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

Browse by:



Displaying: 41-60 of 1110 documents


41. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 45 > Issue: 1/2
Massimo Leone The clash of semiotic civilizations
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Why was Greimas’ theoretical proposal so divisive? Why did his disciples worship the new analytical method, while his detractors harshly rejected it? The article claims that the strength, as well as the weakness, of Greimassian semiotics consists in positing a rational way to determine the range of meanings of a text. Semiotic interpretive methods that are more aware of the diachronic dimension, such as Eco’s interpretive semiotics or Lotman’s semiotics of culture, inflect this view by anchoring the rationality of interpretation to the reasonableness of a community of interpreters that is, by definition, changing over time. The article claims that, on the one hand, Greimas’ theoretical stance is in line with the predominant ‘culture of meaning’ distilled by the Western civilization from the Greeks until the Enlightenment, stressing the value of truth as correspondence between textual evidence and its hermeneutics. On the other hand, the article also suggests that Eco’s and Lotman’s insistence on the dynamic character of hermeneutic communities entails a politics of meaning meant to preserve the core of the Western ‘semiotic civilization’ against threats that aim at deeply subverting it from both the inside or the outside of the semiosphere.Почему теоретические выводы Греймаса вызывали столько разночтений? Почему последователи Греймаса восхищались его новым аналитическим методом, а критики резко отвергали? Автор статьи считает, что и сила, и слабость греймасовской семиотики заключаются в том, что Греймас предлагает рациональный способ определения диапазона значений текста. Семиотические методы интерпретации, учитывающие диахроническое измерение, как, например, интерпретирующая семиотика Умберто Эко или семиотика культуры Юрия Лотмана, углубляют это представление, привязывая рациональность интерпретации к изменяющемуся во времени common sense сообщества интерпретаторов. По мнению автора статьи, теоретическая позиция Греймаса, с одной стороны, созвучна преобладающей ≪культуре значения≫ западной цивилизации – от греков до Просвещения, подчеркивающей ценность истины как соответствия между текстовыми доказательствами и их герменевтикой. С другой стороны, в настойчивом подчеркивании Эко и Лотманом динамического характера интерпретационных сообществ скрывается политика смысла, цель которой – сохранить ядро западной ≪семиотической цивилизации≫ от угроз как изнутри семиосферы, так и извне. Miks tekitasid Greimase teoreetilised ettepanekud selliseid lahkarvamusi? Miks kummardasid tema jungrid uut analuutilist meetodit, kuid kriitikud lukkasid selle otsustavalt korvale? Artiklis vaidetakse, et nii Greimase semiootika tugevus kui ka selle norkus seisnevad selles, et ta pakkus valja ratsionaalse meetodi, maaratlemaks teksti tahenduste ulatust. Semiootilised tolgendusmeetodid, mis on teadlikumad diakroonilisest mootmest, nagu naiteks Eco interpretatsiooniteooria voi Lotmani kultuurisemiootika, moduleerivad seda seisukohta, sidudes tolgenduse ratsionaalsuse tolgendajate kogukonna ajas muutuva moistusparasusega. Autori vaitel on Greimase teoreetiline seisukoht uhelt poolt kooskolas domineeriva “tahenduskultuuriga”, mille laanelik tsivilisatsioon on destilleerinud alates kreeklastest kuni valgustusajani, rohutades toe vaartust kui vastavust tekstipohise toendusmaterjali ja selle hermeneutika vahel. Teisalt osutatakse artiklis, et hermeneutiliste kogukondade dunaamilise iseloomu jarjekindlas rohutamises Eco ja Lotmani poolt peitub tahenduspoliitika, mille eesmargiks on kaitsta laaneliku “semiootilise tsivilisatsiooni” tuuma ohtude eest, mis uritavad seda oonestada nii semiosfaari sees kui ka valjaspool seda.
42. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 45 > Issue: 1/2
Paolo Bertetti Signs and figures: Some remarks about Greimas’ theory of the figurative
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The paper is a first attempt to analyse Greimas’ theory of the figurative from a “philological” perspective and discuss some hitherto unresolved issues. In particular, the paper will focus on four main topics: (1) the relation with Hjelmslev’s conception of the figure, showing that while Greimas’ conception of the figure is closely related to that of Hjelmslev’s – mainly in the fact that the figure is placed below the sign – it does, however, possess quite different and peculiar features; (2) the problem of the significant nature of figures, that emerges in many writings of Greimas’ and those of his followers, in which figures are not considered elements of the content that are smaller than a sign, with no autonomous meaning, but as already significant entities; (3) the problematic distinction between the thematic and the figurative; (4) the nature and limits of a semiotics of the sensible, and the (im)possibility of redefining and studying figurativity, not as given in a text, but when first grasped at the moment of perception.Данная статья является первой попыткой проанализировать теорию фигуративности Греймаса с ≪филологической≫ точки зрения и обсудить некоторые нерешенные до настоящего времени проблемы. Работа сосредоточивается на четырех главных темах: (1) связь с концепцией фигуры у Ельмслева, где автор демонстрирует, что хотя концепт фигуры у Греймаса тесно связан с ельмслевским (главным образом тем, что фигура размещается ниже знака), концепция Греймаса, тем не менее, обладает своими специфическими особенностями; (2) проблема значимой природы фигуры, которая появляется во многих работах Греймаса и его последователей, где фигуры считаются значимыми сущностями (а не элементами плана содержания, не обладающими автономным значением); (3) проблематичное различение тематического и фигуративного; (4) природа и пределы семиотики чувственного, а также возможность пересмотра и изучения фигуративности не так, как она была представлена в тексте, но как она была впервые осознана в момент восприятия.Kaesolevas artiklis tehakse esimene katse analuusida Greimase fi guratiivsusteooriat “fi loloogilisest” perspektiivist ja arutleda monede varem lahenduseta jaanud kusimuste ule. Eelkoige keskendub artikkel neljale pohipunktile: (1) suhtele Hjelmslev’ fi guuri moistega, naidates, et kuigi Greimase arusaam fi guurist on tihedasti seotud Hjelmslev’ omaga – peamiselt toiga tottu, et fi guur on margist madalama staatusega – on neil samas mitmeid olulisi erinevusi; (2) probleem fi guuride tahendusliku loomusega, mis tuleb ilmsiks mitmetes Greimase ning tema jargijate kirjutistes, kus fi guure ei peeta mitte margi autonoomse tahenduseta sisuelementideks, vaid tahenduslikeks entiteetideks; (3) temaatilise ja fi guratiivse problemaatiline eristamine; (4) meelte semiootika olemus ja piirid ning fi guratiivsuse umbedefi neerimise ja uurimise voimalikkus mitte nii, nagu seda esitletakse tekstis, vaid nii, nagu seda algselt moistetakse tajumismomendil.
43. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 45 > Issue: 1/2
Thomas F. Broden A. J. Greimas’ historical lexicology (1945–1958) and the place of the lexeme in his work
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In his first research project, Greimas developed and applied new methods in the historical lexicology of modern French. His theoretical articles formulate a sociological approach that analyses vocabulary as a history of culture, illustrated in his two dissertations on fashion in 1830. In the 1980s, from the perspective of his semiotics, Greimas dismissed his early scholarship as failed experiments that taught him what not to do. In the changed epistemological context of the 21st century, the work appears as pioneering research in cultural studies which possesses clear scholarly value. Greimas’ philological and lexicological training bore fruit directly and indirectly throughout his career. Two decades before he launched his semiotics, his project for lexicology proposes a semantic methodology, envisions the construction of an organon for the human sciences, and explicitly calls for a multi-generational collaborative enterprise. Like his structural semantics and semiotics, this lexicology entails three inseparable components: epistemological foundations, concrete methodologies, and robust applications. Moreover, a focus on the lexeme characterizes Greimas’ structural semantics and persists in his semiotics.В своей первой научно-исследовательской работе Греймас разработал и применил новые методы в исторической лексикологии современного французского языка. В его теоретических статьях сформулирован социологический подход, который анализирует лексику как историю культуры. Это иллюстрируют две диссертации Греймаса о моде в 1830 году. В 1980-х годах он отошел от своих ранних работ, считая их неудачными. Но в изменившемся эпистемологическом контексте 21-го века эти работы выглядят в культурных исследованиях новаторскими, обладающими несомненными академическими достоинствами. Филологическое и лексикологическое образование Греймаса давало прямые и косвенные результаты в течение всей его карьеры. За два десятилетия до начала семиотических исследований Греймас предлагает в своем лексикологическом проекте семантическую методологию, строительство органона для гуманитарных наук, а также призывает к междисциплинарному сотрудничеству. Как и структурная семантика и семиотика Греймаса, эта лексикология включает в себя три неразделимых компонента: эпистемологические основы, конкретные методологии и возможности применения. Кроме того, внимание к лексеме характеризует всю структурную семантику Греймаса и сохраняется в его семиотике. Oma esimeses teadusprojektis tootas Greimas valja nuudisprantsuse keele ajaloolise leksikoloogia uued meetodid ning rakendas neid. Tema teoreetilistes artiklites sonastatakse sotsioloogiline lahenemine, mis analuusib sonavara kui kultuuriajalugu ja mida illustreerivad tema kaks vaitekirja 1830ndate aastate moe kohta. 1980ndatel aastatel taandus Greimas oma varajastest uurimustest kui ebaonnestunud katsetustest. 21. sajandi muutunud epistemolooglises kontekstis osutub tema looming teedrajavaks uurimistooks kultuuriuuringute vallas. Greimase fi loloogiline ja leksikoloogiline ettevalmistus kandis kogu tema karjaari valtel vilja nii otseselt kui kaudselt. Kaks aastakummet enne seda, kui ta tuli valja oma semiootikaga, pakkus tema leksikoloogiaprojekt valja semantilise metoodika, nagi ette humanitaarteaduste organoni loomist ning kutsus otsesonu ules multidistsiplinaarsele koostoole. Nagu tema strukturaalne semantika ja semiootika sisaldab ka see leksikoloogia kolme uksteisest lahutamatut komponenti: epistemoloogilisi aluseid, konkreetseid meetodeid ja julgeid rakendusi. Lisaks iseloomustab lekseemile keskendumine Greimase strukturaalset semantikat ning jaab pusima tema semiootikas.
44. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 45 > Issue: 1/2
Dalia Satkauskytė The impossibility of immanence: A contemporary perspective on Algirdas Julius Greimas’ Maupassant
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The book Maupassant (1976), which is devoted to an analysis of Maupassant’s short story “Two friends”, is one of A. J. Greimas’ most important works. In it he tried out the semiotic tools he had developed up to that point, tested models for narrative analysis, and anticipated future perspectives in the development of semiotic theory. We discuss how the book puts forward the principle of immanent analysis, and how the “closed” text – the object of semiotic analysis – is constructed. Th e article reveals that while Greimas declares, in the book’s Foreword, that he is distancing from context – the literary sociocultural universe – within the analysis itself he is forced to recognize certain contextual elements. Greimas recognizes the importance of acknowledging contextual facts such as the French concept of patrie and does not attempt to hide certain subjective interpretive elements. Yet at the same time Greimas attempts to suppress context’s invasion of his interpretation. He recognizes the semantic isotopies generated by context to the extent to which they suit the coherence of his analysis, considering them auxiliary in terms of the syntactic and discursive structures of the text. Nevertheless, a contextual isotopy – based on intertextual ties to a Biblical parable – becomes the main one. We come to the conclusion that the principle of immanence in Maupassant is not a negation, but a problematization that demonstrates how relevant contextual material can be integrated into a semiotic analysis.Книга ≪Мопассан≫ (1976), посвященная анализу новеллы ≪Два друга≫ французского писателя XIX века, – один из главных трудов Альгирдаса Юлиуса Греймаса, в котором используются ранее созданные им инструменты семиотического анализа, проверяются и дальше создаются модели нарративного анализа, намечаются будущие перспективы развития семиотической теории. Автор статьи обсуждает, каким образом в книге постулируется принцип имманентного анализа и конструируется ≪закрытый≫ текст – объект семиотического анализа. В статье показывается, что несмотря на то, что в предисловии к работе Греймас декларировал отстранение от контекста – социолектического универсума литературы, в самом анализе Греймас вынужден принимать во внимание определенные элементы контекста, а некоторые из них интегрировать в интерпретацию новеллы. С одной стороны, Греймас признает необходимость считаться с данными контекста, такими как французское понятие родины, и не скрывает некоторых субъективных элементов интерпретации (опираясь на биографические данные, автор статьи обсуждает возможный генезис некоторых из этих элементов). С другой стороны, в то же самое время автор ≪Мопассана≫ старается совладать с ворвавшимся в интерпретацию контекстом. Генерируемые контекстом семантические изотопии он признает настолько, насколько они вписываются в когерентный анализ, и считает их вспомогательными по отношению к синтаксическим и дискурсивным текстовым структурам. Однако в кульминации анализа такая контекстуальная изотопия возвращается интертекстуальной связью с библейской параболой (притчей) и становится главной. Автор статьи делает вывод, что принцип имманентности в ≪Мопассане≫ не отрицается, но становится проблемным, показывая, как релевантные данные контекста могут быть интегрированы в семиотическую интерпретацию. Raamat “Maupassant”, mis on puhendatud 19. sajandi prantsuse kirjaniku novelli “Kaks sopra” analuusile, on uks Algirdas Julius Greimase tahtsamaid toid. Selles katsetas ta semiootilisi tooriistu, mille oli selleks ajaks valja tootanud, pani proovile narratiivianaluusi mudeleid ning jatkas nende loomist ja ennetas tulevikuperspektiive semiootikateooria arengus. Artikli autor vaatleb, kuidas selles teoses esitatakse immanentse analuusi printsiipi ja kuidas konstrueeritakse “suletud” teksti – semiootilise analuusi objekti. Artiklist ilmneb, et kui Greimas kuulutas raamatu eessonas, et ta distantseerub kontekstist – kirjanduslikust sotsiaalmajanduslikust universumist, on ta analuusis eneses sunnitud tunnistama teatavaid kontekstuaalseid elemente ning isegi loimima moningaid neist tolgendusse, mille ta loole annab. Uhest kuljest tunnistab “Maupassant’i” autor selliste kontekstuaalsete faktidega, nagu seda on naiteks Prantsuse moiste ‘patrie’, arvestamise tahtsust ega urita peita teatavaid subjektiivseid interpreteerivaid elemente (artikli autor kasutab nende voimaliku geneesi vaatlemisel biograafi list materjali). Ent samal ajal uritab Greimas alla suruda konteksti pealetungi oma tolgendusele. Konteksti loodud semantilisi isotoope tunnustab ta maaral, mil need sobivad tema analuusi sidususega, pidades neid teksti suntaktilisi ja diskursiivseid struktuure silmas pidades korvalisteks. Siiski saab peamiseks uks kontekstuaalne isotoopia, mis pohineb intertekstuaalsetel sidemetel Piibli vordumiga. Artikli autor jouab jareldusele, et immanentsuse printsiip “Maupassant’is” ei ole eitus, vaid problematiseering, mis toestab, kuidas on voimalik olulist kontekstuaalset materjali semiootilisse analuusi loimida.
45. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 45 > Issue: 1/2
Dmitrij Gluscevskij Methodological issues and prospects of semiotics of humour
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This article aims at proposing a way to identify humour by means of Greimassian semiotics and to single humour out as a unique object of semiotic analysis. Firstly, the article discusses the fundamental epistemological premises of semiotic text analysis through the analysis of texts by Greimas which were meant to further and legitimize his project of semiotics. Also, the already existing attempts at providing a semiotic definition of humour are critically evaluated while relating their problematic aspects with the implicitly defined field of semiotic interest. Finally, it is demonstrated that a productive semiotic description of a comic text is possible when the status quo epistemological views are revised and the traditional fi eld of semiotic analyses is expanded accordingly.Цель статьи – предложить способ определения юмора с помощью семиотики Греймаса и представить юмор как уникальный объект семиотического анализа. На основе текстов Греймаса автор статьи исследует фундаментальные эпистемологические предпосылки семиотического анализа текста и дает критическую оценку существующих попыток семиотического определения юмора посредством связывания их проблематичных аспектов с принадлежностью к имплицитно определенной сфере интересов семиотики. В итоге показывается, что продуктивное семиотическое описание комического текста возможно при пересмотре существующих эпистемологических предпосылок и расширении традиционной области семиотических исследований.Artikli eesmargiks on pakkuda valja voimalus, kuidas tuvastada huumorit Greimase semiootika abil ning kuidas eristada huumorit semiootilise analuusi ainulaadse objektina. Greimase tekstide najal arutletakse semiootilise tekstianaluusi fundamentaalsete epistemoloogiliste eelduste ule ja antakse kriitiline hinnang juba olemasolevatele katsetele pakkuda valja semiootiline huumoridefinitsioon, sidudes nende problemaatilisi aspekte implitsiitselt defineeritud semiootilise huvivaljaga. Lopuks naidatakse, et koomilise teksti produktiivselt semiootiline kirjeldamine on voimalik, kui vaadatakse ule status quo epistemoloogilised seisukohad ning laiendatakse vastavalt traditsioonilist semiootilise analuusi valja.
46. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 45 > Issue: 1/2
Gintautė Žemaitytė Plastic semiotics: From visuality to all the senses
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The article’s aim is to present plastic semiotics, one of the most recent branches of the Greimassian School. In his Structural Semantics: An Attempt at a Method (1966) Algirdas Julius Greimas stated that sensorial perception was the dimension in which the grasping of meaning takes place, but explicit principles of the analysis of this nonlinguistic dimension were published only years later, in his article “Figurative semiotics and plastic semiotics” (1984). Since then, plastic semiotics has been leading independent existence, focused on the eff ects of sense generated by the form and the substance of expression. Plastic analysis has turned out to be a fruitful approach not only in the field of visual studies, but also in the research into other sensorial expressions.Статья знакомит с одной из наиболее молодых ветвей греймасовской семиотики – пластической. В книге Греймаса ≪Структурная семантика: поиск метода≫ (1966) чувственное восприятие было определено как измерение, в котором осуществляется схватывание смысла/значения. Основы анализа этого неязыкового измерения были изложены им позднее в статье ≪Фигуративная семиотика и пластическая семиотика≫ (1984). С тех пор пластическая семиотика превратилась в самостоятельную дисциплину, которая фокусируется на сенсорных эффектах смысла, произведенных формой и сущностью выражения. Пластический анализ оказался плодотворным подходом не только в области визуальных исследований, но и в исследованиях других сенсорных выражений.Artikli eesmargiks on tutvustada plastilist semiootikat, uht Greimase koolkonna uuemat haru. Greimase teoses “Strukturaalne semantika: meetodi otsingul” (1966) nimetati meeletaju selleks mootmeks, milles leiab aset tahenduse tabamine. Selle mittekeelelise mootme analuusi sonaselged pohimotted ilmusid aga aastaid hiljem Greimase artiklis “Figuratiivne semiootika ja plastiline semiootika”. Sestsaadik on plastiline semiootika muutunud iseseisvaks distsipliiniks, keskendudes meelelistele tagajargedele, mida tekitavad valjenduse vorm ja sisu. Plastiline analuus on osutunud viljakandvaks lahenemiseks mitte uksnes visuaaluuringute vallas, vaid ka teiste meeleliste valjenduste uurimisel.
47. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 45 > Issue: 1/2
Herman Tamminen Four ways of triadic ‘sign-ness’ on two semiotic squares
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The article deals with semiosis and its dimensions as a theoretical construct to show some elementary differences between spheres of semiotic activity. In essence, one sign will be dissected into four categories of existence to show it may have different relations depending on the dimension it happens to be in. The general framework is that of human consciousness and its two distinct states: awake cognition and asleep dreaming with emphasis on the latter. From our point of view, the concepts of ‘nature’ and ‘culture’ have two layers: the manifest form and the latent function, the seen and the unseen. These are used as parallels to support the central thesis of this article that human cognition has dreaming as its countepart.The main theoretical frame is drawn from the work of Greimas and Courtes with emphasis on the semiotic square. The concept of the sign is taken from Peirce, whereas ‘sign-ness’ is adopted from Pyatigorskij. By projecting the triadic sign onto the semiotic square and excluding the concept ‘sign system’ along with the syntactic aspect, the basic fourfold dimension of the sign as such will be brought to view based on the distinct sign-relations in each given dimension. In order to double the square, semiosis will be endowed with features of ‘being-able’, thus affording the initial expression of dominant modalities serving as basis for the structure(s) of the elementary function and mechanism in each of the four dimensions. This will also enable bringing into view some elementary restrictions on semiosis in each dimension. Lastly, some new terms are suggested in accordance with what has been presented.В статье рассматривается семиозис и его измерения как теоретическая конструкция, чтобы показать некоторые элементарные различия между сферами семиотического действия. По сути знак будет разделен на четыре категории существования, чтобы показать, что он может иметь разные отношения в зависимости от того, в каком измерении он находится. Основной рамкой, вместе с тем, является человеческое сознание в его двух состояниях: в состоянии бодрствования и сна со сновидениями, с акцентом на последнее. Несмотря на широкое использование универсальных понятий ‘природа’ и ‘культура’, статья не сосредоточивается на семиотических особенностях этих доменов. С нашей точки зрения ‘природа’ и ‘культура’ имеют два уровня, т.е. проявленную форму и скрытую функцию, видимое и невидимое. Они используются параллельно, поддерживая центральный тезис этой статьи о том, что человеческое познание имеет соответствие в виде сновидения.Теоретическая рамка взята из работы Греймаса и Курте с акцентом на семиотический квадрат. Понятие знака трактуется в духе Пирса, тогда как понятие ≪знаковости≫ дается по Пятигорскому. При проекции триадического знака на семиотический квадрат и исключении понятия ≪знаковой системы≫ вместе с синтаксическим аспектом, обнаруживается основное четырехкратное измерение знака, опирающаяся на определенные знаковые отношения в каждом данном измерении. Чтобы удвоить квадрат, семиозис будет наделен функцией ≪быть способным≫, таким образом обеспечивая начальное выражение доминирующих модальностей, служащих в каждом из четырых измерений основой для структуры (структур) элементарной функции и механизма. Это также даст возможность рассмотреть некоторые элементарные ограничения семиозиса в каждом из измерений. Наконец, предлагаются некоторые новые термины в соответствии с тем, что было представлено.Artikkel tegeleb semioosi ja selle mootmetega kui teoreetilise konstruktsiooniga, et demonstreerida moningaid elementaarseid erinevusi semiootilise tegevuse sfaarides. Sisuliselt lahatakse uks mark neljaks eksistentsikategooriaks, naitamaks, et sel voivad olla erinevad suhted olenevalt mootmest, milles see olema juhtub. Uldiseks raamiks on inimteadvus ja selle kaks eristuvat olekut: arkvelolek ja uni, rohuasetusega viimasel. Vaatamata universaalsete terminite nagu ‘loodus’ ja ‘kultuur’ ohtrale kasutamisele, ei tegele kaesolev artikkel nende valdkondade semiootiliste eriparadega. Meie seisukohast on ‘loodusel’ ja ‘kultuuril’ kaks kihti – manifestne vorm ja latentne funktsioon, nahtav ja nahtamatu. Neid vaadeldakse paralleelselt, et toetada kaesoleva artikli keskset teesi, et inimkognitsiooni vasteks on unenagemine.Peamine teoreetiline raam tuleneb Greimase ja Courtes’ toodest, rohuasetusega semiootilisele ruudule. Margi moiste voetakse Peirce’ilt ning “margilisus” Pjatigorskilt. Projitseerides triaadilist marki semiootilisele ruudule ning valistades ‘margisusteemi’ moiste koos suntaktilise aspektiga, tuuakse nahtavale margi neljakordne alusdimensioon, mis tugineb kindlatele margisuhetele igas antud mootmes. Et ruutu kahekordistada, antakse semioosile ‘suutlikkuse’ jooned, lubades domineerivate modaalsuste algset valjendumist, mis igas neljast dimensioonist toimivad elementaarse funktsiooni struktuuri(de) ja mehhanismi alusena. See voimaldab vaatluse alla tuua ka moned elementaarsed piirangud semioosile iga dimensioonis. Viimaks pakutakse valja moned uued terminid.
48. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 45 > Issue: 1/2
Tatjana Pilipoveca Interpreting “The Snow Queen”: A comparison of two semantic universes
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The article compares the famous fairy tale “Th e Snow Queen” by the Danish writer Hans Christian Andersen with a Soviet play of the same title by Evgenij Schwartz. Schwartz changed the original ideas and narrative structure of Andersen’s complex and religious text in order to make the play more attractive, spectacular and relatable for Soviet viewers. With the help of A. J. Greimas’ actantial model and semiotic square, the article tries to distinguish and analyse the discursive transformations of the source text in the process of adaptation.В данной статье мы сравниваем знаменитую сказку Ханса Кристиана Андерсена ≪Снежная Королева≫ и одноименную пьесу, написанную советским драматургом Евгением Шварцем. Шварц переосмыслил и переработал нарративную структуру и основные идеи сложной религиозной сказки с целью сделать ее более понятной, захватывающей и привлекательной для советского зрителя. При помощи актантной модели и семиотического квадрата А. Ж. Греймаса мы попытались проанализировать дискурсивные трансформации текста-источника в процессе интерпретации.Artiklis vorreldakse Taani kirjaniku Hans Christian Anderseni kuulsat muinasjuttu “Lumekuninganna” Noukogude kirjaniku Jevgeni Švartsi samanimelise naidendiga. Švarts muutis Anderseni keeruka ning religioosse teksti algseid ideid ja narratiivset struktuuri, et muuta seda Noukogude publikule koitvamaks ja vaatemangulisemaks ning holbustada sellega suhestumist. A. J. Greimase aktantide mudeli ja semiootilise ruudu abil puutakse artiklis eristada ja analuusida lahteteksti diskursiivseid teisenemisi adapteerimise kaigus.
49. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 45 > Issue: 1/2
Kalevi Kull Umberto Eco and John Deely: What they shared
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
50. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 44 > Issue: 4
Oliver Laas Dialogue in Peirce, Lotman, and Bakhtin: A comparative study
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The notion of dialogue is foundational for both Juri Lotman and Mikhail Bakhtin. It is also central in Charles S. Peirce’s semeiotics and logic. While there are several scholarly comparisons of Bakhtin’s and Lotman’s dialogisms, these have yet to be compared with Peirce’s semeiotic dialogues. This article takes tentative steps toward a comparative study of dialogue in Peirce, Lotman, and Bakhtin. Peirce’s understanding of dialogue is explicated, and compared with both Lotman’s as well as Bakhtin’s conceptions. Lotman saw dialogue as the basic meaning-making mechanism in the semiosphere. The benefits and shortcomings of reconceptualizing the semiosphere on the basis of Peircean and Bakhtinian dialogues are weighed. The aim is to explore methodological alternatives in semiotics, not to challenge Lotman’s initial model. It is claimed that the semiosphere qua model operating with Bakhtinian dialogues is narrower in scope than Lotman’s original conception, while the semiosphere qua model operating with Peircean dialogues appears to be broader in scope. It is concluded that the choice between alternative dialogical foundations must be informed by attentiveness to their differences, and should be motivated by the researcher’s goals and theoretical commitments.
51. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 44 > Issue: 4
Aleksei Semenenko Homo polyglottus: Semiosphere as a model of human cognition
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The semiosphere is arguably the most influential concept developed by Juri Lotman, which has been reinterpreted in a variety of ways. This paper returns to Lotman’s original “anthropocentric” understanding of semiosphere as a collective intellect/consciousness and revisits the main arguments of Lotman’s discussion of human vs. nonhuman semiosis in order to position it in the modern context of cognitive semiotics and the question of human uniqueness in particular. In contrast to the majority of works that focus on symbolic consciousness and multimodal communication as specifically human traits, Lotman accentuates polyglottism and dialogicity as the unique features of human culture. Formulated in this manner, the concept of semiosphere is used as a conceptual framework for the study of human cognition as well as human cognitive evolution.
52. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 44 > Issue: 4
Simon Levesque Two versions of ecosophy: Arne Nass, Felix Guattari, and their connection with semiotics
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This paper adopts a comparative approach in order to appreciate the distinct contributions of Arne Nass and Felix Guattari to ecosophy and their respective connections to semiotics. The foundational holistic worldview and dynamics ecosophy propounds show numerous connections with semiotics. The primary objective of this paper is to question the nature and value of these connections. Historically, the development of ecosophy was always faced with modelling and communication issues, which constitute an obvious common ground shared with semiotics. As a means to an end, ecosophy settled to develop a thoughtful axiology based on ecological wisdom and promote it bottom-up. Political activism notwithstanding, semiotics also deals with value: sign value and meaning. In this respect, semiotics is inherently axiological, but most often this dimension is effaced or muted. Emphasizing the axiological dimension of semiotics helps understand how dominant significations, habits, and values are established, and enlighten the crucial part it could play in the humanities and beyond by partly coalescing with ecosophy. As the complementarity of both traditions is appreciated, the plausibility of a merger is assessed. Arguably, ecosophy is axiomatized semiotics. From this novel perspective, one can see human communities as dynamically partaking in signifying processes, in a space that is at once an ecosphere, a semiosphere, and a vast political territory. As there is growing evidence that environmental degradation lessens our quality of life and the sustainability of our communities, ecosophy might help reform values and practices.
53. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 44 > Issue: 4
Marina Grishakova, Siim Sorokin Notes on narrative, cognition, and cultural evolution
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Drawing on non-Darwinian cultural-evolutionary approaches, the paper develops a broad, non-representational perspective on narrative, necessary to account for the narrative “ubiquity” hypothesis. It considers narrativity as a feature of intelligent behaviour and as a formative principle of symbolic representation (“narrative proclivity”). The narrative representation retains a relationship with the “primary” pre-symbolic narrativity of the basic orientational-interpretive (semiotic) behaviour affected by perceptually salient objects and “fits” in natural environments. The paper distinguishes between implicit narrativity (as the basic form of perceptual-cognitive mapping) of intelligent behaviour or non-narrative media, and the “narrative” as a symbolic representation. Human perceptual-attentional routines are enhanced by symbolic representations: due to its attention-monitoring and information-gathering function, narrative serves as a cognitive-exploratory tool facilitating cultural dynamics. The rise of new media and mass communication on the Web has thrown the ability of narrative to shape the public sphere through the ongoing process of negotiated sensemaking and interpretation in a particularly sharp relief.
54. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 44 > Issue: 4
Sara Cannizzaro Internet memes as internet signs: A semiotic view of digital culture
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This article argues for a clearer framework of internet-based “memes”. The science of memes, dubbed ‘memetics’, presumes that memes remain “copying units” following the popularisation of the concept in Richard Dawkins’ celebrated work, The Selfish Gene (1976). Yet Peircean semiotics and biosemiotics can challenge this doctrine of information transmission. While supporting a precise and discursive framework for internet memes, semiotic readings reconfigure contemporary formulations to the – now-established – conception of memes. Internet memes can and should be conceived, then, as habit-inducing sign systems incorporating processes involving asymmetrical variation. So, drawing on biosemiotics, Tartu-Moscow semiotics, and Peircean semiotic principles, and through a close reading of the celebrated 2011 Internet meme Rebecca Black’s Friday, this article proposes a working outline for the definition of internet memes and its applicability for the semiotic analysis of texts in new media communication.
55. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 44 > Issue: 4
Dinda L. Gorlée Intersemioticity and intertextuality: Picaresque and romance in opera
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Jakobson introduced the concept of intersemioticity as transmutation of verbal signs by nonverbal sign systems (1959). Intersemioticity generates the linguistic-and-cultural elements of intersemiosis (from without), crystallizing mythology and archetypal symbolism, and intertextuality (from within), analyzing the human emotions in the cultural situation of language-and-music aspects. The operatic example of Ibsen’s Peer Gynt (1867) intertextualized the cultural trends of Scandinavia. This literary script was set to music by Grieg to make an operatic expression. After the “picaresque” adventures, Peer Gynt ends in a “romantic” revelation. Grieg’s music reworded and rephrased the script in musical verse and rhythm, following the intertextuality of Nordic folk music and Wagner’s fashionable operas. Ibsen’s Peer Gynt text has since been translated in Jakobson’s “translation proper” to other languages. After 150 years, the vocal translation of the operatic text needs the “intersemiotic translation or transmutation” to modernize the translated text and attract present-day audiences.
56. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 44 > Issue: 4
Kalevi Kull Habits – semioses – habits
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
57. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 44 > Issue: 4
Ekaterina Velmezova “Czech Theory”, Czech semiotics
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
58. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 44 > Issue: 4
Kalevi Kull What kind of evolutionary biology suits cultural research?
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
59. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 44 > Issue: 3
Mattia Thibault Lotman and play: For a theory of playfulness based on semiotics of culture
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The aim of the article is to introduce an approach to play based on semiotics of culture and, in particular, grounded in the works and ideas of Juri Lotman. On the one hand, it provides an overview of Lotman’s works dedicated to play and games, starting from his article on art among other modelling systems, in which the phenomenon of play is treated deeply, and mentioning Lotman’s articles dedicated to various forms of play forms, such as involving dolls and playing cards. On the other hand, it applies a few Lotmanian theories and ideas to playfulness in order to shed some light on this highly debated, as well as intriguing, anthropic activity. Thus, the paper approaches some of the core questions for a play theory, such as the definition of play, the cultural role of toys and playthings, the importance of unpredictability, the position held by playfulness in the semiosphere and, finally, the differences and commonalities between play and art. Lotman’s theories and works, often integrated by other existing semiotic or ludologic perspectives offer an extremely insightful and fresh take on play and illustrate the great heuristic potential of semiotics of culture.
60. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 44 > Issue: 3
Mari-Liis Madisson, Andreas Ventsel Autocommunicative meaning-making in online communication of the Estonian extreme right
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This article analyses the online communication of the Estonian extreme right that appears to be characterized by an echo-chamber effect as well as enclosed and hermetic meaning-making. The discussion mainly relies on the theoretical frameworks offered by semiotics of culture.One of the aims of the article is to widen the scope of understanding of autocommunicative processes that are usually related to learning, insight and innovation. The article shows the conditions in which autocommunicative processes result in closed interactions, based on reproducing stereotypes and redundant content. We detect antithetical meaning-making, an orientation towards normative (“correct”) texts and the prevalence of phatic communication as the main dominants that guide closed autocommunication. Such communication leads to polarization of dissimilar views and hinders dialogue. Our case study focuses on the discussion that arose in the context of the European Refugee Crisis that started in spring 2015.