Already a subscriber? - Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Browse by:



Displaying: 1-20 of 33 documents


1. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 34 > Issue: 1
Jaan Valsiner The semiotic construction of solitude: Processes of internalization and externalization
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Human beings create their private worlds of feelings and thoughts through immersion in the semiosphere created through situated activity contexts. Processes of internalization/externalization are at the center of development of human beings through the whole of their life courses. We consider the contexts of schooling as organized through Semiotic Demand Settings (SDS) for development of intrinsic motivation of the students. Intrinsic motivation is a process mechanism that operates as internalized and hyper-generalized feeling at the most central layer of internalization. It is a result of integration of social suggestions, hyper-generalized as an affective field, and turned into a value that directs future actions.
2. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 34 > Issue: 1
Jaan Valsiner Семиотическое образование одиночества: процессы интернализации и экстернализации. Резюме
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
3. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 34 > Issue: 1
Jaan Valsiner Üksilduse semiootiline kujunemine: internalisatsiooni ja eksternalisatsiooni protsessid. Kokkuvõte
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
4. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 34 > Issue: 1
João Queiroz, Floyd Merrell Semiosis and pragmatism: Toward a dynamic concept of meaning
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Philosophers and social scientists of diverse orientations have suggested that the pragmatics of semiosis is germane to a dynamic account of meaning as process. Semiosis, the central focus of C. S. Peirce’s pragmatic philosophy, may hold a key to perennial problems regarding meaning. Indeed, Peirce’s thought should be deemed seminal when placed within the cognitive sciences, especially with respect to his concept of the sign. According to Peirce’s pragmatic model, semiosis is a triadic, time-bound, context-sensitive, interpreter-dependent, materially extended dynamic process. Semiosis involves inter-relatedness and inter-action between signs, their objects, acts and events in the world, and the semiotic agents who are in the process of making and taking them.
5. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 34 > Issue: 1
João Queiroz, Floyd Merrell Семиозис и прагматизм: к динамическому понятию значения. Резюме
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
6. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 34 > Issue: 1
João Queiroz, Floyd Merrell Semioos ja pragmatism: Tähenduse dünaamilise mõiste suunas. Kokkuvõte
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
7. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 34 > Issue: 1
Andres Luure The duality of understanding and the understanding of duality in semiotics
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In the view of the author, the main problem of semiotics is the understanding and advancing of understanding. To contribute to the solution of this problem, a distinction is suggested between two types of understanding: enlogy and empathy. The subject of enlogy reduces what he understands to himself as a code: he hears only what he is himself. The subject of empathy reduces what she understands to herself as a text: she sees only what she is striving to become. Enlogy is possible due to the identity of the communicants as a present unified code. Empathy is possible due to the identity of the communicants as a future common text. Mastering the code is a by-product of empathy; the texts rests on the enlogy that already is possible. Enlogy and empathy do not pereceive each other as understanding. Therefore their mutual understanding remains the hardest problem of understanding. To fulfil its task, semiotics has to address this problem.
8. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 34 > Issue: 1
Andres Luure Дуальность понимания и понимание дуальности в семиотике. Резюме
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
9. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 34 > Issue: 1
Andres Luure Mõistmise duaalsus ja duaalsuse mõistmine semiootikas. Kokkuvõte
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
the semiotic thresholds
10. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 34 > Issue: 1
Guido Ipsen From environment to culture: Aspects of continuity
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The conceptualization of the lifeworld of any species includes a reformation of the matter found in the environment into concepts which make up the species-specific Umwelt. This paper argues that the human agency in conceptualising the Umwelt necessarily transforms what we usually call “nature” into so-called “culture”. Ultimatively, this human activity has two consequences which we cannot escape, but which have an influence not only on our perception of the environment, but also on our theorising about what has been called the “nature-culture divide”, the “semiotic threshold” respectively: First, any environmental perception is at once conceived of in cultural terms. Second, whatever “nature” may be, our including it into the cultural discourse removes it from our immediate cognition.
11. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 34 > Issue: 1
Guido Ipsen От окружающей среды до культуры: аспекты непрерывности. Резюме
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
12. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 34 > Issue: 1
Guido Ipsen Keskkonnast kultuurini: Pidevuse tahud. Kokkuvõte
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
13. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 34 > Issue: 1
Louis Armand From materiality to system
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This paper seeks to address the relation of materiality to structure and phenomena of signification or semiosis. It examines the logical consequences of several major lines of argument concerning the status of semiosis with regards to the human or broadly “organic” life-world and to the “zero degree” of base materiality — from Peirce to Lotman and Sebeok — and questions the classificatory rationale that delimits semiosis to the exclusion of a general treatment of dynamic systems. Recent investigations into neurosemiotics have provided salient arguments for the need to treat semiosis as a characteristic of systems in general, and to establish a more transverse understanding of signifiability upon the basis of what makes dynamic structures, as such, possible.
14. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 34 > Issue: 1
Louis Armand Materiaalsusest süsteemiks. Kokkuvõte
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
15. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 34 > Issue: 1
Louis Armand Из материальности в систему. Резюме
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
16. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 34 > Issue: 1
Andrew Stables From semiosis to social policy: The less trodden path
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The argument moves through three stages. In the first, the case is made for accepting ‘living is semiotic engagement’ as ‘a foundational statement for a postfoundational age’. This requires a thoroughgoing rejection of mind-body substance dualism, and a problematisation of humanism. In the second, the hazardous endeavour of applying the above perspective to social policy begins with a consideration of the sine qua non(s) underpinning such an application. These are posited as unpredictability of outcomes and blurring of the human/non-human boundary. In the third stage, the case is developed for a policy orientation that is both liberal-pragmatic (with some caveats relating to ‘liberal’) and post-humanist, and the paper concludes with some speculation concerning the precise policy outcomes of such an orientation.
17. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 34 > Issue: 1
Andrew Stables От семиозиса к социальной политике: непроторенный путь. Резюме
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
18. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 34 > Issue: 1
Andrew Stables Märgiprotsessist sotsiaalpoliitikani: vähetallatud rada. Kokkuvõte
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
19. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 34 > Issue: 1
Göran Sonesson The meaning of meaning in biology and cognitive science: A semiotic reconstruction
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The present essay aims at integrating different concepts of meaning developed in semiotics, biology, and cognitive science, in a way that permits the formulation of issues involving evolution and development. The concept of sign in semiotics, just like the notion of representation in cognitive science, have either been used too broadly, or outright rejected. My earlier work on the notions of iconicity and pictoriality has forced me to spell out the taken-forgranted meaning of the sign concept, both in the Saussurean and the Peircean tradition. My work with the evolution and development of semiotic resources such as language, gesture, and pictures has proved the need of having recourse to a more specified concept of sign. To define the sign, I take as point of departure the notion of semiotic function (by Piaget), and the notion of appresentation (by Husserl). In the first part of this essay, I compare cognitive science and semiotics, in particular as far as the parallel concepts of representation and sign are concerned. The second part is concerned with what is probably the most important attempt to integrate cognitive science and semiotics that has been presented so far, The Symbolic Species, by Terrence Deacon. I criticize Deacon’s use of notions such as iconicity, indexicality, and symbolicity. I choose to separate the sign concept from the notions of iconicity, indexicality, and symbolicity, which only in combination with the sign give rise to icons, indices, and symbols, but which, beyond that, have other, more elemental, uses in the world of perception. In the third part, I discuss some ideas about meaning in biosemiotics, which I show not to involve signs in the sense characterised earlier in the essay. Instead, they use meaning in the general sense of selection and organisation, which is a more elementary sense of meaning. Although I admit that there is a possible interpretation of Peirce, which could be taken to correspond to Uexküll’s idea of functional circle, and to meaning as function described by Emmeche and Hoffmeyer, I claim thatthis is a different sense of meaning than the one embodied in the sign concept. Finally, I suggest that more thresholds of meaning than proposed, for instanceby Kull, are necessary to accommodate the differences between meaning (in the broad sense) and sign (as specified in the Piaget–Husserl tradition).
20. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 34 > Issue: 1
Göran Sonesson Значение значения в биологии и когнитивных науках: семиотическая реконструкция. Резюме
view |  rights & permissions | cited by