Intersemiotic translation (IT) was defined by Roman Jakobson (The Translation Studies Reader, Routledge, London, p. 114, 2000) as “transmutation of signs”—“an interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of nonverbal sign systems.” Despite its theoretical relevance, and in spite of the frequency in which it is practiced, the phenomenon remains virtually unexplored in terms of conceptual modeling, especially from a semiotic perspective. Our approach is based on two premises: (i) IT is fundamentally a semiotic operation process (semiosis) and (ii) (...) IT is a deeply iconic-dependent process. We exemplify our approach by means of literature to dance IT and we explore some implications for the development of a general model of IT. (shrink)

The book presents the various theories of intentionality from Brentano and Husserl to present day (1997) theories on mental content, narrow and broad.

Nell’ultimo trentennio, le scienze cognitive hanno proposto una teoria alternativa a quelle che intendevano la metafora come strumento linguistico, cioè che il processo metaforico si potesse ridurre al livello letterale, semantico o pragmatico. Secondo la teoria della metafora concettuale, la metafora è un modo di rappresentare ed organizzare il nostro mondo, piuttosto che uno strumento semplicemente decorativo del linguaggio avente un ruolo puramente comunicativo. Questo shift paradigmatico ha influenzato anche altri aspetti delle scienze cognitive. In questo contributo si vuole delineare (...) lo stato attuale della teoria esposta da Lakoff e Johnson e la maturazione del pensiero rispetto alla prima pubblicazione di Metaphors We Live By (1980/1998). Dopo avere illustrato i principi teorici, si daranno degli esempi di metafore culturali e multimodali e si puntualizzerà il ruolo analogo, ma distinto, alla metafora che la metonimia copre nell’ambito dei nostri sistemi concettuali. (shrink)

The article deals with `The Symbolic Force of Human Rights'. First, it restricts the meaning of the term `symbolic' and of the expression `symbolic force'. Second, it discusses the concept of human rights. Having established the conceptual framework, the author goes to the core of his argument, characterizing the symbolic force of human rights as ambivalent: on one hand, it serves for their generalized affirmation and accomplishment; on the other hand, it acts as a manner of political manipulation. In this (...) regard, the article focuses, first, on the symbolic force of human rights at the level of national states, and then within the international and worldwide context, on criticizing finally the rhetorical use of human rights by nowadays' only superpower, the USA. Key Words: human rights • interventionism • supranational and national • legal orders • symbolic force. (shrink)

The aim of my contribution is to analyse the role that common sense has played in Umberto Eco’s work. After making clear the distinction between good sense and common sense, and highlighting a number of differences with the Scottish philosophy of common sense, I will consider the uses and functions that common sense assumes in Eco’s philosophy: namely, a phenomenological function, a regulatory function and a communicative function. I will demonstrate how the characterisation of common sense in Eco emphasises the (...) importance of the historical dimension of Sens, the importance of the public and social dimension of semiosis, and how common sense plays a fundamental, pragmatic role in the disposition to act, whilst revealing the importance of the Peircian lesson and Eco’s consonance with Peirce’s positions. (shrink)

This paper proposes a concept of creativity that stems from a semiotic and linguistic theoretical perspective, in which the formal frame of reference for variation and linguistic change considers and evaluates both the process of general interaction and the contact of languages as a global phenomenon. This method proposes an analysis of creativity that ranges from reflections of ancient philosophy to a contemporary linguistic perspective, incorporates international ideologies, and identifies, within the dimensions of use and social sharing, the principle capable (...) of guiding potentially unlimited forms of linguistic creativity that are self-expressive and communicative, far beyond the grammatical patterns of regularity and norm. Interpreting the paradigm of creativity according to this model means placing the semiotic property in a position of prima inter pares, entrusted not only with the “role” of forming signs (words, sentences, texts), but the function of arbitraire, as a phenomenon of language creation. The following reading references the semiotic contribution of Tullio De Mauro, an Italian linguist who has contributed to the systematization of creativity, overcoming and synthesizing both Saussurian structuralism and Chomskyan generativism. (shrink)

Cosa vuol dire progettare una scuola se si vuole interfacciare spazi e didattiche? Quale contributo può offrire l’universo pedagogico alla progettazione architettonica dello spazio educativo? In che modo si arricchiscono e sostanziano tra loro due mondi apparentemente così lontani come quello della pedagogia e quello dell’architettura? Questo contributo intende offrire indicazioni di carattere metodologico e un esempio concreto per mostrare come una scuola può sviluppare una identità pedagogico-didattica specifica andando ad analizzare ciò che effettivamente è possibile fare, come e quando (...) è possibile interfacciarsi in termini di visioni e di immagini insieme alla committenza e all’architetto per creare e progettare, sviluppando un linguaggio condiviso. (shrink)

While being an important tile of Jameson’s whole theoretical project, Allegory and Ideology leaves some key questions not fully answered. Briefly put, these questions concern the meanings and limits of allegory; the unstable relationship between allegory and allegoresis in the Western cultural tradition; and the special place allegory plays or could play in postmodern culture. Solving these problems – in the footsteps of Jameson’s magisterial inquiry – will be crucial especially for Marxist critics.

The goal of this paper is a reassessment of Peirce’s doctrine of symbol. The paper discusses a common reading of Peirce’s doctrine, according to which all and only symbols are conventional signs. Against this reading, it is argued that neither are all Peircean symbols conventional, nor are all conventional signs Peircean symbols. Rather, a Peircean symbol is a general sign, i. e., a sign that represents a general object.

The contribution that may come from the general science of signs, semiotics, to the planning and development of education and learning at all levels, from early schooling through to university education and learning should not be neglected. As Umberto Eco claims in the “Introduction” to the Italian edition of his book Semiotica and Philosophy of Language (1984: xii, my trans.), “[general semiotics] is philosophical in nature, because it does not study a particular system, but posits the general categories in light (...) of which different systems can be compared. And for general semiotics philosophical discourse is neither advisable nor urgent: it is simply constitutive.” To the title of their book Semiotic Theory of Learning, at the centre of our attention in the present text, Andrew Stables, Winfried Nöth, Alin Olteanu, Sébastien Pesce, and Eetu Pikkarainen, rightly add the subtitle New Perspectives in the Philosophy of Education. This multivoiced contribution to research in learning and education in a semiotic framework has a unifying reference in the semiotics of Charles S. Peirce, but without disregarding an array of other distinguished exponents of the teaching and education sciences from different disciplines, semioticians and philosophers alike. This book, a polyphonic effort, with its appeal to “act otherwise,” and to do so investing in learning and education, no doubt makes a significant contribution in such a direction: education for transformation, for humanizing social change. Beyond evidencing what to us are particularly interesting aspects of the topics under discussion in Semiotic Theory of Learning, we also propose to continue and amplify this multivoiced dialogue. While highlighting still other aspects and contributions made by the same semioticians and philosophers presented by the authors of this book, involving such figures as Charles Peirce, Charles Morris, Thomas Sebeok, John Deely, etc., we have further introduced other voices made to resound throughout, whether directly or indirectly, like that of Victoria Welby, Mikhail Bakhtin, Emmanuel Levinas, Adam Schaff, Ferruccio Rossi-Landi, Marcel Danesi, Augusto Ponzio, and Genevieve Vaughan. (shrink)

The iconic and diagrammatic features of abduction, as expressed in Peirce’s works after 1890, allow one to re-read the Kantian concept of schema. By means of this new reading, it is possible to consider the dynamics between legality and creative acts, which, according to Emilio Garroni, keep cultures alive. This process can be analysed by a semiotic theory that could combine the features of Kant’s Aesthetic Judgment (as an answer to schema’s problems) and Peirce’s last theory of abduction. In this (...) way, it becomes possible to go beyond the simple subsumption, through Reflective Judgment, of sensible intuitions under a concept. Thus, creativity becomes the process, both mental and cultural, whereby a new regularity come from the background of the previous one as a result of the free play of our faculties (Musement), which sets links between universes of experience apparently very distant one from another. (shrink)

The epistemology of śabda is one of the main themes in Bhaṭṭa Jayanta’s Nyāyamañjarī, and, in the hypotheses explored in this paper, also the conceptual basis of Jayanta’s textual re-use. The sixth chapter of the Nyāyamañjarī contains a debate between Vaiyākaraṇas and Mīmāṃsakas who, respectively, advocated an holistic or atomistic theory of language. Selected Jayanta’s re-uses from Vyākaraṇa, Mīmāṃsā, and Nyāya sources are here surveyed and analyzed, with a focus on their meaning and on the context. The method of analysis (...) is partially following Moravcsik’s scheme for a classification of citations, as well as Small’s classification by symbolic functions. By re-using texts Jayanta not only imparted authority to his own arguments, but also reassessed the relation of his tradition with other ones. Re-used ideas and words stand for symbols of those authors’ tenets, and those authors represent symbols of their respective traditions. Moreover, by quoting a certain author Jayanta often anointed him with a symbolic status of trustworthy authority, and his statement with a status of śabdapramāṇa. (shrink)