Yuri Lotman on metaphors and culture as self-referential semiospheres

Nöth, Winfried

doi:10.1515/sem.2006.065

Cited by 18 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is hence more informative than the sign itself (cf. Nöth 2014). The interpretant is more developed than the sign it interprets because "it is of the nature of thought to grow" in the process of interpretation (CP 2.32, c. 1902).…”

Section: Models As Signs and Peirce's Definition Of Signsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The semiotics of models

Nöth

2018

SSS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The paper sheds light on the concept of model in ordinary language and in scientific discourse from the perspective of C. S. Peirce's semiotics. It proposes a general Peircean framework for the definition of models of all kinds, including mental models. A survey of definitions of scientific models that have been influential in the philosophy of science and of the typologies proposed in this context is given. The author criticizes the heterogeneity of the criteria applied in these typologies and the lack of a semiotic foundation in typological distinctions between formal, symbolic, theoretical, metaphorical, and iconic models, among others. The paper argues that the application of Peirce's subdivision of signs into the trichotomies of the sign itself, its object, and its interpretant can offer a deeper understanding of the nature of models. Semiotic topics in the focus of the paper are (1) the distinction between models as signs and (mental) models as the interpretants of signs; (2) models considered as a type (or legisign) and models considered as tokens (or replicas) of a type; (3) the iconicity of models, including diagrammatic and metaphorical icons; (4) the contribution of indices and symbols to the informativity of models; and (5) the rhetorical qualities of models in scientific discourse. The paper argues in conclusion that informative models are hybrid signs in which a diagram incorporates indices and symbols in a rhetorically efficient way.

show abstract

Section: Models As Signs and Peirce's Definition Of Signsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such semiotic systems are created in mythological, religious, legal, ideological, or literary texts, written in the language of the primary modelling system. The great emphasis he attributes to metaphors in secondary models gives iconicity in these systems an extra prominence (see Nöth 2006). …”

Section: Lotman's Modelling Systems As An Iconic Typementioning

confidence: 99%

The semiotics of models

Nöth

2018

SSS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the latter are mainly concerned with the study of real places and spaces, such as continents, landscapes, cities, rural or urban spaces in literature, paintings and films or on maps, Lotman's semiosphere is a more abstract and often not geographically localizable mental space. The reader is thus left with the impression that Lotman's semiosphere is a metaphorical space (see Nöth, 2006), although the author rejects the metaphorical interpretation of his concept of semiosphere, when he argues:…”

Section: Yuri Lotman and The Spatial Turn In Cultural Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The topography of Yuri Lotman’s semiosphere

Nöth

2014

International Journal of Cultural Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the article is to examine Yuri Lotman's models of the semiosphere and of semiotic spaces in literature and culture in the context of the spatial turn in cultural studies. It argues that Lotman's writings anticipate the 'spatial turn' in cultural studies. Lotman's semiosphere is a metaphor, which offers a spatial model for the interpretation of culture. A semiosphere is surrounded by a boundary. Its internal places are discontinuous and heterogeneous as well as homogeneous in some respects. Typical constellations of the locations within the semiosphere are opposition and bipolar asymmetry. Furthermore, the semiosphere is a space which can in some respects include itself in a way in which the included space is an icon of the including space. The article shows that Lotman's topography of the semiosphere has undergone a change from a structuralist to a post-structuralist conception of culture.

show abstract

“…However, the expression 'cultural space' is relatively rare in Lotman's work and, and when it is explicit, is often not distinguished from its general everyday meanings. At the same time, the semiotics of culture developed by Lotman and his colleagues in the Tartu-Moscow school of semiotics can be characterised as following a spatial logic of thought (Nöth 2006, Randviir 2007) and spatial metalanguage (e.g. notions like the space of the text, textual space, semiotic space, centre and periphery etc.).…”

Section: Cultural Space As the Semiotic Space Of Culture Lotmanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Time in Spatial Metalanguage: The Ambiguous Position of Time in Concepts of Sociocultural, Social and Cultural Space

Remm¹

2010

Trames

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In this paper I discuss the problematic presence of time in the spatial metalanguage of cultural and social research. General use of everyday spatial metaphors, as well as attempts to formalise spatial models, explicate the role of space as a modelling system. At the same time, the aspect of temporality is positioned into an ambiguous role as being partly subordinated and rejected from these descriptive models with universalistic intentions. The problematic presence of time and temporality in the spatial metalanguage of cultural and social research is here discussed in the context of three theoretical models of space: Pitirim A. Sorokin's sociocultural space, Pierre Bourdieu's social space, and Juri Lotman's cultural space. Relating to the history of theory through these three models, the discussion suggests a critical account on the ways temporality is presented in the spatial metalanguage. Nevertheless, in combination, these models suggest a possibility to involve multiple socioculturally specific accounts on time into coherent spatial models through the recognition of reflective activity of agents.

show abstract

Yuri Lotman on metaphors and culture as self-referential semiospheres

Cited by 18 publications

References 4 publications

The semiotics of models

The semiotics of models

The topography of Yuri Lotman’s semiosphere

Time in Spatial Metalanguage: The Ambiguous Position of Time in Concepts of Sociocultural, Social and Cultural Space

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About