Sign Systems Studies最新文献_第10页

Juri Lotman, Gilles Deleuze and their approaches to cinema: Points of intersection 尤里·洛特曼、吉勒·德勒兹和他们的电影之路：交叉点

1区文学

Sign Systems Studies Pub Date : 2020-12-31 DOI: 10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.10

M. Konstantinov

{"title":"Juri Lotman, Gilles Deleuze and their approaches to cinema: Points of intersection","authors":"M. Konstantinov","doi":"10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.10","url":null,"abstract":"Engaging with the methods of studying contemporary digital audiovisual art is a dominant topic in contemporary theories of art. Against this background, the article offers a view onto some aspects of Juri Lotman’s and Gilles Deleuze’s studies on the cinema. \u0000As a rule, contemporary studies of digital audiovisual art take place in the context of interdisciplinary studies. One of the methodological principles of such studies consists in adopting a structural and semiotic approach. As of today, this methodological approach to studying audio-visual art is most developed in semiotics of the cinema, which is why in this article visual semiotics in general is viewed through semiotics of the cinema (proceeding from the approach of Juri Lotman). Also, the philosophical understanding of the nature of the cinema offered by Gilles Deleuze has proven fundamental for the study of contemporary audio-visual art. \u0000The two authors were contemporaries, but represented different scholarly paradigms: while Juri Lotman was an adherent of structuralism, Gilles Deleuze was a poststructuralist who criticized the structuralist approach. Yet despite this principal difference, both scholars still arrived at similar conclusions as concerns several questions regarding the understanding of the cinema and its very nature. In the present paper I focus on the features of these authors’ approach to spatial and temporal relations in the cinema, audiovisual relations in film as a heterogeneous form of the work of art, virtuality and mythologism in the viewer’s perception of cinema. \u0000The differences and similarities in academic approaches to cinema, developed by Lotman and Deleuze, indicate a common direction in the development of the cinema and visual arts theory, which seems relevant for the study of contemporary audio-visual arts.","PeriodicalId":44467,"journal":{"name":"Sign Systems Studies","volume":"48 1","pages":"392-414"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47024351","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Observing wildlife through the eyes of Nils Lindahl Elliot 通过尼尔斯·林达尔-埃利奥特的眼睛观察野生动物

1区文学

Sign Systems Studies Pub Date : 2020-12-31 DOI: 10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.14

Nelly Mäekivi, Silver Rattasepp

{"title":"Observing wildlife through the eyes of Nils Lindahl Elliot","authors":"Nelly Mäekivi, Silver Rattasepp","doi":"10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.14","url":null,"abstract":"Nils Lindahl Elliot has significantly contributed to semiotic analysis of nature and to the ways in which it is mediated, especially with his transdisciplinary social semeiotic approach that he developed in Mediating Nature (2006). This book propelled his recognition in the field of semiotic studies, especially amongst the ecosemiotic community. In Lindahl Elliot’s newest book Observing Wildlife in Tropical Forests. 1: A Geosemeiotic Approach he delves even deeper into transdisciplinary inquiry of observing wildlife, using what he calls a geosemeiotic approach (with the extra “e” serving as a tribute to Peirce). More traditionally, geosemiotics is seen as a research field that studies social meanings of signs, discourses and actions as related to a specific place (Scollon, Scollon 2003). Although both Lindahl Elliot’s and Scollon and Scollon’s approaches incorporate Peircean semiotics when introducing the nature of signs, and consider the specificity of the place of communication in its widest sense to be of utmost importance, the essences of these approaches could not be further from each other. While geosemiotics turns its attention to visual semiotics, interaction order and semiotics of place, geosemeiotics emphasizes the encounter of dynamical bodies; while geosemiotics is concerned with humans, geosemeiotics stresses the coming together of human and more-than-human bodies which constitute assemblages. These are just some cursory differences between geosemiotics and geosemeiotics; what Lindahl Elliot actually proposes is a new transdisciplinary approach, which encompasses different perspectives (semeiotic, geographic, ecological and socioanthropological) on wildlife observation, forming his multifaceted theory into a single coherent framework.","PeriodicalId":44467,"journal":{"name":"Sign Systems Studies","volume":"48 1","pages":"510-518"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46041828","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Uexküll and Whitehead on meaning, process and life uexk<e:1>和怀特海在意义、过程和生命方面的观点

1区文学

Sign Systems Studies Pub Date : 2020-12-31 DOI: 10.12697/SSS.2020.48.2-4.11

Arthur Araujo

引用次数: 1

Editorial: Signs and communicators 社论:标志和传播者

1区文学

Sign Systems Studies Pub Date : 2020-06-30 DOI: 10.12697/sss.2020.48.1.01

P. Cobley, Adrian Pablé, J. Siebers

引用次数: 1

“Who goes there?” Reflections on signs and personhood in Christopher Hutton’s Integrationism and the Self “谁去那儿?”赫顿的《整合主义与自我》对符号与人格的思考

1区文学

Sign Systems Studies Pub Date : 2020-06-30 DOI: 10.12697/sss.2020.48.1.09

P. Cobley

引用次数: 1

Chatting with chatbots: Sign making in text-based human–computer interaction 与聊天机器人聊天：基于文本的人机交互中的签名制作

1区文学

Sign Systems Studies Pub Date : 2020-06-30 DOI: 10.12697/sss.2020.48.1.05

D. Duncker

引用次数: 4

Even a two-year-old can do it! The early stages of learning to understand moving-image media 连两岁的孩子都能做到!学习理解动态影像媒体的早期阶段

1区文学

Sign Systems Studies Pub Date : 2020-06-30 DOI: 10.12697/sss.2020.48.1.04

C. Bazalgette

引用次数: 0

Integrating biosemiotics: From a semiological point of view 整合生物符号学:从符号学的角度

1区文学

Sign Systems Studies Pub Date : 2020-06-30 DOI: 10.12697/sss.2020.48.1.07

Adrian Pablé

引用次数: 1

Modelling the reciprocal dynamics of dialogical communication: On the communication-philosophical undercurrent of radical constructivism and second-order cybernetics 对话式交际的互动动力学建模——论激进建构主义与二阶控制论的交际哲学暗流

1区文学

Sign Systems Studies Pub Date : 2020-06-30 DOI: 10.12697/SSS.2020.48.1.03

P. Kastberg

{"title":"Modelling the reciprocal dynamics of dialogical communication: On the communication-philosophical undercurrent of radical constructivism and second-order cybernetics","authors":"P. Kastberg","doi":"10.12697/SSS.2020.48.1.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2020.48.1.03","url":null,"abstract":"Even though both Ernst von Glasersfeld, the founding father of radical constructivism, and his epistemological alter ego, Heinz von Foerster, one of the principal architects of second-order cybernetics, would both repeatedly stress the formative importance of communication, neither would ever model communication as a phenomenon per se. I will propose a first modelling of communication as seen through the stereoscopic lens of these two schools of thought. I will first present, discuss and evaluate how communication is traditionally modelled. This will serve as an informed backdrop when I proceed to integrate the common denominators pertaining to communication from relevant works of both scholars. In addition to the fact that both would willingly profess to the ‘Linguolaxis’ of Maturana and Varela, i.e., that humans exist suspended in communication, two basic assumptions have proven formative. Firstly, that communication is perceived as a flux, as an almost William-James-like ‘stream of communication’. Secondly, and this is more in the vein of Heraclitus, that both communicators and communication alike undergo transformations in the process of immersion. This implies favouring a view of communication in which communication is a perpetual oscillation between ongoing reciprocal perturbations (Glasersfeld), that occur over time, and the endeavours to re-establish (cognitive) homeostasis (Foerster). The latter must not be reduced to either mere compliance, as it were, i.e., that the ‘other’ does as s/he is told, or to the mutual understanding of a dominance-free communication of a Habermasian persuasion, but rather in the pragmatic notion of ‘compatibility’ (Glasersfeld). For illustrative purposes I will end this paper by translating these notions into a model depicting what I have labelled co-actional communication, in effect forging an exemplar.","PeriodicalId":44467,"journal":{"name":"Sign Systems Studies","volume":"48 1","pages":"32-55"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.12697/SSS.2020.48.1.03","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48223898","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Hegel and the Peircean ‘object’ 黑格尔与皮尔斯的客体

1区文学

Sign Systems Studies Pub Date : 2020-06-30 DOI: 10.12697/sss.2020.48.1.06

C. Barnham

{"title":"Hegel and the Peircean ‘object’","authors":"C. Barnham","doi":"10.12697/sss.2020.48.1.06","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.2020.48.1.06","url":null,"abstract":"Peirce’s semiotics is well known for advocating a triadic, rather than a dyadic, sign structure, but interpretations of how such a structure works in practice have varied considerably. This paper argues that the Peircean ‘object’ is central to understanding Peirce’s philosophical intent and that this element should be construed as a mediating element within the sign rather than as an originating source of it. This interpretation resonates with the fundamentally anti-dualist character of Peirce’s philosophy and it creates potential convergences with the medieval philosophy of Duns Scotus – which was so influential in Peirce’s thinking. Moreover, construal of the ‘object’ as a mediating entity within the sign highlights important parallels with Hegelian thought and the role of the ‘essence’ in the latter’s dialectics. It is argued, indeed, that Peirce’s triadic template for the sign has strong Hegelian roots. This substantially repositions Peirce’s semiotics; it becomes, as in Hegel’s dialectics, an account of concept formation. The over-arching framework in which this takes place, however, retains an adherence to Peirce’s empiricist background and so avoids the reliance on logic which is the defining characteristic of Hegel’s dialectical method.","PeriodicalId":44467,"journal":{"name":"Sign Systems Studies","volume":"48 1","pages":"101-124"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.12697/sss.2020.48.1.06","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42975143","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1