Re-thinking Semiotics: a New Categorization of a Sign?

Q2 Arts and Humanities
M. Shilina, Mohsen Zarifian
{"title":"Re-thinking Semiotics: a New Categorization of a Sign?","authors":"M. Shilina, Mohsen Zarifian","doi":"10.22363/2313-2299-2023-14-2-305-313","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The study discusses the fundamental issues of semiotics. Semiotics still involves no broadly agreed upon theoretical assumptions, models, or empirical methodologies. Faced with much disagreement among notable semioticians about what semiotics actually entails, the study opens up the way to its theoretical re-thinking. Starting from the analysis of the discussions of scientists it indicated that the signs are not identical to what they represent this studies the issue through a theoretical concepts analysis, literature review, combined with comparative analysis of the main classical theoretical parameters of signs. The basic approach of this study is that signs, whether it is symbolic, iconic, or indexical, are not what they mean. The nature of the sign, whether it is symbolic, iconic, or indexical, determines the way it is used, and the same signifier can be used in different ways in different contexts. The role of an interpreter should be taken into account. A sign meaning is not inherent in it; rather, it is determined by how it is interpreted. The relevance of the research is due to a new complex approach to statements about users, signs or referents that could never be made in isolation from each other. A statement about one of those always contains implications about the other two. Rather than specific «types of sign», we're talking about symbolic, iconic, and indexical forms of relationships. The hypothesis is as follows: the nature of the sign determines the way it is used. Moreover, the same signifier can be used both iconically and symbolically in different contexts. The novelty of the research is related to the idea of the sign that can be interpreted in different ways depending on who observes it: as symbolic, iconic or indexical. In other words, signs cannot be classified according to the classical semiology canons, but only with regard to the goals of their users and a certain context. Regarding this, we will propose a comparative analysis of the classic models of the sign to prove the hypothesis. The hypothesis is proved due to the provided comparative analysis of the classic models of a sign and modes of its relationship. The findings of this study have to be seen in light of some major limitations. First, the main primary research problem we have to solve was the semiotics of contemporary cartoons. Facing the lack of previous research studies and the theoretical foundations for the research on the topic, we decided that prior theoretical research studies that are relevant to our specific topic are needed, which is why the article is aimed at theoretical issues. Theoretical and methodological limitations are addressed to our future studies. The research instruments and techniques used to collect the empirical data will have to be identified. Intercultural specifics connected with the personalities of the authors - Russian and Iranian researchers - influence the study but also limits it.","PeriodicalId":52389,"journal":{"name":"RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2299-2023-14-2-305-313","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The study discusses the fundamental issues of semiotics. Semiotics still involves no broadly agreed upon theoretical assumptions, models, or empirical methodologies. Faced with much disagreement among notable semioticians about what semiotics actually entails, the study opens up the way to its theoretical re-thinking. Starting from the analysis of the discussions of scientists it indicated that the signs are not identical to what they represent this studies the issue through a theoretical concepts analysis, literature review, combined with comparative analysis of the main classical theoretical parameters of signs. The basic approach of this study is that signs, whether it is symbolic, iconic, or indexical, are not what they mean. The nature of the sign, whether it is symbolic, iconic, or indexical, determines the way it is used, and the same signifier can be used in different ways in different contexts. The role of an interpreter should be taken into account. A sign meaning is not inherent in it; rather, it is determined by how it is interpreted. The relevance of the research is due to a new complex approach to statements about users, signs or referents that could never be made in isolation from each other. A statement about one of those always contains implications about the other two. Rather than specific «types of sign», we're talking about symbolic, iconic, and indexical forms of relationships. The hypothesis is as follows: the nature of the sign determines the way it is used. Moreover, the same signifier can be used both iconically and symbolically in different contexts. The novelty of the research is related to the idea of the sign that can be interpreted in different ways depending on who observes it: as symbolic, iconic or indexical. In other words, signs cannot be classified according to the classical semiology canons, but only with regard to the goals of their users and a certain context. Regarding this, we will propose a comparative analysis of the classic models of the sign to prove the hypothesis. The hypothesis is proved due to the provided comparative analysis of the classic models of a sign and modes of its relationship. The findings of this study have to be seen in light of some major limitations. First, the main primary research problem we have to solve was the semiotics of contemporary cartoons. Facing the lack of previous research studies and the theoretical foundations for the research on the topic, we decided that prior theoretical research studies that are relevant to our specific topic are needed, which is why the article is aimed at theoretical issues. Theoretical and methodological limitations are addressed to our future studies. The research instruments and techniques used to collect the empirical data will have to be identified. Intercultural specifics connected with the personalities of the authors - Russian and Iranian researchers - influence the study but also limits it.
重新思考符号学:符号的新分类?
本研究讨论了符号学的基本问题。符号学仍然没有广泛认同的理论假设、模型或经验方法。面对著名符号学家对符号学实际含义的诸多分歧,本研究为其理论重新思考开辟了道路。从分析科学家的论述入手,指出符号与他们所代表的符号并不完全相同。本文通过理论概念分析、文献综述,结合符号的主要经典理论参数的比较分析,对符号问题进行研究。这项研究的基本方法是,符号,无论是象征性的、标志性的还是指数性的,都不是它们的意思。符号的性质,无论是象征性的、标志性的还是指数性的,都决定了它的使用方式,同一个能指可以在不同的语境中以不同的方式使用。应考虑口译员的作用。符号的含义不是固有的;相反,它是由如何解释决定的。这项研究的相关性是由于对用户、标志或指称的陈述采用了一种新的复杂方法,这些陈述永远不可能相互孤立。关于其中一个的陈述总是包含对另外两个的暗示。我们谈论的不是特定的“符号类型”,而是象征性的、标志性的和指数化的关系形式。假设如下:符号的性质决定了它的使用方式。此外,同一个能指在不同的语境中既可以象徵性地使用,也可以象征性地使用。这项研究的新颖性与符号的概念有关,根据观察者的不同,符号可以以不同的方式解释:象征性、标志性或指数性。换句话说,符号不能根据经典符号学的经典进行分类,而只能根据其使用者的目标和特定的语境进行分类。关于这一点,我们将提出对经典符号模型的比较分析来证明这一假设。通过对符号的经典模型及其关系模式的比较分析,证明了这一假设。这项研究的发现必须考虑到一些主要的局限性。首先,我们要解决的主要研究问题是当代漫画的符号学。面对前人研究的不足和课题研究的理论基础,我们决定需要与我们的具体课题相关的前人理论研究,这就是本文针对理论问题的原因。理论和方法的局限性是针对我们未来的研究。必须确定用于收集经验数据的研究工具和技术。与作者——俄罗斯和伊朗研究人员——个性相关的跨文化细节影响了这项研究,但也限制了它。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics
RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信