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.

Computer art: a personal recollection

Abstract: The story of some early computer art drawings in 1965 is told. It is a story of randomness. Computer art is viewed here as the programming of classes of aesthetic objects. In the mid 1960s, information aesthetics was a powerful and radical theory that had some influence on constructive and concrete forms of art in Europe. A connection is drawn to computer supported works by A. Michael Noll in the US, and Georg Nees in Germany. "Experiment and tendency" is identified as an important principle still valid today. The concept of the algorithmic sign appears at the horizon. Digital media are claimed to be explorations of algorithmic signs.

A Crosslinguistic, Cross-cultural Analysis of Metaphors in Two Italian Sign Language (LIS) Registers

Abstract: A KEY DEFINITIONAL FEATURE of metaphors is that they make it possible to talk about a particular topic with terms usually related to a very different subject. For example, if someone says, "Jerry's mental wheels are oiled," we understand that the person is talking about the mind of someone in terms that are usually used for talking about machines.1 Researchers in the contemporary theory of metaphor (Lakoff and Johnson 1999; Fauconnier and Turner 2002) explain this phenomenon as the result of a cross-domain mapping between two different conceptual domains. To process the metaphor "Jerry's mental wheels are oiled," we need an understanding of some of the key properties of the mind's domain (the target of the metaphor) that our experience of the machine's domain (the source of the metaphor) can provide. In recent theoretical accounts of metaphors (Ortony 1979; Keysar and Glucksberg 1989; Turner and Fauconnier 1995), much effort has been devoted to determining which constraints limit and govern metaphorical cross-domain mappings (i.e., not every domain can be mapped onto every other, and some cross-domain mappings are perceived as meaningless). Context, cultural presuppositions, and universal human experiences play an important role in determining which domains can be mapped onto which others. According to Lakoffandjohnson (1999), metaphors are rooted in prelinguistic bodily experiences that lead children who are acquiring language to a conflation of different semantic and cognitive domains. From this point of view, different cultures construct different metaphors that stem from these same experiences. I argue that we can construe signed language metaphors as products of prelinguistic experiences that are probably universal for deaf people but do not completely overlap with those experienced by speakers of vocal languages. In addition, signed language metaphors can also be characterized as intrinsically related to aspects of the particular linguistic and cultural dimensions to which they belong in a particular Deaf community. I suggest that the shared cultural knowledge of Italian deaf signers plays a relevant role in the making and understanding of metaphoric cross-domain mappings in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Another important topic is the role that the iconic features of signs may play in metaphor production. In recent discussions of signed language metaphors, much attention has been devoted to the interplay of iconicity and metaphors (Brennan 1992; Russo 2000; Wilcox 2000; Taub 2001). Although iconic and metaphorical phenomena in signed languages must be given separate theoretical accounts, the interplay of iconicity and metaphors in signed language discourse has a key role in metaphor creation and understanding. Iconicity and Metaphor in Signed Languages Iconicity refers to a regular mapping of some of the formal features of the meaning of a sign (or of a sublexical component) onto some of the formal features of the expression of a sign (or sublexical component). This correspondence is generally inherent in the language system but can also be productively established in a set of utterances. It is possible to distinguish between two kinds of iconicity: frozen (dormant) and productive (dynamic) (Russo, Giuranna, and Pizzuto [2001]; Russo [2004]). Frozen iconicity affects the relations between form and meaning that can be found in the sublexical, lexical, and grammatical structures of signs when they are abstracted from a particular utterance and considered in their citation form. In signed language literature, this kind of iconicity has been much debated (Klima and Bellugi 1979; Boyes Braem 1981; Pizzuto and Volterra 2000; Pietrandrea 2002; Taub 2000, 2001). It has often been argued that the iconic features of the citation forms of signs do not contrast with the inherent linguistic character of signed languages. The second type, dynamic iconicity, affects the correlation between forms and meanings that can be established in particular utterances, according to a particular textual and situational context. …

The Novel After Theory

Abstract: AcknowledgmentsIntroduction: Knowing TheoryPart 1: Theories of Textuality 1. The Death of the Author2. Structure, Sign, and PlayPart 2: Psychological Theories 3. The Mirror Stage4. Women's TimePart 3: Theories of Society 5. Systems of Constraint6. Simulacra and Simulation7. Lines of FlightConclusion: Talking Back to TheoryNotesIndex