Craig,
By "convention," I was referring only to a situation in which there is no necessary connection between a sign and a referent - i.e., you have to have learned that the two are connected as part of the language-learning/acculturation process, and a different language or culture would not have the same sign relationship for that particular phonetic sequence, or visual pattern, or what have you. In this particular sense, "conventional" doesn't entail "fixed," since cultural signification is always in flux.
We're running into the typical problem that occurs when a particular theorist or field conscripts an already-existent word and uses it with a different (and usually more specific) meaning. The term "symbol" in general literary discussions isn't the same as "symbol" used by semioticians who have adopted quasi-Peircean terminology. A skull can certainly be a death-symbol in literary terms, but it would be an index to some semioticians, although what it's an index to (death) certainly would act as a subsidiary sign that could be a symbol (the meanings we attach to death aren't, of course, independent of culture). I suspect academics would avoid a lot of problems if we just made up entirely new words when we want specific terms...but then even fewer people would read our articles.
Sincerely,
Bill Spruiell
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 10:05 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Semiotics Anyone?
Bill,
To complicate this further (why not), most literature theorists would have a hard time with symbol as related to referent by convention. Literary symbols tend to work on the literal level, but also suggest or radiate (resonate?) additional meanings. Allegories may give us symbols with fixed or conventional meanings, but are generally thought of as less meaningful than a truer symbol. True symbols don't have fixed meanings and they don't stand in for "hidden meanings." No single interpretation of them will use up their possibilities.
I have been trying to nail down "icon" for some time; it seems to be gathering momentum as an important word. The OED gives "draft additions" from 2001 as "a person or thing regarded as representative symbol, especially of a culture or movement; a person, institution, etc., considered worthy of admiration or respect."
I haven't seen it explicitly defined that way, but I think it also carries a sense of being irreducible. It is, in itself, the best explanation we have for the meaning it stands for.
Craig
Spruiell, William C wrote:
Carol, Dee, et al.:
In a sense, linguistics is a branch of semiotics - while a very large proportion of work in semiotics has been on language, and while historically a good number of semioticians have used analyses of language as a starting point, the field in and of itself isn't specifically "linguistic." As an analogy even more flawed than my usual ones, semiotics is to linguistics as physics is to astronomy. Terms like "symbol" are a major headache - they're used by different semioticians with different meanings, so you have to know whose terms they are. One of the more common schemes, taken from Peirce, is as follows:
'icon' à related to referent by direct similarity (e.g. picture of mountain standing for mountain)
'index' à related to referent by cause/effect connection (smoke standing for fire)
'symbol' à related to referent only by convention (most linguistic signs)
Sincerely,
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carol Morrison
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:37 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Semiotics Anyone?
Thank you! Right now I am trying to distinguish between "signs" and symbols." I believe there is a difference, correct? I read that a sign (in language theory) is a compound consisting of a signifier and a signified, whereas a symbol is something else. I probably need to do more outside reading on it.
-- On Wed, 9/10/08, Dee Allen-Kirkhouse <[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Dee Allen-Kirkhouse <[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Semiotics Anyone?
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Wednesday, September 10, 2008, 8:29 PM
Carol,
Semiotics is a branch of linguistics, but it also has a place in other disciplines. When I teach introduction to linguistics, I cover semiotics, and I have used it in literature classes to help students understand the text. I have a colleague who teaches philosophy, and he covers it in his classes. Signs and symbols are important in a variety of ways. On a practical level, think about all the "universal signs" we have in airports and other public places. The figure with the skirt directs us to the women's restrooms and the men look for the figure wearing pants. Street signs are part of semiotics.
Dee Allen-Kirkhouse
----- Original Message -----
From: Carol Morrison <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 9/10/2008 5:16:00 PM
Subject: Semiotics Anyone?
Hello fellow Grammarians:
I have a question regarding the field of "semiotics" (the theory and study of signs and symbols; reading signs-for those who aren't familiar). Is semiotics a science unto itself or is it a branch of linguistics? The reader I am using in one of my freshman writing courses, Signs of Life, uses a semiotic approach to interpreting literature and other cultural texts. One of my students asked me today if semiotics is used in any other fields aside from English studies and language. Any thoughts?
Thanks much.
Carol Morrison
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
