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)

Résumé L'article propose une nouvelle approche dans l'analyse de la sémantique polydimensionnelle du texte littéraire. Notre modèle dynamique synthétise les traits communs propres à la psychomécanique du langage et à la sémantique interprétative. Cette orientation des recherches permet de renforcer l'analyse des isotopes narratifs par la description de leur genèse pré-discursive. Appliqué à l'étude du texte littéraire, ce modèle manifeste des possibilités supplémentaires dans l'examen des mécanismes intrinsèques de la cohésion textuelle.

Today, there is an emerging interest for the potential role of hermeneutics in reflecting on the practices related to digital technologies and their consequences. Nonetheless, such an interest has neither given rise to a unitary approach nor to a shared debate. The primary goal of this paper is to map and synthetize the different existing perspectives to pave the way for an open discussion on the topic. The article is developed in two steps. In the first section, the authors analyze (...) digital hermeneutics “in theory” by confronting and systematizing the existing literature. In particular, they stress three main distinctions among the approaches: between “methodological” and “ontological” digital hermeneutics; between data- and text-oriented digital hermeneutics; and between “quantitative” and “qualitative” credos in digital hermeneutics. In the second section, they consider digital hermeneutics “in action”, by critically analyzing the uses of digital data for studying a classical object such as the political opinion. In the conclusion, we will pave the way to an ontological turn in digital hermeneutics. Most of this article is devoted to the methodological issue of interpreting with digital machines. The main task of an ontological digital hermeneutics would consist instead in wondering if it is legitimate, and eventually to which extent, to speak of digital technologies, or at least of some of them, as interpretational machines. (shrink)

Journal Name: Semiotica Issue: Ahead of print.

Independently of the generative and enunciative theories, the dynamic structuralism of the Saussurian tradition has made it possible to pose the problem of semiosis, understood as the individuation of the sign from a structural germ. At a higher level of complexity, the processes that preside over this individuation seem to also govern the composition of texts. Literary and pictorial examples make it possible to detect them; they confirm that reflection on the arts is a major area of general and comparative (...) semiotics. (shrink)

This article seeks to define what is semiotic and what is Semiotics. Provided first is a brief presentation of various perspectives of Semiotics. Pursuant to this, we will seek to uncover Semiotics’ particulars by evaluating various approaches. We will commence by framing the definitions of the word “Semiotic” to consider then Semiotics via eight particular anthropic – human-related – levels. This partition, derived by the author from a Rastier typology, defines the following levels: noumenophysical, phenophysical, semiotic, representational (“mental images” and (...) concepts), sens (physical), felt (affects), cognitive other and transcendental. From here, we will consider the place of Semiotics among disciplines. Finally, the text presents a typology of relationship between disciplines, including semiotics: anadisciplinarity, disciplinarity, valodisciplinarity, intradisciplinary (such as intertheoricity), multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, metadisciplinarity). (shrink)