Topic
Sign (semiotics)
About: Sign (semiotics) is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 4080 publications have been published within this topic receiving 70333 citations. The topic is also known as: semiotic sign.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: It is concluded that the sign of disorder in this context has no single interpretant and there exist a variety of interpretants from which the therapist and patient may select.
25 citations
••
TL;DR: It is proposed that iconic gestures that overlap in form with signs may serve as some type of 'manual cognates' that help non-signing adults to break into a new language at first exposure.
25 citations
01 Jan 1990
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examine some of the arguments advanced and acted upon by doctors concerned in decisions about whether severely handicapped patients should live or die, and criticise the view that "selective treatment" is morally preferable to infanticide.
Abstract: This paper examines some of the arguments advanced and acted upon by doctors concerned in decisions about whether severely handicapped patients should live or die. It criticises the view that 'selective treatment' is morally preferable to infanticide and shows how the standard arguments advanced for this preference fail to sustain it. It argues that the self-deception, which is sometimes cited as a sign of humanity in these cases, and which is implicit in the term 'selective treatment' is more dangerous than is the remote chance of brutalisation which is often cited as the danger of active euthanasia.
25 citations
••
TL;DR: In this article, the authors use some photographs of hospital signs to illustrate basic issues in the analysis of signs and discuss the issues of quantity of data, of pragmatics, of the unity of 'disparate' data, and of location, juxtaposition, and sequence.
Abstract: The authors use some photographs of hospital signs to illustrate basic issues in the analysis of signs. They discuss the issues of quantity of data, of pragmatics, of the unity of 'disparate' data, of location, juxtaposition, and of sequence, showing the many ways in which sign reading is an embedded activity. The latter part of the paper discusses the possibility of generalising their analysis to other sig
25 citations
•
01 Jun 1968
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors look at the emergence of modern art as a function of the disintegration of the Platonic-Christian conception of man and propose an interpretation of the history of art.
Abstract: That modern art is different from earlier art is so obvious as to be hardly worth mentioning. Yet there is little agreement as to the meaning or the importance of this difference. Indeed, contemporary aestheticians, especially, seem to feel that modern art does not depart in any essential way from the art of the past. One reason for this view is that, with the exception of Marxism, the leading philosophical schools today are ahistorical in orientation. This is as true of phenomenology and existentialism as it is of contepmorary analytic philosophy. As a result there have been few attempts by philosophers to understand the meaning of the history of art--an understanding fundamental to any grasp of the difference between modern art and its predecessors. Art expresses an ideal image of man, and an essential part of understanding the meaning of a work of art is understanding this image. When the ideal image changes, art, too, must change. It is thus possible to look at the emergence of modern art as a function of the disintegration of the Platonic-Christian conception of man. The artist no longer has an obvious, generally accepted route to follow. One sign of this is that there is no one style today comparable to Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance, or Baroque. This lack of direction has given the artist a new freedom. Today there is a great variety of answers to the question, "What is art?" Such variety, however, betrays an uncertainty about the meaning of art. An uneasiness about the meaning of art has led modern artists to enter into dialogue with art historians, psychologists and philosophers. Perhaps this interpretation can contribute to that dialogue."--Excerpted from the author's preface"
25 citations