Advertisement

Introduction

Chapter
  • 402 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Morphogenesis book series (LECTMORPH)

Abstract

This introduction provides a bridge between the theoretical background of European semiotics and quantitative research strategies developed within the discipline. In particular, it aims to show the limitations of purely qualitative approaches and how quantitative ones may provide solutions. Regarding the theoretical foundation, we focus on the work of L. Hjelmslev, R. Barthes, A.J. Greimas and U. Eco. These authors form a koiné of semiotic researches sharing references, ends and means. Two strategies of inquiry, integrating quantitative instruments, are shown to emerge from this shared background: naturalizing studies, on the one hand, that aim to harmonize semiotic, psychological and physical results, and immanent studies, on the other hand, making use of statistical and computational tools for exploring the specificity of human language and culture.

References

  1. Albertazzi, L. (Ed.). (2000). Meaning and cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  2. Algee-Hewitt, M., Heuser, R., & Moretti, F. (2015). On paragraphs, scale, themes and narrative forms. Stanford Literary Lab Pamphlets, 10.Google Scholar
  3. Barthes, R. (1964). ‘Éléments de sémiologie’, Communications, 4 (En. tr. 1967, Elements of semiology, London, Cape).Google Scholar
  4. Barthes, R. (1967). The death of the author, Aspen, 5–6.Google Scholar
  5. Barthes, R. (1968) ‘L’effet du réel’, Communications, 11 (En. tr. 1986, The reality effect. In The rustle of language. New York: Hill and Wang).Google Scholar
  6. Barthes, R. (1970). S/Z. Paris: Seuil (En. tr. 1974, S/Z. New York: Hill and Wang).Google Scholar
  7. Bertin, J. (1967). Sémiologie graphique. Paris: Mouton/Gauthier-Villars (En. tr. 1983, Semiology of graphics. Madison: University of Winsconsin).Google Scholar
  8. Bouveresse, J. (1976). Le Mythe de l’intériorité. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  10. Derrida, J. (1967). La voix et le phénomène. Paris: PUF (En. tr. 2011, Voice and phenomenon. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University).Google Scholar
  11. de Saussure, F. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale, Paris: Payot (En. tr. 1986, Course in general linguistics. New York: Open Court).Google Scholar
  12. Douglass, J., Huber, W., & Manovich, L. (2011). Understanding scanlation: How to read one million fan-translated manga pages. Image and Narrative, 12(1), 206–228.Google Scholar
  13. Eco, U. (1962). Opera aperta. Milan: Bompiani (En. tr. 1989, The open work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University).Google Scholar
  14. Eco, U. (1968). La struttura assente. Milan: Bompiani.Google Scholar
  15. Eco, U. (1975). Trattato di semiotica generale. Milan: Bompiani (En. tr. 1976, A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University).Google Scholar
  16. Eco, U. (1979). Lector in fabula. Milan: Bompiani (En. part. tr. The role of the reader. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
  17. Eco, U. (1984). Semiotica e filosofia del linguaggio. Turin: Einaudi (En. tr. Semiotics and philosophy of language. Bloomington: Indiana University).Google Scholar
  18. Eco, U. (1997). Kant e l’ornitorinco. Milan: Bompiani (En. tr. 2000, Kant and the Platypus. New York: Harcourt Brace).Google Scholar
  19. Fisher, R. A. (1935). The design of experiments. Oliver and Boyd: Edinburgh and Londond.Google Scholar
  20. Galantucci, B. (2017). Experimental semiotics. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  21. Geeraerts, D. (1999). Idealist and empiricist tendencies in cognitive semantics. In G. Redeker & T. J. Janssen (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope and methodology (pp. 163–194). Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Greimas, A. J. (1966). Sémantique structurale. Paris: Larousse (En. tr. 1983, Structural semantics. Lincoln: University of Nebraska).Google Scholar
  23. Greimas, A. J. (1970–1983). Du sens, 1–2, Paris: Seuil (En. tr. 1987, On meaning. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota).Google Scholar
  24. Greimas, A. J. (1984). Sémiotique figurative et sémiotique plastique. Actes sémiotiques, 60.Google Scholar
  25. Greimas, A. J. & Courtés, J. (1979). Sémiotique: Dictionnaire raisonné de la théorie du langage. Paris: Hachette (En. tr. 1982, Semiotics and language: An analytical dictionary. Bloomington: Indiana University).Google Scholar
  26. Groupe, μ. (1992). Traité du signe visuel. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  27. Hjelmslev, L. (1961). Prolegomena to a theory of language. Madison: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  28. Husserl, E. (1900–1901). Logische Untersuchungen (En. tr. Logical investigations. New York: Routledge and Paul).Google Scholar
  29. Manovich, L. (2009). Cultural analytics: Visualizing cultural patterns in the era of ‘more media’. Domus, Spring issue.Google Scholar
  30. Manovich, L. (2015). Data science and digital art history. International Journal for Digital Art History, 1.Google Scholar
  31. Manovich, L., Douglass, J., & Zepel, T. (2011). How to compare one million images? Unpublished manuscript available at www.manovich.net. See Douglass, Huber & Manovich 2011.
  32. Moretti, F. (2005). Graphs, maps, trees: Abstract models for literary history. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  33. Petitot, J. (1985). Morphogenèse du sens. Paris: PUF (En. tr. 2004, Morphogenesis of meaning. New York: Lang).Google Scholar
  34. Petitot, J. (1987). Sur le réalisme ontologique des universaux sémio-linguistiques. In M. Arrivé & J.-C. Coquet (Eds.), Sémiotique en jeu. À partir et autour de l’oeuvre d’A.J. Greimas (pp. 43–64). Paris-Amsterdam: Hadès-Benjamins.Google Scholar
  35. Petitot, J. (2000). Les nervures du marbre. Remarques sur le ‘socle dur de l’être’ chez Umberto Eco. In J. Petitot & P. Fabbri (Eds.), Au nom du sens. Autour de l’oeuvre d’Umberto Eco (pp. 83–102). Paris: Grasset.Google Scholar
  36. Petitot, J., Varela, F. J., Pachoud, B., & Roy, J.-M. (Eds.) (1999). Naturalizing phenomenology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  37. Popper, K. (1978). Three worlds. Tanner Lecture on Human Values, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  38. Propp, V. (1928). Морфология сказки, Leningrad, Academia (En. tr. 1968, Morphology of the folktale. Austin: University of Texas).Google Scholar
  39. Rastier, F. (1987). Sémantique interprétative. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  40. Rastier, F. (1989). Sens et textualité. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
  41. Rastier, F. (2011). La mesure et le grain: sémantique de corpus. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
  42. Ricoeur, P. (1984). Temps et récit (Vol. 2). Paris: Seuil (En. tr. 1986, Time and narrative (Vol. 2). Chicago: University of Chicago).Google Scholar
  43. Sarti, A., Citti, G., & Petitot, J. (2008). The symplectic structure of the primary visual cortex. Biological Cybernetics, 98(1), 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sarti, A., Malladi, R., & Sethian, J. A. (2002). Subjective surfaces: A geometric model for boundary completion. International Journal of Computer Vision, 46(3), 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sarti, A., & Piotrowski, D. (2014). Individuation and semiogenesis: An interplay between geometric harmonics and structural morphodynamics. In A. Sarti, F. Montanari, & F. Galofaro (Eds.), Individuation and morphogenesis (pp. 49–74). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  46. Tesnière, L. (1959). Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck (En. tr. 2015, Elements of structural syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins).Google Scholar
  47. Thom, R. (1975). Structural stability and morphogenesis. Reading, MA: Benjamin.Google Scholar
  48. Thom, R. (1990). Apologie du Logos. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
  49. von Uexküll, J. (1926). Theoretical biology. London: Paul.Google Scholar
  50. Violi, P. (1992). Le molte enciclopedie. In P. Magli, P. Violi, & G. Manetti (Eds.), Semiotica: Storia, teoria, interpretazione. Milan: Bompiani.Google Scholar
  51. Violi, P. (1997). Significato ed esperienza. Milan: Bompiani (En. tr. 2001, Meaning and experience. Bloomington: Indiana University).Google Scholar
  52. Violi, P. (2005). Il soggetto è negli avverbi. Lo spazio della soggettività nella teoria semiotica di Umberto Eco, EC (En. tr. 2009, ‘The subject is in the adverbs’. The role of the subject in Eco’s semiotics. In P. Bondanella (Ed.), New essays on Umberto Eco (pp. 113–127). Cambridge: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  53. von Wright, G. H. (1971). Explanation and understanding. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  54. Wildgen, W. (1982). Catastrophe theory semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CREMUniversity of LorraineMetzFrance

Personalised recommendations