Mikhail Ilyin
Teaching semiotics in its core and on its marches
Abstract
Semioticians define the domain of their studies differently. Thus, Charles Morris divided semiotics into pure and descriptive. Hans-Heinrich Lieb singled out general semiotics along with its special and applied subdivisions. Winfried Nöth distinguishes theoretical and applied semiotics. It would be only logical conclude that the core (pure, general, theoretical, universal etc.) is enveloped by successive tiers of peripheries – either relatively ‘purified’ and substantially common or more specific and even applied. This distinction constitutes a basic frame for education purposes.
It is possible to refine semiotic principles and practices and to transpose them closer to the core or even into the very core by decontaminating them from mundane substance matter. An alternative algorithm or strategy would imply saturation with subject matter accompanied by contamination and deformation of general principles. Mastering procedures of refinement and saturation would be another basic goal of educating semiotics.
A passage from the core through the layers of peripheries makes respective the quarters of semiotic research and education evermore more specific and specialized, e.g. semiotics of politics, tourism, job bargaining etc. Respectively a host of semiotic disciplines sprouts every year.
Are there any constraints to the ensuing extension of perimeters and frontiers of semiotic applications? One may claim that human semiosis is the natural sphere that semiotics would not exceed. Novel scholarly and educational enterprise of biosemiotics and cybersemiotics challenge the claim.
It is crucial to develop abilities to link semiotic works of various dimensions and structural properties. The semiotic core should supply its universal principles with algorithms of movement through the layers, provinces and outlets of semiotic works. They should extend beyond human semiosis domain into the spheres of biological processes or even non-human signal systems.
Bionote
Mikhail Ilyin got his first PhD (candidate of science by Russian nomination) in 1976 in the history of English literature. Later he shifted to political science and turned to the study of social movements and discourse analysis. In 1997 he was granted the degree of doctor of sciences by Russian nomination for his works on evolutionary morphology of politics. He has been co-
founder of the major Russian political science journal “Polis” in 1991 and political science department in MGIMO University in 1998. Ilyin was a founding member of History of Political and Social Concepts Group – HPSCG in 1998. He was also President of the Russian political science association in 1997 – 2001. In 2009 – 2014 we was IPSA EC elected member and in 2012 – 2014 elected IPSA vise-president. Currently Ilyin is a professor of comparative politics in National Research University “Higher
School of Economics” (HSE) as well as part-time in Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University) and Baltic Federal University (Kantiana). He is also head of the Center for Advanced Methods in Social Sciences and Humanities of the Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences and editor of the yearbook “METHOD”.
Abstract
Semioticians define the domain of their studies differently. Thus, Charles Morris divided semiotics into pure and descriptive. Hans-Heinrich Lieb singled out general semiotics along with its special and applied subdivisions. Winfried Nöth distinguishes theoretical and applied semiotics. It would be only logical conclude that the core (pure, general, theoretical, universal etc.) is enveloped by successive tiers of peripheries – either relatively ‘purified’ and substantially common or more specific and even applied. This distinction constitutes a basic frame for education purposes.
It is possible to refine semiotic principles and practices and to transpose them closer to the core or even into the very core by decontaminating them from mundane substance matter. An alternative algorithm or strategy would imply saturation with subject matter accompanied by contamination and deformation of general principles. Mastering procedures of refinement and saturation would be another basic goal of educating semiotics.
A passage from the core through the layers of peripheries makes respective the quarters of semiotic research and education evermore more specific and specialized, e.g. semiotics of politics, tourism, job bargaining etc. Respectively a host of semiotic disciplines sprouts every year.
Are there any constraints to the ensuing extension of perimeters and frontiers of semiotic applications? One may claim that human semiosis is the natural sphere that semiotics would not exceed. Novel scholarly and educational enterprise of biosemiotics and cybersemiotics challenge the claim.
It is crucial to develop abilities to link semiotic works of various dimensions and structural properties. The semiotic core should supply its universal principles with algorithms of movement through the layers, provinces and outlets of semiotic works. They should extend beyond human semiosis domain into the spheres of biological processes or even non-human signal systems.
Bionote
Mikhail Ilyin got his first PhD (candidate of science by Russian nomination) in 1976 in the history of English literature. Later he shifted to political science and turned to the study of social movements and discourse analysis. In 1997 he was granted the degree of doctor of sciences by Russian nomination for his works on evolutionary morphology of politics. He has been co-
founder of the major Russian political science journal “Polis” in 1991 and political science department in MGIMO University in 1998. Ilyin was a founding member of History of Political and Social Concepts Group – HPSCG in 1998. He was also President of the Russian political science association in 1997 – 2001. In 2009 – 2014 we was IPSA EC elected member and in 2012 – 2014 elected IPSA vise-president. Currently Ilyin is a professor of comparative politics in National Research University “Higher
School of Economics” (HSE) as well as part-time in Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University) and Baltic Federal University (Kantiana). He is also head of the Center for Advanced Methods in Social Sciences and Humanities of the Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences and editor of the yearbook “METHOD”.