Suren Zolyan
Social Semiotics and Semiotics of Culture: Unum Ex Duobus.
Abstract
1. The development and specialization of semiotics lead to a formation of its various types. Currently, there are such rather developed and commonly recognized disciplines as semiotics of culture, biosemiotics, social, logical and linguistic semiotics. Besides, as it seems, different other semiotics have been waiting for their full recognition ( Political, Legal, Medical, Cyber, Ecological, etc ). Are they separate disciplines differing by methods and objects, or are they different domains of application of general semiotic approaches to non-linguistic objects? We intend to consider this dilemma with reference to such disciplines as semiotics of culture and social semiotics.
2. As it easy to observe, that social by their nature objects and relations are permanently considered by the semiotics of culture, and on the contrary, social semiotics studies mechanisms and texts relating to culture. Thus, the academic program of studying the semiotics of culture leads to the study of the manifestation of "such aspects of society as power relations, ideology, subcultural expression, as well as class, gender and ethnic identity social institutions and relations” . On the other hand, in his seminal work on social semiotics, M. Halliday completely equated social reality with culture: ”A social reality (or a ‘culture’) is itself an edifice of meanings – a semiotic construct”. [ Halliday 1978:2 ]
This approach is absolutely justified: a culture will include social relations and institutions, a society is impossible without the mechanisms of culture. But in this case, the question arises whether two different semiotics are required.
3. Our elucidation is based on the idea of varieties of semiotics as Ex Pluribus Unum ( or: Unity in diversity, Diversity in unity). The following main types of semiotic are possible. Firstly, it comes from the logic semiotic universum and its differentiation onto domains:
1. CULTURAL AND NATURAL
2. SEMIOSPHERE vs BIOSPHERE
3. CULTURAL (including SOCIAL) vs NATURAL
4. CULTURAL vs SOCIAL
5. Social Constructions vs Cultural Workings
6. BEHAVIOUR vs INTERPRETATION
4. The distinction between social semiotics and semiotics of culture can appear from the fourth level. The following semiotics are possible:
A. NON-CULTURAL, NON-SOCIAL
B. SOCIAL & CULTURAL
C. CULTURAL (BUT NOT SOCIAL?)
D. SOCIAL (BUT NOT CULTURAL?)
5. The type (a) – these are the semiotics, based on the Saussurian principle: "the true and unique object of linguistics is language studied in and for itself" (in this case two founding fathers Saussure and Pierce are of one mind). These semiotics's are focused on the study of systems without regard to the areas of their application. Three other non-Saussurian semiotics's are based on the opposite statement: “The fundamental questions relating to the description of any semiotic system are, firstly, its relation to the extra-system, to the world which lies beyond its borders ... “ (Lotman, Culture and Explosion) .
6. Type (b) is the semiotics of culture in the spirit of the Tartu-Moscow schoolIt dealt with an interaction of various sign systems within the frames of the unifying integral semiosphere consisting of heterogeneous domains. Some of these domains and systems are oriented mainly on social structures, social behavior and construction of social reality), the others are mechanisms for information processing. Accordingly, in some cases, cultural mechanisms are absorbed by social phenomena and considered as forms of expression of social systems and actions (Social semiotics of type C). In other cases, all the meaningful phenomena, including social ones, are described as texts generated by culture-organizing "languages" (semiotics of culture). inside both semiotics of culture and social semiotics, there are possible quite diverse ways in methods, depending on different understandings of formal semiotics, culture, and social mechanisms.
Bionote
Zolyan Suren – Dr. Habil., professor.
Professor at the Institute for Humanities, Im. Kant Baltic Federal University, Kaliningrad , Russia;.
Leading research fellow, Istitute of Philosophy, Sociology and Law, National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia.
Abstract
1. The development and specialization of semiotics lead to a formation of its various types. Currently, there are such rather developed and commonly recognized disciplines as semiotics of culture, biosemiotics, social, logical and linguistic semiotics. Besides, as it seems, different other semiotics have been waiting for their full recognition ( Political, Legal, Medical, Cyber, Ecological, etc ). Are they separate disciplines differing by methods and objects, or are they different domains of application of general semiotic approaches to non-linguistic objects? We intend to consider this dilemma with reference to such disciplines as semiotics of culture and social semiotics.
2. As it easy to observe, that social by their nature objects and relations are permanently considered by the semiotics of culture, and on the contrary, social semiotics studies mechanisms and texts relating to culture. Thus, the academic program of studying the semiotics of culture leads to the study of the manifestation of "such aspects of society as power relations, ideology, subcultural expression, as well as class, gender and ethnic identity social institutions and relations” . On the other hand, in his seminal work on social semiotics, M. Halliday completely equated social reality with culture: ”A social reality (or a ‘culture’) is itself an edifice of meanings – a semiotic construct”. [ Halliday 1978:2 ]
This approach is absolutely justified: a culture will include social relations and institutions, a society is impossible without the mechanisms of culture. But in this case, the question arises whether two different semiotics are required.
3. Our elucidation is based on the idea of varieties of semiotics as Ex Pluribus Unum ( or: Unity in diversity, Diversity in unity). The following main types of semiotic are possible. Firstly, it comes from the logic semiotic universum and its differentiation onto domains:
1. CULTURAL AND NATURAL
2. SEMIOSPHERE vs BIOSPHERE
3. CULTURAL (including SOCIAL) vs NATURAL
4. CULTURAL vs SOCIAL
5. Social Constructions vs Cultural Workings
6. BEHAVIOUR vs INTERPRETATION
4. The distinction between social semiotics and semiotics of culture can appear from the fourth level. The following semiotics are possible:
A. NON-CULTURAL, NON-SOCIAL
B. SOCIAL & CULTURAL
C. CULTURAL (BUT NOT SOCIAL?)
D. SOCIAL (BUT NOT CULTURAL?)
5. The type (a) – these are the semiotics, based on the Saussurian principle: "the true and unique object of linguistics is language studied in and for itself" (in this case two founding fathers Saussure and Pierce are of one mind). These semiotics's are focused on the study of systems without regard to the areas of their application. Three other non-Saussurian semiotics's are based on the opposite statement: “The fundamental questions relating to the description of any semiotic system are, firstly, its relation to the extra-system, to the world which lies beyond its borders ... “ (Lotman, Culture and Explosion) .
6. Type (b) is the semiotics of culture in the spirit of the Tartu-Moscow schoolIt dealt with an interaction of various sign systems within the frames of the unifying integral semiosphere consisting of heterogeneous domains. Some of these domains and systems are oriented mainly on social structures, social behavior and construction of social reality), the others are mechanisms for information processing. Accordingly, in some cases, cultural mechanisms are absorbed by social phenomena and considered as forms of expression of social systems and actions (Social semiotics of type C). In other cases, all the meaningful phenomena, including social ones, are described as texts generated by culture-organizing "languages" (semiotics of culture). inside both semiotics of culture and social semiotics, there are possible quite diverse ways in methods, depending on different understandings of formal semiotics, culture, and social mechanisms.
Bionote
Zolyan Suren – Dr. Habil., professor.
Professor at the Institute for Humanities, Im. Kant Baltic Federal University, Kaliningrad , Russia;.
Leading research fellow, Istitute of Philosophy, Sociology and Law, National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia.