reveals additional, previously undisclosed aspects of his teaching and novel unexpected features of this particular work, making it more meaningful for modern science at large. The strikingly new and unexpected characteristics of this treatise appear thanks to the creative application of the Nature/Culture paradigm, neglected by the modern scholars but encoded in Aristotle’s semiotic theories. The world is seen by Aristotle as an “Empire of Signs”, both natural and cultural, and man is presented as a sign-producing animal, seeking new knowledge. His overall philosophy is thus expanded in different ways thanks to the new semiotic method, offering more comprehensive analysis of Cosmos and more innovative analytical vision. Read semiotically, Aristotle’s “Physics” opens new previously undisclosed vistas of the world, as well as new aspects of human cognition. Aristotle’s challenges what future scholars would study in isolation, and solely as parts of philosophy, by proposing to treat Cosmos and man in it as an organic Whole. In contrast, Aristotle suggests to see Cosmos as an “abundance of signs” which signify phenomena, the relationship between them and their impact upon each other and human life.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Hilary Putnam, Reason, Truth and History, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979). Henceforth 'RTH'. the Position Th
    [The Journal of Philosophical Research XVII (1992): 313-345] Brains in a Vat, Subjectivity, and the Causal Theory of Reference Kirk Ludwig Department of Philosophy University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611-8545 1. Introduction In the first chapter of Reason, Truth and History,1 Putnam argued that it is not epistemically possible that we are brains in a vat (of a certain sort). If his argument is correct, and can be extended in certain ways, then it seems that we can lay to rest the traditional skeptical worry that most or all of our beliefs about the external world are false. Putnam’s argument has two parts. The first is an argument for a theory of reference2 according to which we cannot refer to an object or a type of object unless we have had a certain sort of causal interaction with it. The second part argues from this theory to the conclusion that we can know that we are not brains in a vat. In this paper I will argue that Putnam’s argument to show that we cannot be brains in a vat is unsuccessful. However, the flaw is not in the argument from the theory of reference to the conclusion 1 Hilary Putnam, Reason, Truth and History, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979). Henceforth ‘RTH’. The position that Putnam advances in this first chapter is one that in later chapters of RTH he abandons in favor of the position that he calls ‘internal realism’. He represents the arguments he gives in chapter 1 as a problem posed for the ‘external realist’, who assumes the possibility of a God’s eye point of view.
    [Show full text]
  • Building Communication Theory from Cybersemiotics
    Cybernetics and Human Knowing. Vol. 24 (2017), no. 1, pp. 9-32 Building Communication Theory From Cybersemiotics Carlos Vidales1 Since its emergence as an academic field, communication sciences have had a major problem defining what communication is, what communication is about, and what it describes in natural, human and mechanical contexts. The mechanistic view tends to see communication as natural, physical, chemical or biological phenomena and it has defined communication as a process of information exchange, while the humanistic view has proposed more restricted theories that consider communication as defined by human language and meaning production. In this second view, communication is restricted to the human scope. Moreover, communication is a concept that cannot be reduced to one definition, because it seems to explain different phenomena and to describe many things in many different fields. In this sense, despite the clear interest that both perspectives have had in communication, it is possible to identify that in fact, both explain different things. In the mechanistic view, the idea of communication is grounded in Shannon’s proposal of informational exchange between a sender and receiver (signals), a proposal that has been considered the foundation of the transmission, or informational model of communication (Craig, 1999) and that continues to dominate contemporary communication research, despite all the critiques that it has received over the years, mainly the consideration of communication as a linear process and the problem this approach has to take into account the meaning making process (Peters, 1986; Carey, 1989; Shepherd, 1993; Ritchie, 1991; Vidales, 2010, 2011). According to this view, communication has been defined as the process of sending and receiving messages or transferring information from one mind to another.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Langue' and 'Langage
    FOURNET, Arnaud. Some comparative and historical considerations about Ferdinand de Saussure's distinction between ‘langue’ and ‘langage’. ReVEL , vol. 8, n. 14, 2010. [www.revel.inf.br/eng]. SOME COMPARATIVE AND HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT FERDINAND DE SAUSSURE ’S DISTINCTION BETWEEN ‘LANGUE ’ AND ‘LANGAGE ’ Arnaud Fournet 1 [email protected] ABSTRACT : Modern French has two words: langue and langage when English has only one: language , originally a loanword from Old French. The article investigates when and how French gradually used two words to distinguish the concept of a particular language ( langue ) and that of speech ability ( langage ). This split started around 1600 and was permanently established around 1800. KEYWORDS : Language; Structuralism; de Saussure. 1. ABOUT THE ENGLISH WORD ‘LANGUAGE ’ The present article originates in my personal realization that English only has one word: language whereas French has two words: langue and langage to describe linguistic activity, behavior, competence or faculty 2, in spite of the quite obvious historical fact that the English word is a loanword from (Old) French 3. So I set about looking for the reasons why the difference exists and what particular theoretical features it may entail. English somehow misses a word and it is interesting to investigate the causes and some potential consequences of that lexical want. It is worth noting that, following the impulse of Old French, several modern Romance languages display a similar difference between langue 4 and langage 5. The word langue is the 1 PhD from Université René Descartes. 2 Depending on the theoretical preferences of authors. 3 The English word begins to be attested in the time bracket: 1250-1300.
    [Show full text]
  • Bertrand Russell's Work for Peace [To 1960]
    �rticles BERTRAND RUSSELL’S WORK FOR PEACE [TO 1960] Bertrand Russell and Edith Russell Bertrand Russell may not have been aware of it, but he wrote part of the dossier that was submitted on his behalf for the Nobel Peace Prize. Before he had turned from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament to the Committee of 100 and subsequent campaigns of the 1960s, his wife, Edith, was asked by his publisher, Sir Stanley Unwin, for an account of his work for peace. Unwin’s purpose is not known, but it is not incompatible with the next use of the document. Lady Russell responded: You have set me a task which I am especially glad to do, and I enclose a screed made up of remarks which I have extracted (the word is deliberate!) from my husband since the arrival of your letter. If there is any more information about any part of his work for peacez—zwhich has been and is, much more intensive and absorbing than this enclosure sounds as if it werez—z I should be glad to provide it if I can and if you will let me know. (7 Aug. 1960) The dictation, and her subsequent completion of the narrative (at RA1 220.024190), have not previously been published, though the “screed” was used several times. She had taken the dictation on 6 August 1960 and by next day had completed the account. Russell corrected her typescript by hand. Next we learn that Joseph Rotblat, Secretary-General of Pugwash, enclosed for her, on 2 March 1961, a copy of the “ex­ tracts” that were “sent to Norway” (RA1 625).
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Practical Communication Intervention
    University of New Mexico UNM Digital Repository Mathematics and Statistics Faculty and Staff Publications Academic Department Resources 2014 Towards a Practical Communication Intervention Florentin Smarandache Stefan Vladutescu Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/math_fsp Part of the International and Intercultural Communication Commons, Interpersonal and Small Group Communication Commons, Mathematics Commons, and the Other Communication Commons Revista de cercetare [i interven]ie social\, 2014, vol. 46, pp. 243-254 The online version of this article can be found at: Working together www.rcis.ro, www.doaj.org and www.scopus.com www.rcis.ro Towards a Practical Communication Intervention Florentin SMARANDACHE1, {tefan VL|DU}ESCU2 Abstract The study starts from evidence that several communication acts fail, but nobody is called to intervene and nobody thinks of intervening. Examining diffe- rent branches (specialties) of the communication discipline and focusing on four possible practices, by comparison, differentiation, collating and corroboration, the current study brings arguments for a branch of the communication discipline that has as unique practical aim the communicational intervention, the practical, direct and strict application of communication research. Communication, as disci- pline, must create an instrument of intervention. The discipline which studies communication globally (General Communication Science) has developed a strong component of theoretical and practical research of communication phenomena (Applied Communication Research), and within a niche theory (Grounded Prac- tical Theory – Robert T. Craig & Karen Tracy, 1995) took incidentally into account the direct, practical application of communication research. We propose Practical Communication Intervention, as speciality of communication as an academic discipline. Practical Communication Intervention must be a field specialty in the universe of communication.
    [Show full text]
  • The Semiotics of Contemporary Visual Texts: a Study in New Rhetorical Analysis
    BM ISSN 2350-8868 JThe Journal of Business and Management Volume V | Issue I | December 2018 The Semiotics of Contemporary Visual Texts: A Study in New Rhetorical Analysis Bishwo Raj Parajuli1 Abstract This paper explores the semiotics of selected typical visual texts of our time and their implicatures. Some theoretical and conceptual tools for textual interpretation with regards to textual elements exist. However, contemporary visual texts are still prospective area of study. Considering such gap, I have chosen the visual texts that we encounter in our day to day and professional life. For delimitation purposes, only three types of visual communication events have been discussed, selected brochures of academic institutions, selected printed advertisements, and selected billboard advertisements. The analytical tools are predominantly critical discourse of the various motifs, images, structures and persuasive strategies used in the texts. The basic architecture of the discussion part is based on thick descriptions of the textual contents highlighting the semiotics of each. Findings of the study focus on semiotic implications and connotations of the key rhetorical elements. The major finding of the study is most of the visual texts principally try to glorify, glamorize and even exoticize the product or service. The conclusion derived is nothing like absolute conclusion. It is just an array of possible interpretations that pave path for a new discourse like– should we take them for granted? All in all, this is a new rhetorical analysis by outlook. Keywords: New Rhetorical Analysis, Semiotics, Visual Texts, 1. Introduction us towards a menacing age of mechanization. We are Semiotics is the study of sign system in popular arts bound to destroy the role of human work force and human and other contemporary forms of communication.
    [Show full text]