Instead of rejecting the notion of iconicity, as has often been the case in semiotics, we should inquire deeper into its specifi c nature, and also into the peculiar way in which it is manifested by pictures. In order...Instead of rejecting the notion of iconicity, as has often been the case in semiotics, we should inquire deeper into its specifi c nature, and also into the peculiar way in which it is manifested by pictures. In order to show why Umberto Eco, Nelson Goodman, and others were fundamentally wrong in their classical critique of iconicity, we will pursue a close reading of Peirce, but we will interpret his work in accordance with more recent fi ndings in cognitive and perceptual psychology, and we will modify the theory as a result of our interpretation. At the same time, we will rely on phenomenological insights, both those made explicit by Edmund Husserl in his studies of pictorial consciousness, and those which are implicit, notably in the work of the psychologist James Gibson. As a result, we will distinguish iconicity as such from iconic grounds and iconic signs, and we will delineate two very different kinds of iconic signs, which we will call primary and secondary iconic signs. Even so, pictorial iconicity has itspeculiarities, which we will also try to elucidate. In so doing, we will consider to what extent the linguistic model is still helpful, and in which respects it is misleading.展开更多
Rather than being a model, a method, a philosophy, or an intellectual movement, semiotics is best considered a special perspective on the world of our experience, which, in ideal social circumstances, gives rise to a ...Rather than being a model, a method, a philosophy, or an intellectual movement, semiotics is best considered a special perspective on the world of our experience, which, in ideal social circumstances, gives rise to a new scientific discipline. Classical semiotics has developed several constructs for exploring the similarities and differences between sundry semiotic resources, such as language, gesture, and pictures. Although the semiotic tradition, going back at least to Greek antiquity, is very rich, it has in recent decades been seen as lacking adequate tools to take the empirical turn. It has not created reliable empirical methods for the study of semiotic resources, nor has it extended the study to the diachronic axis. In the tradition from cognitive and developmental psychology to cognitive science, however, such methods have been elaborated, and diachrony, both in the form of child development, and of evolution, have been given their due. On the other hand, none of these traditions sports the sophisticated theoretical constructs of semiotics. Therefore, we have created cognitive semiotics, which brings the methods, findings and theories of contemporary cognitive science and semiotics together, and uses them to design experimental situations elucidating the nature of semiotic resources. In order to do so, we need to have recourse to an interplay of phenomenological analysis and experimentally constructed situations. In this essay, we will try to situate semiotics generally, and cognitive semiotics in particular within the field of the sciences. We will also discuss the need for diachronic studies, when applying semiotic theory to the biocultural co-evolution of the human species.展开更多
文摘Instead of rejecting the notion of iconicity, as has often been the case in semiotics, we should inquire deeper into its specifi c nature, and also into the peculiar way in which it is manifested by pictures. In order to show why Umberto Eco, Nelson Goodman, and others were fundamentally wrong in their classical critique of iconicity, we will pursue a close reading of Peirce, but we will interpret his work in accordance with more recent fi ndings in cognitive and perceptual psychology, and we will modify the theory as a result of our interpretation. At the same time, we will rely on phenomenological insights, both those made explicit by Edmund Husserl in his studies of pictorial consciousness, and those which are implicit, notably in the work of the psychologist James Gibson. As a result, we will distinguish iconicity as such from iconic grounds and iconic signs, and we will delineate two very different kinds of iconic signs, which we will call primary and secondary iconic signs. Even so, pictorial iconicity has itspeculiarities, which we will also try to elucidate. In so doing, we will consider to what extent the linguistic model is still helpful, and in which respects it is misleading.
文摘Rather than being a model, a method, a philosophy, or an intellectual movement, semiotics is best considered a special perspective on the world of our experience, which, in ideal social circumstances, gives rise to a new scientific discipline. Classical semiotics has developed several constructs for exploring the similarities and differences between sundry semiotic resources, such as language, gesture, and pictures. Although the semiotic tradition, going back at least to Greek antiquity, is very rich, it has in recent decades been seen as lacking adequate tools to take the empirical turn. It has not created reliable empirical methods for the study of semiotic resources, nor has it extended the study to the diachronic axis. In the tradition from cognitive and developmental psychology to cognitive science, however, such methods have been elaborated, and diachrony, both in the form of child development, and of evolution, have been given their due. On the other hand, none of these traditions sports the sophisticated theoretical constructs of semiotics. Therefore, we have created cognitive semiotics, which brings the methods, findings and theories of contemporary cognitive science and semiotics together, and uses them to design experimental situations elucidating the nature of semiotic resources. In order to do so, we need to have recourse to an interplay of phenomenological analysis and experimentally constructed situations. In this essay, we will try to situate semiotics generally, and cognitive semiotics in particular within the field of the sciences. We will also discuss the need for diachronic studies, when applying semiotic theory to the biocultural co-evolution of the human species.
