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.

Semiotic-conceptual analysis: a proposal

Abstract: This paper provides the basic definitions of Semiotic-conceptual analysis (SCA), which is a mathematical modelling of signs as elements of a triadic relation. FCA concept lattices are constructed for each of the three sign components. It is demonstrated how core linguistic and semiotic notions (such as synonymy and icon) can be represented with SCA. While the usefulness of SCA has already been demonstrated in a number of applications and several propositions are proven in this paper, there are still many open questions as to what to do next with SCA. Therefore, this paper is meant as a proposal and encouragement for further development.

Catchments, growth points, and the iterability of signs in classroom communication

Abstract: During lectures, a variety of signs are produced while the teacher communicates very specific conceptual meanings to students. In this article, we focus on particular signs constituted by both words and gestures that comprise a dialectical, indivisible unit, that corresponds to a double signifier, verbal and visual at the same time. From an illustrative case extracted from a database with twenty-six videotaped biology lessons, we analyze the repetition of gestures (i.e., catchments [McNeill 2002]) within and across lessons dealing with the same conceptual topic, and elaborate it as a special case of sign iteration (Derrida 1988). In each iteration of the sign, the unit of gesture and word produces and reproduces the meaning of the signified and of themselves as signifiers.

Issues in creating annotation standards for sign language description

Abstract: In this paper, we discuss the need for a standardised system of annotation for sign language corpora. Although several tools exist for the annotation of video data (such as ELAN or iLex), and some existing projects have annotation guidelines (e.g., Crasborn et al., 2007; Johnston, 2010), a widely adopted standard is currently unavailable. First, we discuss the purpose of a set of unified annotation standards for sign languages: such standards would provide a shared set of conventions for the easy exchange of data across different sign language corpus projects and may increase consistency within corpora. Next, we discuss the properties that would define a good set of shared annotation conventions (Beckman et al., 2009). We examine some of the proposed annotation standards for spoken language description, such as the ToBI conventions for prosody and the Leipzig Glossing Rules for morpho-syntax. Lastly, we discuss the relationship between theory and description. Dryer (2006) pointed out that linguists often contrast ‘theoretical linguistics’ with ‘descriptive’ work. But if one accepts the argument that there is indeed no ‘atheoretical description’, then sign language linguists need to agree on a shared theory for basic sign language description, and how this translates into annotation practices.

Becoming a Sign: The Mimic’s Activity in Biological Mimicry

Abstract: From a semiotic perspective biological mimicry can be described as a tripartite system with a double structure that consists of ecological relations between species and semiotic relations of sign. In this article the focus is on the mimic who is the individual benefiting from its resemblance to the cues or signals of other species or to the environment. In establishing the mimetic resemblance the question of mimic’s activity becomes crucial, and the activity can range from the fixed bodily patterns to fully dynamic behavioural displays. The mimic’s activity can be targeted at two other participants of the mimicry system—either at the model or at the receiver. The first possibility is quite common in camouflage and there are several possibilities for mimic’s activity to occur: selecting a resting place or habitat based on conformity with the environment, changing body coloration to correspond to the surrounding environment, covering oneself with particles of the soil. In its activity aimed at the model, the mimic develops a strong semiotic connection with its specific perceptual environment or part of it and obtains a representational character. In the second possibility the activity of a mimetic organism is aimed at the receiver who is confused by the resemblance, and between the two participants an active communicative interaction is established. Such type of mimicry can be exemplified by abstract threat displays found in various groups of animals, for instance a toad’s upright posture as a response to the presence of a snake. From the semiotic viewpoint it can be interpreted as the motive of fear in the predator’s Umwelt being entered into the mimic’s subjective world and manifested in its behaviour. The mimetic organism ends up in an ambiguous position, where it needs to pretend to be something other than it is. In the final part of the article it is argued that the mimetic sign is basically a false designator as the mimic’s activity to become a sign is aimed at a specific type of signs. Rather than signifying belonging to its own species or group, a mimetic sign indicates that its carrier belongs to the type of some other species. The tension between the form and behaviour of mimetic organisms arises from the discrepancy between the type of organism that it essentially is and the type of organism that the mimetic sign it carries imposes on it.

Sign, symbol, and metalanguage: against the integration of semiotics and symbolic interactionism

Abstract: Dean MacCannell's proposal for a “rapprochement” between symbolic interaction-ism and semiotics, in which the “generality” of symbolic interactionism's conception the sign is “raised” to that of semiotics, is examined. By turning exclusively to Saussurian semiotics, MacCannell does not adequately reflect the distinction between “natural” and “arbitrary” representation in Peirce's semiosis that is the most fruitful link with Mead's symbolic interactionism. Consequently, MacCannell's argument at the level of terminology is flawed. Rather than merging, the perspectives might benefit from a radical rethinking of representation. This would involve preserving the distinction between the “natural” and “arbitrary,” while at the same time recognizing that in mass society “arbitrary” representation has become a kind of “second-order” (Barthes) indexical metalanguage of membership within which symbolic interaction may occur. As Baudrillard claims, “commutation of signs” has replaced “interaction of symbols,” yet strains against an unfulfilled symbolic demand. Efforts should be directed at generating a theory of representation capable of addressing the tension that produces this symbolic demand.