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.

A Western Apache Writing System: The Symbols of Silas John

Abstract: At the outset of this article, it was observed that the adequacy of an etic typology of written symbols could be judged by its ability to describe all the emic distinctions in all the writing systems of the world. In conclusion, we should like to return to this point and briefly examine the extent to which currently available etic concepts can be used to describe the distinctions made by Western Apaches in relation to the writing system of Silas John. Every symbol in the Silas John script may be classified as a phonetic-semantic sign. Symbols of this type denote linguistic expressions that consist of one or more words and contrast as a class with phonetic-nonsemantic signs, which denote phonemes (or phoneme clusters), syllables (or syllable clusters), and various prosodic phenomena ( 2 , pp. 2, 248). Phonetic semantic signs are commonly partitioned into two subclasses: alogographs (which denote single words) and phraseographs (which denote on or more words). Although every symbol in the Silas John script can be assigned to one or the other of these categories, such an exercise is without justification ( 21 ). We have no evidence to suggest that Western Apaches classify symbols according to the length or complexity of their linguistic referents, and therefore the imposition of distinctions based on these criteria would be inappropriate and misleading. A far more useful contrast, and one we have already employed, is presented in most etic typologies as an opposition between compound (composite) and noncompound (noncomposite) symbols. Used to break down the category of phonetic-semantic signs, these two concepts enable us to describe more or less exactly the distinction Apaches draw between "symbol elements put together" ( ke?escin ledidilgoh ) and "symbol elements standing alone" ( ke?- escin doledidildaahi ). The former may now be defined as consisting of compound phonetic-semantic signs, while the latter is composed of noncompound phonetic-semantic signs. Up to this point, etic concepts have served us well. However, a deficiency appears when we search for a terminology that allows us to describe the distinction between "symbols that tell what to say" and "symbols that tell what to do." As far as we have been able to determine, standard typologies make no provision for this kind of contrast, apparently because their creators have tacitly assumed that systems composed of phonetic-semantic signs serve exclusively to communicate linguistic information. Consequently, the possibility that these systems might also convey nonlinguistic information seems to have been ignored. This oversight may be a product of Western ethnocentrism; after all, it is. we who use alphabets who most frequently associate writing with language ( 22 ). On the other hand, it may simply stem from the fact that systems incorporating symbols with kinesic referents are exceedingly rare and have not yet been reported. In any case, it is important to recognize that the etic inventory is not complete. Retaining the term "phonetic sign" as a label for written symbols. that denote linguistic phenomena, we propose that the term "kinetic sign" be introduced to label symbols that denote sequences of nonverbal behavior. Symbols of the latter type that simultaneously denote some unit of language may be classified as "phonetic-kinetic" signs. With these concepts, the contrast between " symbols that tell what to say" and "symbols that tell what to do" can be rephrased as one that distinguishes phonetic signs (by definition nonkinetic) from phonetic-kinetic signs. Purely kinetic signs—symbols that refer solely to physical gestures—are absent from the Silas John script. The utility of the kinetic sign and the phonetic-kinetic sign as comparative concepts must ultimately be judged on the basis of their capacity to clarify and describe emic distinctions in other systems of writing. However, as we have previously pointed out, ethnographic studies of American Indian systems that address themselves to the identification of these distinctions—and thus provide the information necessary to evaluate the relevance and applicability of etic concepts—are in very short supply. As a result, meaningful comparisons cannot be made. At this point, we simply alack the data with which to determine whether the kinetic component so prominen in the Silas John script is unique or whether it had counterparts else-where in North America. The view is still prevalent among anthropologists and linguists that the great majority of American Indian writing systems conform to one or two global "primitive" types. Our study of the Silas John script casts doubt upon this position, for it demonstrates that fundamental emic distinctions remain to be discovered and that existing etic frameworks are less than adequatelyequipped to describe them. The implications of these findings are clear. On the one hand, we must acknowledge the possibility that several structurally distinct forms of writing were developed by North America9s Indian cultures. Concomitantly, we must be prepared to aabandon traditional ideas of typological similarity and simplicity among thes systems in favor of those that take into account variation and complexity.

Semiotics of Programming

Abstract: This book provides a semiotic analysis of computer programs along three axes: models of signs, kinds of signs, and systems of signs. Because computer programs are well defined and rigid, applying semiotic theories to them will help to reorganize the semiotic theories themselves. Moreover, semiotic discussion of programming theory can provide possible explanations for why programming has developed as it has and how computation is fundamentally related to human semiosis. The goal of this book is to consider the question of what computers can and cannot do, by analyzing how computer sign systems compare to those of humans. A key concept throughout is reflexivity - the capability of a system or function to reinterpret what it has produced by itself. Sign systems are reflexive by nature, and humans know how to make the most of this characteristic but have not yet fully implemented it into computer systems. Therefore, the limitations of current computers can be ascribed to insufficient reflexivity.

Introduction: Demographic, sociocultural, and linguistic variation across rural signing communities

Abstract: This book unites the work of both anthropologists and linguists who have conducted fieldwork in rural signing communities around the globe. In most cases, these signing communities have emerged in response to a high inci-dence of (often hereditary) deafness. In contrast to the national sign languages used in urban deaf communities, these indigenous sign languages are typi-cally shared between deaf and hearing community members, thus facilitating a high degree of integration between deaf and hearing individuals. This volume represents the largest collection of comparative work across such “deaf villages” to date. There have been sporadic publications on these communities over the past few decades (see for instance Kakumasu, 1968; Washabaugh, 1979; Groce, 1985), but the chapters in this volume constitute the first extensive compila-tion of academic papers regarding these signing varieties and the communi-ties in which they have emerged, from both anthropological and linguistic perspectives. Moreover, for some of the signing varieties discussed here, this is the first printed publication to appear (see the community sketches by Dikyuva; Lanesman & Meir, and Panda in Part II of this volume). All known village sign languages are endangered, usually because of pressure from larger urban sign languages, and some have died out already. Ironically, it is often the success of the larger sign language communities in urban centres, their recognition and subsequent spread, which leads to the endangerment of these small minority sign languages. For this reason the book also addresses this specific type of language endangerment, documen-tation strategies, and other ethical issues.The sections below serve as an introduction to the demographic, socio-cultural, and linguistic diversity that is represented in this book. Results from the chapters of this volume are contextualised by describing some common-alities across the various sites and languages, as well as, most importantly, highlighting the unique findings reported in each of them.

Linguistic Communication: Theory and Definition

Abstract: Publisher Summary This chapter provides an overview of theory and definition in context to the linguistic communication. The sum of language as a communicatory system can be concluded into three indispensable characteristics. (1) There must be a set, or lexicon, of artificial signs. (2) These signs can be and are used as symbols; in other words, they are used on the conceptual level and without reference to a particular perceptual or behavioral instance of the item they signify. (3) There must be a grammar, that is, a set of conventional rules that govern the formation of sign combinations that have semantic content in addition to the meanings of the individual signs. The artificiality of signs and, thus, their communicatory status may be established only after prolonged observation in the wild. In the laboratory, it is a foregone conclusion that the signs are artificial as they are manmade and, as such, not a part of the subject's original behavioral repertoire. The use of signs as symbols by free-living organisms could be established only after a minute examination of their sign repertoire and the activities preceding and following the occurrence of specific signs. In the experimental situation, on the other hand, how the signs are being used can be discovered by certain questions, that is, by means of the very system of communication to which the subject is being introduced. The question of conformity to grammatical rules of sign combination is a good deal easier to decide.

Signage as a tool for behavioral change: Direct and indirect routes to understanding the meaning of a sign

Abstract: Signs, prompts, and symbols are a common means to change behavior in our society. Understanding the psychological mechanisms by which signage influences behavior is a critical first step to achieve the desired outcome. In the current research, we propose a theoretical model of sign-to-behavior process. The model suggests that when one encounters a sign, it is encoded to construct an action representation (comprehension process), which is then acted on unless its enactment is inhibited (decision process). We test the implications of the model in two studies. In support of our hypothesis, for unfamiliar signs, clarity of purpose predicts perceived effectiveness of a sign; however, for familiar signs, clarity of purpose does not matter. Insights gained from the studies will help to design effective signs. Practical implications of the model are discussed, and future research directions are outlined.