Keith asked
>Eugene, I'm not sure if your trichotomy is original or based in current
>understandings within the field of semiotics. The canonical trichotomy in
>the field of semiotics is syntax, semantics, and pragmatics, and you
>might want to make clear that your distinctions all apply to the area of
>pragmatics, if you are writing for an audience of semioticians. At
>least, that's the way I read your three categories...
When I was taking about embedded situated semiotics, disembedded situated
semiotics, and decontextualized semiotics (and more that I chose not to
talk) I meant typology of semiotic PHENOMENA. I far as I understood the
notion of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics they are semiotic ASPECTS of any
semiotic phenomenon. So, my "trichotomy" (I'm not sure that magic number
three is my number :-) is different from the canonical trichotomy, Keith was
talking about. As to my own conceptual background in regard to semiotics, I
really like Russian semioticians of the 20s (Bakhtin, Shklovsky, Tynyanov,
and othres). Among current writers, I like Yury Lotman, Jay Lemke, Jim
Wertsch...
If I understand these authors correctly, semiotics is not equal to text but
text is a metaphor for semiotics. I personally feel that text is dangerous
metaphor for semiotics because it fixates us on decontextualized and
disembedded features of semiotics which is appropriate for some types
(phenomena) of semiotics and inappropriate for the others.
Eugene Matusov
UC Santa Cruz
------------------------
Eugene Matusov
UC Santa Cruz