In "RT vs semiotics" [forwarded by nicholasallott@mac.com], M. Jahn, of
Frankfurt, Germany, refers to
>relevance theory and the code model.
specifically looking for references
>critizising relevance theory from
>the view-point of Semiotics.
While
>RT criticises the code model [...]
she has not been able
>to find literature which tells me what
>the semiotic[ians themselves] thinks
>about RT.
>Maybe you could help me and give me some
>references.
Have you tried a semiotics mailing list? (Only joking!). In any case, there
is this document, at
www.gem.stir.ac.uk/downloads/RWchap5.pdf where the author writes that
>Sperber and Wilson [...] are scathing about Barthes
and that
>[their] characterisation of semiology
>is an oversimplification.
Note: not an ordinary common-or-garden simplification, but an "_over_-"
one. The author goes on to develop how the Barthes of _S/Z_ indeed tries to
go _beyond_ the code model with which Sperber and Wilson wedded him. (More
text below).
On the other hand, there's Grice. There is this author at
http://plaza27.mbn.or.jp/~homosignificans/fallacy.htm who says that Grice,
for all he wrote about things, was terribly confused about _signs_ and
such. Surely, black clouds don't (cannot) _mean_ rain or _anything_ for
that matter (nor spotless do or can mean measles, to use Grice's own
example in the 1948 essay). The author thinks that to say such thing (that
a spot can mean measles) is to denote (mean?) that one hasn't got the
minimal idea of what semiotics is all about. (More passages below).
Yet, I would like to say that:
* The idea -- of the author of www.gem.stir.ac.uk/downloads/RWchap5.pdf --
that RT just wants to get rid of the code model is what looks to me as
_yet_ another of those oversimplifications you find from time to time.
* I'm less sure how to attack the criticism of Grice -- in particular his
take on 'natural meaning' -- by
http://plaza27.mbn.or.jp/~homosignificans/fallacy.htm
But one does not *have* to be so _antagonistic_, I'd tell Jahn, and would
think that there is hope that 'and' be used instead of 'vs' when dealing
with semiotics and RT (or Gricean pragmatics).
For: for one, practioners of RT (such as D. Sperber) are indeed free to use
'semiotic' as they please (and thus contributing to 'semiotics' -- which
need _not_ be identified with 'code model'):
http://www.kli.ac.at/theorylab/TOCs/S/SperberD00.htm
"Current approaches to metarepresentations
derive from semiotic and philosophical interest
in metalinguistic devices."
"[P]hilosophers, [...], linguists, [...],
semioticians, [...] have been interested in
different _types_ of metarepresentations."
(emphasis mine. JLS)
On the other hand, perhaps the author of
http://plaza27.mbn.or.jp/~homosignificans/fallacy.htm
is _wrong_ (or not so right) and one can envisage some room for some sort
of 'Gricean naturalism' -- albeit revisited.
I'd add a few more RT/Gricean-semiotic interfaces:
G. Cosenza has now edited _Grice's Heritage_ -- which is the outcome of the
proceedings of a conference (D. Wilson participating) -- held at ... The
Centre for Semiotic Studies. When are _they_ having a conference on ...
Barthes, say! (I wouldn't say 'post-Ecoian' because that's _rude_ -- but
why is that "_post-Chomskyan_" *is* used by people like T. Moore and C.
Carling?).
Plus, I would bet I. Mckenzie's book (Relevance and Deconstruction) touches
on matters semeiotical.
Cheers,
JL
======
More links on the Grice-RT/semiotic interface:
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/inquiry/summ95/yoos.html
"[While I had concluded in my own thesis
on Morris's _Signs, Language and Behavior_
that his behavioral approach to "semiotic"
was a dead end in language study (as it
later proved to be) [I came across with
Sperber/Wilson's _Relevance_].
"Sperber and Wilson thus present a theory
that proposes to account for all the
important aspects of communication that
are _not_ accounted for by semiotic theories
such as I originally encountered in Carnap
and Morris. When I read Sperber and Wilson
for the first time, I recognized that the
book summarized for me what had been a
slow evolution in my own thinking. Their work,
as that of [...] Grice, marks a significant
paradigm shift in the study of pragmatics.
They summarize for me the revolution in
critical thinking that has taken place
in the last half of the twentieth century
centering on argument in the natural languages.
(It's not clear to me if that makes the author a 'neo-Gricean' or a
'post-Gricean', though)
http://www.ntu.edu.au/education/csle/student/jang/jang2.html
"Typical communication theories
ally themselves with the encoding-decoding
dichotomy of traditional semiotic approaches,
while most cognitive approaches regard
cognition as construction of meaning through
inference. This conflict, however, seems well
resolved by Sperber and Wilson (1995)
in terms of relevance theory."
http://cognet.mit.edu/MITECS/Entry/horn2
L. Horn/Ward, 'pragmatics':
"In the semiotic trichotomy developed by
Morris, Carnap, and Peirce, pragmatics
addresses the relation of signs to their
users and interpreters."
"Although some have argued for a pragmatics
module (or even a pragmatic component
in the grammar), Sperber and Wilson
argue that, like scientific reasoning
-- the paradigm case of a nonmodular,
horizontal system -- pragmatics cannot
be a module, given the indeterminacy
of the predictions it offers and the
global knowledge it invokes."
http://www.uea.ac.uk/eas/Teaching/Post%20Grad/pgunits/linguistics.htm
"Theorists studied include Barthes, Peirce, Jakobson,
Halliday, Grice, Sperber & Wilson, Habermas, Bateson
and others. The course is both interdisciplinary and
methodological. We will be developing means for
the semiotic, linguistic and cultural interpretation
and critique of texts. Some of the approaches to be
discussed will be:
Semiotics: Saussure, Barthes, Peirce. Types of sign.
Grice, speaker meaning and implicature.
Sperber and Wilson's pragmatics: Relevance Theory.
[Okay -- you'd have to attend the course, but you can always contact the
authors and ask _them_ if they know of a specific semiotician's critique of
RT]
http://angli02.kgw.tu-berlin.de/semiotik/english/courses/tp01ss_e.htm
"Theoretical semiotics: Pragmatik (Pragmatics)
Games with language, acts of speaking and
conversation are central themes of pragmatics.
The seminar compares classic approaches to
pragmatics (Grice) with newer approaches
to cognitive pragmatics (Sperber/Wilson).
[Again, nothing more than a syllabus but I add it because I liked the url:
'semiotik'].
http://www.arthist.lu.se/kultsem/sonesson/life_of_signs3.html
Signs in society — and out of it: a critique
of the communication critique
Consider an example from Sperber & Wilson
(1986: 55). When Peter opens the door
to their apartment, Mary stops and sniffs
ostensibly.
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~harnish/teaching/465-pragmatics-syllabus.html
"The Nature and Origins of Pragmatics
The 'Semiotic' Tradition: Morris, Carnap
Special Topic: Relevance Theory
http//www.soi.city.ac.uk/~hmk/ch3.ps.gz
Discusses: "semiotics", "semiology", "semiosis" ... and Grice.
www.univ.trieste.it/~dipfilo/sbisa/ms_eng.html
"M. Sbisa has worked in the fields of
philosophy of language [Grice]
and semiotics.
http://www.russelldale.com/dissertation/biblio.html
Black M. The Semiotics of Charles Morris.
In Black.
[I found this of interest given that Black has also written on Grice --
notably in:
Black M. Meaning and intention: an examination of Grice's views.
New Literary History, vol. 4. Repr. in Black.
and cfr.
Martinich A. Meaning and intention: Black versus Grice.
Dialectica, vol. 44.]
http://www.univ.trieste.it/~dipfilo/sbisa/pub_eng.html
Giovanna Cosenza (ed.), Paul Grice's Heritage, Turnhout: Brepols, 2001.
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/robyn/relevance/ relevance_archives/0021.html
"I am thinking here Hallidayan social
semiotics and so-called critical discourse."
www.gem.stir.ac.uk/downloads/RWchap5.pdf
"Sperber & Wilson (1986) have recently
criticized the coding model that they
attribute to many linguists [...], and to
semiologists in particular. [...]
Sperber & Wilson's characterisation
of semiology -- they are particularly
scathing about Barthes -- is however
an oversimplification. A number of
prominent semiologists have written
perceptively about the role of the reader.
Barthes does remain committed to the
concept of codes, although he stretches
the ordinary meaning of the term somewhat.
While Barthes is extravagant, Eco is
meticulous (in defining 'code').
http://plaza27.mbn.or.jp/~homosignificans/fallacy.htm
"As for the verb 'to mean,' Grice classifies
its uses roughly into two classes in his much
influential article [...] According to him,
this verb is used in its "natural meaning"
as well as in its "non-natural meaning." [sic]
For example, he insists, in the sentence
"Those spots mean measles".
the verb 'mean' has only a natural meaning.
To say that those spots mean measles naturally
is to say that there is some causation between
the spots and measles. They have called this
sort of sign that consists of a natural tie
between cause and result a 'symptom' whose
etymolgy is the same as that of the word
'syndrome.' They originally mean 'that which falls
together with something.' The orthodox
semiotics in which Grice holds an important
position has recognized those signs that
consist of the factual relation between
one thing and another, the typical example
of which is causation. This type of
sign includes a symptom that is the
subject of this essay and an index in
the Peircenian sense. As mentioned above,
they have called signs of this kind 'natural signs'.
According to this tradition, facial expressions
such as blushing, widening one's eyes, yelling, etc.,
are nothing but natural signs. It is said that
excitement of some area of the central
nervous system causes anger. This cause,
it is said, brings about a remarkable
increase of blood quantity in one's face
so that blushing of one's face occurs.
Such a category of orthodox semiotics, however,
seems to be
extremely misleading
because such phenomena, though those are
called signs, have virtually no intrinsic
meaning. They are just trivial events
that occur in nature. It is by accident that
they come to be signs. The intention to
communicate something to others does
not necessarily belong to symptoms. Still
less they are not such phenomena that
contain the intention to let others
notice the intention to inform in
the same way as linguistic signs do.
They are signs as far as a human being
virtually takes them as signs.
Symptoms may be included among signs
but only accidentally. They aren't
to be called inherent signs."
==
J L Speranza, Esq
Country Town
St Michael's Hall Suite 5/8
Calle 58, No 611 Calle Arenales 2021
La Plata CP 1900 Recoleta CP 1124
Tel 00541148241050 Tel 00542214257817
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina
Telefax 00542214259205
http://www.netverk.com.ar/~jls/
jls@netverk.com.ar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 03 2002 - 09:06:00 GMT