We kindly inform you that, as long as the subject affiliation of our 300.000+ articles is in progress, you might get unsufficient or no results on your third level or second level search. In this case, please broaden your search criteria.
The article discusses the three dominant imaginist principles of Anatolij Mariengofs (1897-1962) poetic tech-nique, as they are translated into prose in his first fictional novel Cynics (1928). These principles include the "catalogue of images", a genre introduced by Vadim Shershenevich, i.e. poetry formed of nouns, which Mariengof makes use of in his longer imaginist poems. Another dominant imaginist principle, to which Mariengof referred in his theoretic articles and poetic texts, is similar to the creating of shocking images typical of Russian futurism. Mariengofs application is the juxtaposition of "pure" (chistyj) and "impure" (nechistyj), either a conflict between the vehicle and the object within a metaphor or a conflict between metaphors. This is an essential poetic feature in both Mariengofs poetry and prose. The third, maybe the most Mariengofian imaginist principle, relevant to the study of Cynics, is the poetics of transition (poetika sdviga), i.e. a certain fragmented structure of the text, which is related to Mariengofs use of heteroaccentual rhyme. All these principles can be treated as fundamental elements in Mariengofs use of montage technique in his fictional prose.
More...
The article focuses on the peculiarities of the intertextual space of culture and the means of its analysis. Level analysis, compositional analysis and chronotopical analysis are juxtaposed in the paper. Textual and intertextual chronotopical analyses are considered separately. Two aspects of textual processuality are juxtaposed: the history of text production and the role of the manuscript page structure as a reflection of the writer's style and mode of thinking (especially in the intersemiotic relationship between picture, drawing and word); the history of text reception, its intersemiotic translation into different sign systems and its existence in culture in a scattered state. In this connection the notions of the individual and mental text are juxtaposed. As an example a page of F.Dostoevsky's notebook is taken, where an intricate combination of picture, calligraphy and text offers an interesting information on the methods of formation of text conception.
More...
Among the national scientific groups, it was the Prague Linguistic Circle that had the most decisive affinity to the work of the Moscow-Tartu school. This paper examines the work of one of the most tireless contemporary Czech interpreters of the Lotman school, Vladimir Macura (1945-1999), whose work on Czech literary and historical texts are outstanding examples of the reverberation of Lotmanian semiotics of culture in the Czech Republic. This is particularly the case in Macura's reevaluations of the texts of the Czech National Revival of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, especially in two books, Znameni zrodu (Signs of Birth) (1995) and Cesky sen (The Czech Dream) (1998). In these works Macura looked at this critical period in Czech national his¬tory as a multi-layered semiotic text in both the verbal and visual spheres. The present paper is an attempt at an exploration of Macura's treatment in this manner of the following: the Czech language, the city of Prague, the question of Czech national self-identification in general and as part of a larger category, the world of the Slavs. An important aspect of this project is an examination of Macura's exploration of the value functions of symbolic animals and plants in Czech Revival culture, and its relation to the […]
More...
In the framework of the Finno-Ugric Congress held in Tartu in 2000 there took place, under the Hungarian initiative, also foundation of the Finno-Ugric Semiotic Association to unite different Finno-Ugric peoples and cultures, from the semiotic viewpoint, in at least two major aspects. The first aspect is concerned with unified semiotic analysis of these cultures, whereas the second one should be concerned with organizational matters in terms of forming stabile network between the Finno-Ugric semioticians and the relevant national institutions. Since this type of organization (cf. organizations founded on the basis of so-to-speak universal objects, e.g. visual semiotics, spatial semiotics, etc.) is not common yet in the international structure of semiotics (probably with some exceptions like the Balkan region), it is probably worth introducing both from the formal viewpoint and with respect to a closer look at the semiotic activity in the three Finno-Ugric cultures having the state structure to support it (Estonia, Finland and Hungary). Within the domain of Finno-Ugric studies, semiotics appeared only during the last decades as a special field of research. Important works were published in linguistics, literary studies, musicology, art history, cultural analysis, psychology, folklore and sociology etc. from semiotic points of view. Detection of signs in different Finno-Ugric cultures became a fashionable topic. International acceptance of Finnish, Hungarian and Estonian semiotics has been overwhelming. Still, we know relatively little about semiotics among other Finno-Ugric peoples. Historic surveys are relatively frequent, but until recently there was no at¬tempt to summarize the scope and prospects of 'Finno-Ugric semiotics'.
More...
The "semiotic threshold" is U. Eco's metaphor of the borderline between the world of semiosis and the nonsemiotic world and hence also between semiotics and its neighboring disciplines. The paper examines Eco's threshold in comparison to the views of semiosis and semiotics of C. S. Peirce. While Eco follows the structuralist tradition, postulating the conventionality of signs as the main criterion of semiosis, Peirce has a much broader concept of semiosis, which is not restricted to phenomena of culture but includes many processes in nature. Whereas Eco arrives at the conclusion that biological processes, such as the ones within the immune system, cannot be included in the program of semiotic research, Peirce's broader definition of semiosis has meanwhile become the foundation of semiotic studies in biology and medicine and hence in biosemiotics and medical semiotics.
More...
This paper gives a first overview over the role of mereology — the theory of parts and wholes — in semiotics. The mereology of four major semioticians — Husserl, Jakobson, Hjelmslev, and Peirce is presented briefly and its role in the overall architecture of each of their theories is outlined — with Brentano tradition as reference. Finally, an evaluation of the strength and weaknesses of the four is undertaken, and some guide-lines for further research is proposed. Strange as it may seem, mereology — the theory of parts and wholes — has only rarely caught the explicit attention of semiotics.
More...
Ecosemiotics (or ecological semiotics) is the study of sign processes in the interaction of humans with their natural environment. This semiotic field at the crossroads of nature and culture is closely related to its neighbouring fields of biosemiotics and semiotics of culture, but semiosis in the relation between humans and nature is also of concern to aesthetics, the visual arts, literature, hermeneutics, and theology. Aspects related to ecosemiotics have also been studied in human ecology, cultural geography, ecopsychology, and ecolinguistics. There are two different conceptions of the ecological aspects of semiotics: (1) Ecological refers to all environmental information except for the one communicated by humans or in the case of other organisms by conspecifics. In this sense, there is ecological semiosis in all organisms, and ecosemiotics comprises a large part ofbiosemiotics. (2) In a narrower sense ecological refers to the environment of humans only. Accordingly, human environmental problems, when treated semiotically, belong to the field of ecosemiotics. In this sense, ecosemiotics is a part of anthroposemiotics, and more strictly, of the semiotics of culture. Four major models of the relationship between humans and their environment can be discerned in the history of culture: the pansemiotic, the magical, the mythological, and the one of the natural sciences (see also Noth 1998; 2000: 251— 252). Due to these two different meanings of 'ecological', there have been different definitions of 'ecosemiotics'. For instance, Tembrock (1997) follows the first, whereas Kull (1998) follows the second definition.
More...
