A SEMIOSIS-BASED APPROACH TO DISCOURSE INTERPRETATION

Authors

  • Nadiia I. Andreichuk Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Ukraine

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32589/2311-0821.1.2020.207232

Keywords:

semiotics, semiosis, interpretant, discourse, semiosic approach, epitaph

Abstract

Abstract
The article seeks to examine the largely unexplored potential of the dimensions of semiosis for discourse studies.
The proposed argumentation refers to the process by which semiosic theoretical principles were selected and
refined into a model of discourse analysis. The propounded methodology is exemplified by the genre of epitaphs
and provides the platform for examining interactions among code, informational and cultural components
of semiotic entity.

Résumé
Supporting Eco's attempt to make semiotics a scientific discipline the author suggests that
the interpretant of sign should be the basis for the differentiation between three dimensions of semiosis.
The latter is defined as the action of signs that organizes the very structure of the interpretation process.
It is propounded that three types of interpretant – primary, notional and cultural – are responsible
for the existence of three dimensions of semiosis: code, informational and cultural. Discourse
is considered to be a sign and it is suggested that its interpretation is a complex semiosis-based
procedure involving three levels of decoding: perceptive, referential and evaluative. Thus, discourse
can be decoded within: a) the enabling and justifying code; b) the knowledge which we have with regard
to objects; c) the social-cultural realm. Scholars-interpreters can apply three approaches to describe
an explain discourse as a category of communication. The first deals with signification systems that
are exploited in order to physically produce components of discourse and is termed codosemiosic
approach. The second – with judgements on discourse intermediary agency within the semiotic universe
which allow us to grasp the reference to the processes of cognition and knowledge patterns. This one
is suggested to be called infosemiosic approach. And finally, sociosemiosic approach can be identified
with the study of how discourse communicates something graspable within a particular social and
cultural community with all implications concerning identity.
The case-study provides the description of the semiosic analysis of a tombstone as a multimodal
discoursive sign in the space of culture which contains epitaphs as a separate genre of funeral discourse.
The potential of three approaches for the tombstone interpretation is considered and three dimensions
of its semiosis are discussed. It is suggested that codo-, info-, and sociosemiosic approaches elaborated
in the article may provide a new tool for discourse studies.

References

Andreichuk, N. I. (2019). Levels and dimensions of sign action. Scientific journal of Lviv University.

Philological series, 70, 309-322. / Andreichuk, N. I. Rivni ta vymiry dii znaka. Visnyk Lvivskoho universytetu.

Seriia filolohichna, 70, 309-322. / Андрейчук, Н. І. Рівні та виміри дії знака. Вісник Львівського

університету. Серія філологічна, 70, 309-322.

Bryant, C. D. & Peck, D. L. (Eds.). (2009). Encyclopedia of death and the human experience. London: Sage

Publications.

Eco, U. (1979). A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning.

Baltimore: University Park Press.

Immediate object. Term in M. Bergman & S. Paavola (Eds.), The Commens Dictionary: Peirce's Terms in His

Own Words (New Edition). Retrieved from http://www.commens.org/dictionary/term/immediate-object.

Jacobson, R. (1980). The Framework of language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. (Michigan studies

in the humanities, vol. 1).

Kravchenko, N. K. (2006). Interactive, genre and conceptual modelling of international legal discourse. Kyiv:

Referat. / Kravchenko, N. K. Interaknivnoe zhanrovoe i kontseptualnoe modelirovanie mezhdunarodnopravovogo

diskursa. Kiev: Referat. / Кравченко, Н. К. Интерактивное, жанровое и концептуальное

моделирование международно-правового дискурса. Киев: Реферат.

Kull, K. & Velmezova, E. (2014). What is the main challenge for contemporary semiotics. Sign system studies,

(4), 530-548.

Locke, J. (1979). An essay concerning human understanding. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lotman, Y. M. (1990). Universe of the mind: A semiotic theory of culture. London & New York: Tauris.

Martyniuk, A. P. (2011). Dictionary of basic terms of cognitive-discursive linguistics. Kharkiv: V. N. Karazin

KhNU. / Martyniuk, A. P. Slovnyk osnovnykh terminiv kohnityvno-dyskursyvnoi linhvistyky. Kharkiv: KhNU

imeni V. N. Karazina. / Мартинюк, А. П. Словник основних термінів когнітивно-дискурсивної лінгвістики.

Харків: ХНУ імені В. Н. Каразіна.

McCreadie, M. & Rice, R. E. (1999). Trends in analyzing access to information. Cross-disciplinary

conceptualizations of access. Information, processing and management, 35(1), 45-76.

Mead, M. (1964). Vicissitudes of the study of the total communication process. In M. C. Bateson, A. S. Hayes,

& T. A. Sebeok (Eds.), Approaches to semiotics: cultural anthropology, education, linguistics, psychiatry,

psychology (pp. 277-288). The Hague: Mouton.

Morris, Ch. (1938). Foundations of the theory of signs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (International

encyclopedia of unified science (Vol. 1 (2)).

Nöth, W. (2011). Representation and reference according to Peirce. International journal of signs and semiotic

systems, 1(2), July-December, 29-30.

Parmentier, R. J. (1994). Signs in society: Studies in semiotic anthropology. Bloomington – Indianopolis:

Indiana University Press.

Pearson, Ch. Theoretical semiotics and semiotic theories. Available at https://www.academia.edu/ 13674256.

Peirce, Ch. S. (1998). Excerpts from letters to lady Welby. In The essential Peirce (Vol. 2, pp. 477-491).

Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Ransdell, J. (1997). Teleology and the autonomy of the semiosis process. Available at https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/

menu/library/aboutcsp/ransdell/AUTONOMY.HTM

Semiosis. Term in M. Bergman & S. Paavola (Eds.), The Commens Dictionary: Peirce's Terms in His Own Words

(New Edition). Retrieved from http://www.commens.org/dictionary/term/semiosi

Seif, Y. F. (2019a). Beyond forecasting and prediction: The role of phantasmagorical memory in imagining

the future. Herald of Kyivnational linguistic university. Series in philology, 22(1), 88-99.

Seif, Y. F. (2019b). "De-sign" in the transmodern world (Vol. 2). Bern-Berlin-Bruxelles-Frankfurt am Main-New

York-Oxford-Wien: Peter Lang.

Tolman, J. A. (1910). A study of the sepulchral inscriptions in Buecheler's "Carmina epigraphica latina".

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Tsyhanok, O. (2014). Funeral letters in Ukrainian poetics and rhetoric of the 17-18th c.: Theory and samples.

Vinnytsia: Edelveis. / Tsyhanok, O. Funeralne pysmenstvo v ukrainskykh poetykakh ta rytorykakh XVII – XVIII

st.: teoriia ta vzirtsi. Vinnytsia: Edelveis. / Циганок, О. Фунеральне письменство в українських поетиках

та риториках XVII – XVIII ст.: теорія та взірці. Вінниця: Едельвейс.

Downloads

Issue

Section

Articles