[-empyre-] Semiology x Semiotics
- To: soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
- Subject: [-empyre-] Semiology x Semiotics
- From: marcus bastos <bastos.marcus@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:22:42 -0200
- Delivered-to: empyre@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=YVI3c4BLRD81C+DTPsYD3gHF9PYRr0wvbORPOqqb89dpXyJqK7ZhrcG7Ao0hT6PhzgoVke32nyajnM/PZgNr9ebBxKJqVt1r1FhlD9ECjD9NG7zPPLRaLuLwau9ySjOlVltL0Y0dbRUHDzZDTjjRxjG5AEFTeHxXoK9b5JEiWKQ=
- Reply-to: soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
Peter Morse said:
<<distinction between what I would call a "linguistic" semiotics
(after all, Saussure was a philologist, first and foremost) and a
logical semiotics (Peirce, Hjelmslev et al.)>>
That is interesting. I have never thought of such a distintcion. Given
that the dicotomic description of the sign is common to Saussure and
Hjelmslev, I always that Hjelmslev was closer to Saussure than Peirce.
There is a nice discussion about 'binarism x triadism' in language
studies, on the article "Semiotics and Literary Studies", by Floyd
Merrel. It is possible to find it online at
http://www.digitalpeirce.fee.unicamp.br/home.htm (under "entries", on
the letter "L")
best
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and
MHonArc 2.6.8.