[Xmca-l] semiotics / language

[Andy Blunden]

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
>
>