[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] semiotics / language



David, I am no fan of either Barthes nor Saussure, but I interpret this odd claim somewhat like this: Barthes asks you not to see the relationship in a formal, set-theoretic way, but rather in terms of activities and how we use and understand them. We come to reflect on Semiotics as beings already imbued with, indeed produced by language; we learn its principles through language and appropriate them as a special activity as linguistic beings. Semiotics is a specialised activity, which some linguists engage in.

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy
http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
On 17/06/2016 8:34 PM, David Kellogg wrote:
...
I can't agree with the Barthesian inversion of Saussure's location of
linguistics as part of semiotics. Semiotics and linguistics both deal with
meaning. But semiotics includes types of meaning which are not linguistic.
Can you think of any linguistic meaning which is not semiotic? I can't.

David Kellogg
Macquarie University