论文部分内容阅读
A much-discussed problem concerning the semiotic status of the mirror image opposes Umberto Eco and G?ran Sonesson. Since the mirror image is a case of biplanarity in Hjelmslev’s sense,(the “expression” is in the mirror, but the “content” is outside the mirror, there are thus two planes), therefore it is a sign(G.S.), but it still is not a sign(U.E.), because there is no signifying intention in the phenomenon. I claim that Eco must be right and argue that signs have deictic structure manifesting an enunciative semantic setting, whereas nonsigns do not, even if they are biplanary. This discussion leads to a new description of the semiotic function: all signs are deictic, and then have iconic and symbolic embedded structures within the enunciative frame.
A much-discussed problem concerning the semiotic status of the mirror image opposes Umberto Eco and G? Ran Sonesson. Since the mirror image is a case of biplanarity in Hjelmslev’s sense, (the “expression ” is in the mirror, but the there is no signifying intention in the phenomenon. “claim content” (content) "is outside the mirror, there is thus two planes must be right and argue that signs have deictic structure manifesting an enunciative semantic setting, but nonsigns do not, even if they are biplanary. This discussion leads to a new description of the semiotic function: all signs are deictic, and then have have iconic and symbolic embedded structures within the enunciative frame.