New Research Says There Are Only Four Emotions - The Atlantic34In the German- and English-speaking world there are four fundamental manuals or
上亿文档资料，等你来发现
34In the German- and English-speaking world there are four fundamental manuals or
Cybernetics&HumanKno；SearchingfortheLimitsofS；AnExtendedManualfor；anExtendedScientificFiel；ReviewedbyNinaOrt1；IntheGerman-andEnglish-s；N?th’smanualisthecomplet；WinfriedN?thinte
Cybernetics&HumanKnowing,Vol.8,no.1C2,2001,pp.151C156SearchingfortheLimitsofSemiotics:AnExtendedManualforanExtendedScientificFieldReviewedbyNinaOrt1IntheGerman-andEnglish-speakingworldtherearefourfundamentalmanualsorencyclopaediasofsemiotics:theEncyclopedicDictionaryofSemioticsbyThomas.A.Sebeok(1986),theEncyclopediaofSemioticsbyPaulBoussiac(1998);SemiotikbyRolandPosneretal(1997-99)andtheHandbuchderSemiotikbyWinfriedN?th.EspeciallyinGermany,thetworeferencebooksbyPosnerandN?thtodayarepartofthebasicequipmentintheacademicworkdealingwithproblemsassociatedwithsemioticsandsigntheory.N?th’smanualisthecompletelyrevisedandstronglyextendededitionofthe“HandbuchderSemiotik”of1985,whichatthattimehasbeenahugeachievementandwaswelcomedenthusiastically.Now,15yearslater,anupdatedversionofthemanualispublished,thatcaneasilycompetewiththeotherreferenceworks.WinfriedN?thintendstopresentasurveyofhistoryandextensionofwhatwecallthefieldofsemiotics.Thesecondeditionofthe“HandbuchderSemiotik”ismeanttogivearepresentativeandpluralisticsurveyofdifferentevolutionsandtrendsinsemioticsattheendofthe20thcentury,butalsotoshowconnectionsamongthem.Withthisintentiontheproblemofwritingthehistoryandasystematicsurveyofsemioticsbecomesobvious:thedifficultytodeterminewherethefieldofsemioticsbeginsandwhereitends.Todayitispossibletoreconstructthedoctrineofsignsbyfollowingtheadviceofthefoundingcommitteeofthe“InternationalAssociationofSemioticStudies”in1969:semioticsisthegeneralnotionforwhathasbeensubsumedintermslike“Semiologie”or“Semiotics”.Eventhoughsemioticquestioningreachesfarbackintohistory,N?thassessesthe1980sasthetime,whensemioticswasgenerallyacceptedasascienceandvaryingsystematicsofsemioticshavebeendeveloped.Therebyabaseisachieved,fromwhichonecanlookbackintohistoryandreconstructearlyconceptionsofthedoctrineofsignsasprecursorsofsemioticsCorevenaskindsofimplicitsemioticsCandoutlinethedifferentscientificfieldswhichwereoperatingwithtermsofsemiotics.[1]WinfriedN?th,HandbuchderSemiotikCthesecondedition.Reviewer:Dr.NinaOrt,Ludwig-MaximiliansUniversit?t,InstitutfürneueredeutscheLiteratur,Schellingstra?e3,80799München,Germany.E-mail:nina.ort@germanistik.uni-muenchen.de152BookReviewsHowever,signsareobservedbysuchdifferingdisciplinesaslogics,linguistics,philosophy,biology,psychoanalysis,sociologyandageneraluniformstatusofsemioticsasascienceisnotyetvalidated:Semioticsisassessedtobescience,method,fashion,movement,theory,meta-theoryorevenideology.Thereforeitisasevereproblemtostructureamanualofsemiotics.Consideringtheextensionofthehugefieldofsemioticsitisnecessarytonarrowdownthechoiceortorestrictoneselftothedemandsofaspecialtargetgroup.N?ththereforedecidestocreateanintroductorymanual.Insofar,N?th’smanualisorganisedevidentandsensible.Itisdividedintohistoryandsystematicofsemiotics,theintroductionofclassicaltheoristsandthepresentationofdifferentapplicationsofsemiotics.Theneweditionhasbeendividedinalmostheinstructivechapteraboutclassicaltheoristshasbeensupplemented.N?thstartswithasummaryofallhistoricalattemptsthathavebeenmadetodesignatheoryandanotionofsigns.(p.1-572).ThereforehebeginsCofcourseinsummarinessCwithAntiqueandtheMiddleAges,mentioninginterestingdetailssuchasthattheantiquelyandmedievalthinkerssettheconceptofsignsinclosecontextwithlogic.Inthe17thcenturythemostimportantprecursorsofwhatwecallsemioticstodaywereRenéDescartes,thesemioticsofPortRoyal,GottfriedWilhelmLeibniz,FrancisBacon,ThomasHobbes,JohnLocke,GeorgeBerkeley.Inthe18thcenturyE.B.deCondillac,ImmanuelKantandJ.G.Herderwereplayingextraordinaryrolesbytheireffortstodraftsigntheories.GiambattistaVicoismentionedinaspecialparagraph.Semioticsinthe19thcenturywasshapedbythinkersasG.W.F.Hegel,W.vonHumboldtandB.Bolzano.Finally,N?thexplainstheinfluenceofE.Husserl,E.Cassirer,theMarxistSemiotics,MaxBense,T.A.Sebeok,ClaudeLévi-Strauss,JacquesLacan,MichelFoucault,JacquesDerridaandJeanBaudrillardinthe20thcentury.Theclassicaltheoristsofsemioticsareintroducedinthesecondchapteraboutdoctrinesofsemioticsinthe20thcentury(p.59-130).HereN?thpresentstheworksofCharlesSandersPeirce,FerdinanddeSaussure,LouisHjelmslev,CharlesW.Morris,theRussianFormalism,RomanJakobson,RolandBarthes,A.J.Greimas,JuliaKristevaandUmbertoEco.IwassomewhatastonishedatJuliaKristevabeingcalledaclassicalauthorofsemiotics.AsN?thdescribes,shedevelopsthenotionof“Semanalyse”todesignateher“hybridsemiotics”,butshehasneitherelaboratedthe“Semanalyse”norfoundedanowndoctrine(seep.120).IseeKristevaespeciallyinthetraditionofthe“Psychosemiologie”byJacquesLthereforeIwouldrathercallLacanaclassicalthanKristeva.Thethirdchapter(p.131-226)isentitled“signandsystem”,butactuallyitexplainsCbesidespivotaltermsofsemioticsCanabundanceofnotionsthatoccurinsigntheory.Itisanintroductionofdifferentformsofclassifyingsemioticterms[2]Allpagenumbersrefertothesecondedtionofthe?HandbuchderSemiotik“,seereferences.BookReviews153suchas“sign”,“signvehicle”,“semantic”,“meaning”,“representation”,“code”andsoonandtheirdifferentdefinitionsanddescriptions.Inthischapter,N?thfollowsprimarilytheconceptofCh.S.Peirce,whichprovidesthebasicsagainstwhichotherconceptsornotionaldifferencesstandout.ThisintensifiedfocusingontheworkofPeirceisanimprovementonthefirsteditionofthemanual.Inthefourthchapter(p.227-292)N?thexplainsthenotionof“semiosis”.Sincesemiosisisdefinedastheprocessinwhichasigndevelopsitseffects,itisnecessarytoexplaintermslike“communicationasaprocess”,“cognition”and“intention”.Hereagain,N?thprimarilyreferstothethoughtsofCh.S.Peirce,but,hemoreoveroutlinesbasicideasofsystemstheoryaboutcommunication(e.g.thetripleselection:information,message,understanding),therelevancyofself-referenceandtheconceptofautopoiesis,thathasbeendevelopedin(radical)constructivism.Actually,thefieldofsemiosisisoutreachingthefieldoflanguageandlinguisticsigns,asN?thshows.Hesummarisesphysio-semiotics,eco-semiotics,bio-semiotics,zoo-helinesouttheevolutionofsemioticsanddraftstherelevancyoftimeandspaceregardingsemiotics.Afterthehistoricalandsystematicaldefinitionofsemiotics,N?thdemonstratesitsapplicationindifferentscientificfields.Atfirsthementionsformsofnonverbalcommunication(293-322),suchasbodilycommunication,gesticulation,mimicortactilecommunication,butalso“Proxemics”,thatmeansterritorialbehaviour(semioticaspectsofterritoryinnonverbalcommunication),and“Chronemics”,therelevancyoftimeinthenonverbalcommunicationandthesocialandculturallife.Thebestknownfieldsofsemioticsciencearelanguageandcodesofspeech(p.323-390).Linguisticsigns,languageasasignsystemandcommunicationassemiosisarestillthecrucialelementsofsemiotics.Nevertheless,linguisticsisassessedtobetheactualscienceoflanguage.N?ththereforedescribestherelation-shipbetweenlinguisticsandsemiotics,pointingout,thatitiscontroversial,whethersemioticsissuperiortolinguisticsorviceversa,orbotharecomplemental.N?thpaysmuchattentiontoexplaindifferentwaysofconceptualisingarbitrarinessandconvention,metaphor,text,butalsouniversal,para-,signlanguageandlanguagesubstitutes.Afterthathefocusesontext-semiotics(p.391-424)whereattext-semioticsisunderstoodasincludingforinstanceliteraturesemioticsbutnotexcluding“parole”,spokenspeech.Someauthorsthereforeprefertheterm“discourse”.Textsemioticspartiallycoincideswithtraditionaltopicssuchasrrhetoricsforinstanceappearinthepragmaticdimensionofsemiotics.Narratologyissemiotictexttheorythatdealswithtextformssuchasnarratives,mythsorevenideology.N?thdescribestextsemioticsascontiguoustohermeneuticsbutitisquestionableifbothcanbecomparedwitheachother.Themanualdedicatesanownchaptertoaestheticsasliteraturesemiotics(p.425-466).Here,N?threspectssemioticsofmusicaswellassemioticsofpictorialarts,architectureandtheatre.154BookReviewsInthischapterhealsore-conceptualisesthecrucialideasofRussianFormalism,“poeticity”and“literarity”ofliterarytexts.Thetwofinalchaptersdealwithmediasemiotics(p.467-512),semioticsofculture(p.513-538),socialsemioticsandinterdisciplinaryextensions.Herethereadergetsinformationaboutsemioticaspectsforinstanceincomics,film,magicandevendailylife.Media-andculturalsemioticsarenewaspects,whichhavebeenaddedtothesecondeditionofN?ths’shandbook.Thevolumeisconcludingwithanencyclopaedicbibliographyofnearlyahundredpages,anindexofpropernamesandasubjectindex.Theadvantageofthiswayoforganisingthehugefieldofsemioticsisthepossibilitytodiscernconnectionsbetweenveryheterogeneousproblemsofsemioticsubjectsinthedifferentsemioticapproachesandapplications.Thevolumeinvitestoinvestigatethoseinterconnections.Inaddition,N?thdoesnotlimithisdescriptionstotheparticularizationofbibliographicalreferencesthatinterpretthesemioticaspectsoftheactualauthors,butalsogiveshintsongeneralintroductoryworks.Sincemostoftheresearchersofsemioticsareworkinginveryspecialcontexts,generalintroductorybookstotheirparticularworksareveryhelpful.Forexample,N?thmentionstheFrenchpsychoanalystJacquesLacan(p.49-51),whohasdevelopedaconceptofthepsychicalapparatusasasign-basedandsemioticallystructuredcomplex(forthisreasonMichaelWetzelhaschosentheterm“Psychosemiologie”todesignatetheworkofLacan),andthatisresemblingtheconceptofCh.S.Peirceamazinglybecauseofitsgenuinetriadicstructure.Inhiscase,forinstance,itisofadvantage,thatN?thalsoindicatessomeintroductoryworkstothepsychoanalysisofJacquesLacan.Theincreasingrelevancyof(sign)theoriesthatdealwithproblemsofauto-reflexivityandself-reference,suchassystemstheory,secondordercyberneticsandconstructivism,isdiscussedinchapterIII,SignandSysteminonlysixpages.Here,N?thdoesnotconfinehisdescriptiontothesemodelsbutalsomentionsthesystemstheory’sideaoflanguageandliteratureassystemsandcyberneticprinciplesCfirstordercyberneticsinthiscontext(thatmeansselfcontrollingprocessesofcommunication).Thisparagraphseemssomehowshort,sincesystemstheory,secondordercyberneticsandconstructivismpursuePeirce’ideaofgenuinetriadsinawaythatletsassumeseriousconsequencesingeneraltheorydesigning.Inthescopeofthesetheoreticalmodelsthequestionforadefinitionofthesemioticsignisstilldiscussed.Auto-reflexivityasconstituentofsemioticsignsdoesnotonlyleadtoquestionsofmeta-levels(asN?thexemplifiesforinstancewithLuhmann’smodelof“Erwartungserwartungen”CexpectationofexpectationsCseealsoWatzlawick:”Youcannotnotcommunicate!”;seep.240).Moreoveritleadstheorydesigntofundamentalparadoxesduetotheunderlyingtwo-valuedlogics(seeforinstance:NiklasLuhmann:SignasForm.In:DirkBaecker,ed.,ProblemsofForm.Stanford:StanfordUP,1999,pp.46-63).ParadoxesasaresultoftryingtofoundtheoryarchitecturesonmodelsofBookReviews155differentiationarethereforethecrucialproblemoftheorydesignandplayanextraordinaryroleinsigntheories,too.Auto-reflexivityraisesthequestion,whethertwo-valuedsign-modelsaresufficienttodescribesemiosis,i.e.processingsigns.Putittheotherwayround:theassumptionofatriadicsignsuggeststomouldsignsasprocessingsignsCasgenuinesemiosis.ThemeaningofthediscussionaboutthebivalenceortrivalenceofsemioticsignsseemstobesomehowunderemphasizedinN?th’smanual(hejustintroducestrivalentsignmodelsinpages136-141).Forauto-reflexivitymustbedesignedasatriad.Auto-reflexivitycanbeassessedtobeanevolutor,asOliverJahrausputsit:onlywhenhavingbecomeauto-reflexive,theorycomestoitself.3Underconditionsoftheuniversalityandauto-reflexivityofsigns,semioticshasthechancetobecomeageneraltheory(suchassystemstheory,secondordercyberneticsandconstructivism).Generalityandauto-reflexivityrenderthesetheoriescompatible,andinresearchtheydefactoareconflated.Insofar,semioticscanbedesignatedastrans-disciplinarytoolthatcanbeappliedinallkindsofscientificfields.Itisexactlythispointofviewthatallowssecondordercybernetics,constructivismandsystemtheorynotonlytodescribesemioticproblemsbyreferringtoe.g.logicsandphilosophy,butalsotodevelopsemioticsinthistrans-disciplinaryway.Observingandprocessingsemioticsasatrans-disciplinarytoolthenrequires,inmyopinion,tomentionthosethinkers,whotodayhavebiginfluenceonthedesignofthenotionofsigns,suchasGeorgeSpencerBrown(LawsofForm),GotthardGünther(Non-AristotelianLogics)andRanulphGlanville(cybernetics).InthatrespectIwouldobjecttoN?thsmanual.Besidesthehistoricalparts,itisdealingmainlywithapplicationsofsemioticsinvariousscientificfields,butforthemostpartneglectsthetrans-disciplinaryconstitutionofsemioticsasatool.Semioticsasaself-referentialsciencemustbeapplicableonitself,itmustbebothCscienceandmeta-science(asN?thmentionsrightiseep.XII).ThereforeIassessthetrans-disciplinarystatusofsemioticsandthetrans-disciplinaryeffortstoestablishsemioticsasatheorytobeasimportantastheapplicationsofsemioticsindifferentscientificfields.OntheotherhandN?thmentionstrans-disciplinaryeffortsinaspecialcase:hismanualisthefirstone,thatintegratestheconceptandnotionofcybersemioticsbyS?renBrierassynthesisofsystemstheory,secondordercyberneticsandthesemioticsofCh.S.Peirce(p215).Theaspectoftrans-disciplinarityhasbeenputprominentinthemanualbyRolandPosner.There,semioticsisobservedasgeneralanduniformphenomenon,thatconnectsallformsoflivingnature,socialandculturallife.Inhismanualsemioticsisdefinedas“inter-disciplinary”science.[3]Jahraus,Oliver:WieverhaltensichLuhmannscheSystemtheorieundPeircescheZeichentheoriezueinander?In:Jahraus/Ort(inprint)(ed):KommunikationCBewu?tseinCZeichen.(=STSL),Tübingen,pp.245-252,herep.249包含各类专业文献、外语学习资料、各类资格考试、中学教育、生活休闲娱乐、幼儿教育、小学教育、34In the German- and English-speaking world there are four fundamental manuals or等内容。　
　6. A. Fundamental skills. B. Thoughtful people....are required to fill in the blanks with the ...and if there was one man who can be selected ... 　6. A. Fundamental skills. B. Thoughtful people....are required to fill in the blanks with the ...and if there was one man who can be selected ... 　world's language of the 21st Century and this ..., for non-English-speaking people. English is ...Key:S1 manuals S2 periodically S3 initiative S4 ... 　world's language of the 21st Century and this ..., for non-English-speaking people. English is ...Key:S1 manuals S2 periodically S3 initiative S4 ... 　in Britain engineers are thought of as gloomy rather...Unit four English is becoming the world's ...compliance manuals and other such documents, 37% ...therearefourteenbooks的中文意思_百度知道
therearefourteenbooks的中文意思
我有更好的答案
there are fourteen books.这里有十四本书。
There are fourteen books.这里有十四本书
其他类似问题
为您推荐：
等待您来回答
下载知道APP
随时随地咨询
出门在外也不愁的海词问答和网友补充：
相关词典网站：您还未登陆，请登录后操作！
There are four magings
您的举报已经提交成功，我们将尽快处理，谢谢！
说明你输入的价格超出了当天涨停的价格了，这样的委托是无效的，因为那个价格在今天绝对无法达到。
大家还关注