Displaying: 101-120 of 1237 documents

0.066 sec

101. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 30 > Issue: 2
Maija Könönen Brodski luuletuse “Viies aastapäev” infernaalne alltekst. Kokkuvõte
102. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 30 > Issue: 2
Mihhail Lotman Atomistic versus holistic semiotics
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
The paper is devoted on the foundations of semiotics. It examines the specific features of Peircean and Saussurean traditions and demonstrates that the basis of all the differences is the different conception of the nature of sign: Peirce proceeds from the substitutive concept, Saussure from the bilateral one. The substitutive construction is atomistic by its nature: it is based on a (single) sign which replaces a (single) object, while bilateral is holistic: it is based on the sign system which is divided into (single) signs. The differences of semiosis in atomistic and holistic approach will be pointed out.
103. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 30 > Issue: 2
Irene Portis-Winner Eric Wolf: the crosser of boundaries
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
The subject of this paper is an introduction to my assessment of the work of the late American anthropologist, Eric Wolf (1923–1999), whom I consider to be one of the greatest American anthropologist. I plan a monograph on his total work from a point of view, largely overlooked, emphasizing his sensitive, path-breaking, and poetic insights. I see Wolf’s work as having three interpenetrating periods, which I call (1) Eric Wolf, the poet, focusing primarily on his work on Mexico, (2) the study of peasantry world-wide, emphasizing history, context, power, etc. (from the very beginning Wolf demolished the idea of static isolated cultures that anthropologists so loved to study; and in this respect, Eric Wolf changed anthropology forever), and (3) the third period, reaching to his death and never really finished, was Wolf the philosopher and crosser of boundaries.
104. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 30 > Issue: 2
Leonid Tchertov Spatial semiosis in culture
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Lotman’s conception of semiosphere opens the way to development of spatial semiotics as a special branch of sign theory. There are a lot of peculiarities in the spatial semiosis, which distinguish it from the temporal ones. These distinctions are connected with some special features of semiotized space, and they touch both upon the spatial texts and upon the spatial codes. The spatial syntax has its own specific structures, which can be reversed, non-linear and continual, created without discrete signs. The differentiation relates also to semantics of spatial signs and texts, which are mainly motivated by their denotates due to similarity or contiguity. There are some pragmatic peculiarities of the spatial semiosis: the greater connection with the praxis, on the one hand, and the greater ability for the preservation of the cultural memory, on the other hand. The mainly visual character of spatial texts in plane of expression can be also considered as its specific pragmatic property. These peculiarities give some special possibilities for the spatial semiosis and make necessary its participation in the various spheres of the culture, where diverse spatial codes interact in different ways between each other and with temporal codes as well.
105. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 30 > Issue: 2
Andreas Schönle Lotman and cultural studies: The case for cross-fertilization
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
This paper seeks to evaluate the extent to which Lotman’s theoretical works could provide a conceptual articulation to the project of British and American cultural studies (CS). Just as CS, Lotman operates with an extensive concept of culture, albeit one mostly limited to nobility culture and focused on the past. His late works can be seen to articulate a semiotic theory of power: his emphasis on the relationship between center and periphery recalls the infatuation with marginality that underpins CS. Lotman shares the (post) structuralist premise about the primary role of discourse in founding reality. Yet his emphasis on the natural striving of culture toward diversity mitigates the subject’s dependence upon discourse. Thus, subjects act on their striving toward autonomy by playing discourses against one another, recoding them in an act of autocommunication that generates novelty in the process. Even though it denies the grand narrative, Cultural Studies emphasizes class, gender, and race differences. Lotman’s concept of the semiosphere emphasizes the ad hoc foundation of group identities, their emergence out of an intrinsic recoding of extrinsic codes, and the circulation of texts and values among groups. Lotman doesn’t privilege any sort of group identity and therefore offers a flexible framework applicable to a broader range of groups. In that sense he offers an alternative to Gramsci’s notion of the rootedness of groups in class realities (which underlies early CS).
106. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 30 > Issue: 2
Ülle Pärli, Eleonora Rudakovskaja Juri Lotman pärisnimest. Kokkuvõte
107. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 30 > Issue: 2
Bruno Osimo Tõlkimise psühholoogilised aspektid. Kokkuvõte
108. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 30 > Issue: 2
Irene Portis-Winner Eric Wolf: piiride ületaja
109. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 30 > Issue: 2
Elize Bisanz The abstract structure of the aesthetic sign
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Walter Benjamin foreshadowed many of the aesthetic theories, currently playing a fundamental role in the production and interpretation of art. By emphasising the role of the expressive character of art, or rather the category of expressivity itself, Benjamin defined art as a language. His aesthetics was characterised by the continuous interaction of two almost reciprocal projects: the theoretical critique of art which is based on an understanding of historical processes, and the understanding of historical processes which is formed by the critical experience of art. We find a fundamental similarity between Benjamin’s dialectical character of the aesthetic sign and Lotman’s double-sidedness of the artwork. In classifying the system of art as a language, both theoreticians space out the structure ofart and determine it as the intersection of the synchronic and the diachronic aesthetic discourse. The paper follows the traces of the transition of modern painting from its representational status to an autonomous signification, that is, from being a symbolic expression to a discourse in the grammatological meaning of écriture. Parallel to this transition which resulted into the process of abstraction in painting, there can be observed a shift in the cultural values of art which had its critical bearing upon the world secured not by connections of likeness, but by virtue of the very independence of its values. The abstract form of the modern painting has been the declaration of the language of art as an exemplary realm. What must be expressed and experienced within this realm was (1) the critical reflection on the human condition, and (2) representing the society in so far as art maintained a moral independence from those conditions. This dialectic between the autonomous and social character of art has left deep impacts on the language of painting, a complexity, which has been made transparent through the various semiotic analytic approaches of the aesthetic sign. The paper discusses the processual character of the modern painting and demonstrates briefly the deficiency in the structural analysis of the painting language, encouraging its synthesis with the dynamical character of cultural products as we find it in the Lotmanian culture theory.
110. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 30 > Issue: 2
Stefano Garzonio Itaalia ooperilibretode “oma (vene) kommetele vastava” ümberpaneku mehhanismid. Kokkuvõte
111. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 30 > Issue: 2
Kati Lindström Author, landscape and communication in Estonian haiku
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Present article tries to give insight into the ways in which Estonian haiku models its author and communicates with the reader. The author thinks that while Japanese haiku is a predominantly autocommunicative piece of literature, where even a fixed point of view is not recommended, Estonian literary conventions are oriented towards openly communicational texts, which convey a fixed axiology and rely on abundant use of pronouns and rhetorical questions, addresses and apostrophes. While there is a considerable amount of Estonian haiku that depend on Estonian literary conventions, most of the Estonian haiku texts, however, are oriented to the Japanese model. These texts have been labelled “the catalogues of landscape”, as they are constituted by naming different landscape objects without developing a line of narration. Thereby every landscape element in poetry is granted its own voice, and through this multitude of voices inside the text, the reader is forced to enter an autocommunicative process of remodelling him/herself.
112. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 30 > Issue: 2
Stephen Pain Bioretoorika: Sissejuhatus rakenduslikku retoorikasse. Kokkuvõte
113. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 30 > Issue: 2
Massimo Leone Piirid ja identiteedid religioosse pöördumise puhul: peegel. Kokkuvõte
114. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 30 > Issue: 2
Elize Bisanz Esteetilise märgi abstraktne struktuur. Kokkuvõte
115. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 30 > Issue: 2
Peeter Torop Tõlge kui tõlkimine kui kultuur. Kokkuvõte
116. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 30 > Issue: 2
Ülle Pärli, Eleonora Rudakovskaja Juri Lotman on proper name
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
The article treats the concept of proper name in Juri Lotman’s semiotics, taking into account also studies in the same field by other authors of the Tartu-Moscow school (V. Ivanov, B. Ogibenin, V. Toporov, B. Uspenski). Focus is laid at three sub-topics: name and myth, name and text, name and artistic creation. One of the sources of treating proper name for both the program article by J. Lotman and B. Uspenski (“Myth — Name — Culture”), and works by several other semioticians of the Tartu–Moscow school is confidence in the connection between proper name and mythical (a-semiotic) thought: semiosis equals here with nomination. Proper name plurality, different re-namings affirm the continuing importance of mythical thinking in later culture. Proper names (such as personal names, place names) belong, in addition to natural language, also into a certain individual system, forming thus an interlinguistic layer located on the boundary of language. J. Lotmanstresses that art has a specific power of uniting general and proper name (proper name characterized here by individuality, explosiveness). An artistic work is even doubly of proper name character: both the act of creation and its reception are by nature individual and unrepeated. In the opinion of the authors the treatment of proper name by the Tartu-Moscow school contains fruitful and promising standpoints for the analysis of contemporary culture that, however, have been applied unjustifiably little.
117. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 30 > Issue: 2
Linnar Priimägi Puhtvisuaalne metafoorsus: Juri Lotmani retoorikakontseptsioon kujutavkunstis. Kokkuvõte
118. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 30 > Issue: 2
Andreas Schönle Juri Lotman ja Cultural Studies: vastastikuse rikastamise võimalused. Kokkuvõte
119. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 30 > Issue: 2
Mihhail Lotman Atomistlik ja holistlik semiootika. Kokkuvõte
120. Sign Systems Studies: Volume > 30 > Issue: 2
Sadeq Rahimi Is cultural logic an appropriate concept? A semiotic perspective on the study of culture and logic
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
It is argued that (a) the question of ‘cultural logic’ is a valid inquiry for disciplines seeking to comprehend and compare mental processes across cultures, and (b) semiotics, as the science of studying signs and signification, is an appropriate means of approaching the question of cultural logic. It is suggested that a shift needs to be made in studying reasoning across cultures from the traditional value-oriented methods of judgment to a meaning-oriented assessment. Traditional methods of cross-cultural comparison are suggested to be flawed in their attempt to develop a psychological account of why different cultural societies can draw different conclusions from ‘similar’ data, because they typically do not take into account the culturally-specific processes of ‘meaning’ and semiosis. These processes, it is argued, cause input data to develop differentially from one semiotic context to another. In other words, before reaching the cognitive processing level data is already shaped by the semiotic context, thus what is processed cognitively by two individuals in two cultural/semiotic contexts is no longer ‘the same.’ A semiotically conceived notion of cultural logic is therefore a crucial factor in any cross-cultural study of cognitive and psychological systems.