Lingue e Linguaggi
Bhatia V. Bezemer J. Calsamiglia H. Ciuccarelli P. Ghadessy M. L eds. Gershon N. Kress G. Krum R. Lankow J. Miller G.
Moirand S. Rendgen S. Segel E. Sinclair J. Smiciklas J. Toth C. Trumbo J. User Username Password Remember me. Font Size. About The Authors Sonia Piotti. Article Tools Print this article.Cultural-semiotic approach to translation is based, on the one hand, on R.The science of analyzing conversations, second by second - Elizabeth Stokoe - TEDxBermuda
His ideas were developed or transformed in later publications see J. Holmes, A. Popovic, G. Toury who contributed to his classification of translations. Eco, for example, offers a tripartite classification of translation. Firstly, there is interpretation by transcription. This involves simple substitution of codes as, for example, in case of the Morse alphabet. Secondly, there is intrasystemic interpretation that can, in its turn, be divided into three subcategories including intrasystemic interpretation a within the same natural language synonymy, definition, paraphrase, etcb within other semiotic systems e.
Thirdly, U. Eco introduces intersystemic interpretation including two types: a with marked variation in the substance such as translation between natural languages, re-writing and b mutation of continuum such as parasynonymy as when amplifying the phrase that one over there by pointing at the object with a finger and adaptation or transmutation such as adapting literature to film or to theatre [Eco ].
These works show that meaning can be lent to any kind of translation activity, methodologically the semiotic tradition has been characterized by bringing the concepts of meaning, interpretation and translation close to one another. These scholars put together inter-linguistic, intra-linguistic and intersemiotic translations which was crucial not only for translation studies, but also for developing the general notion of culture as the process of total translation.
On the other hand, translation viewed as a working mechanism of culture is connected with semiotics of culture and thus it follows the traditions of M. Bakhtin and Yu. Lotman [Torop ]. Bakhtin introduced the notion of dialogism in analyzing the language of literature which was further applied to a translation text as a place for two different logics of two different languages to meet in see the works by M.
Robel, etc. Thus since translation studies are closely connected with the theory of culture the semiotics of culture has introduced the notion of intersemiosis beside the concept of semiosis. Translation studies draw upon such ideas developed in semiotics of culture as the intertwining of the languages of culture through the processes of the integration of languages of culture e.
It is very important to stress that this model has two important advantages compared to other theories: firstly, bringing semiotics into linguistics it broadened the boundaries of human communication which involves extralinguistic codes accompanying speech messages and is directed by socio-anthropologic, socio-cultural and other factors; secondly, viewing a text or a set of cultural texts as a code instead of looking upon a text as a message produced on the basis of language alone it enabled to reconstruct cultural codes in their diversity and simultaneity.
Cognitive model of translation developed in this country by T. Zvilling, O.Norman Fairclough 65 states that:. This statement sums up the role of discourse analysis in the translation of cultural aspects in persuasive advertisements. It can be inferred that society, as defined by Fairclough, points to cultural identity. Discursive practice, like a persuasive advertisement, changes or manipulates the receivers in a society or culture to alter their behaviour or "transform society".
But the same can be said for semiotics, where verbal and non-verbal signs produce meaning, which lead to the creation of social relationships, systems of knowledge and thus cultural identity. The individual signs and their combinations are manipulated to perform a persuasive function in advertisements in the text and contextwhich alters the behaviour of the receivers accordingly. Introduction to semiotics Humans, like most animals, are able to communicate verbally and non-verbally. Humans use language in verbal communication and signs, symbols, sound or paralinguistic means to communicate a message.
However, humans, unlike animals, have cultural identities. The semiosis sign processing takes place within this cultural orientation. Patrick Vyncke 2 describes this phenomenon as follows:.
Nu is er recent een wetenschap tot ontwikkeling gekomen die zich in het bijzonder, en op een bijzondere manier, met deze communicatie- en cultuurprocessen inlaat.
Semiotics analysis provides the translator with means to deal with signs in a persuasive advertisement which reflect a cultural identity. By analysing the signs and semiosis in the source culture, the translator can identify their functions and transfer them into a target language and culture by finding equivalents in the target culture.
This section will focus on the theories of Charles Peirce and Ferdinand de Saussure regarding signs and semiosis that will enable the translator to apply aspects of discourse analysis in conjunction with semiotic analysis in dealing with cultural aspects in persuasive advertisements during the translation process. It should be noted that Peirce provides insights and theories that serve as theoretical background information, but are difficult to "translate" into practical ideas.
De Saussure provides one with more tangible and applicable information and theory that can be used to examine an advertisement semiotically and then translate it. Semiotics defined In order to establish the use and necessity of semiotics for translation purposes, one needs to provide a background against which the concepts and terminology as well as the tools of the trade can be discussed. The framework can be summarised into the following three fields of study: The sign.
This entails the study of the various types of signs, and the different ways they have of conveying meaning, and the way they relate to the people who use them.
That to which the sign refers. In other words, the codes or systems into which signs are organised. This includes the ways that various codes have developed to meet the needs of a society or culture, or to exploit the channels of communication available for their transmission. The users of the sign. In other words, the culture within which these codes and signs operate.
Fiske Ferdinand de Saussure cited in Hawkesfather of the study of semiotics, defined this phenomenon in what was to become a very well-known statement:. Semiology would show what constitutes signs, what laws govern them. Since the science does not yet exist, no one can say what it would be; but it has a right to existence, a place staked out in advance. Linguistics is only a part of the general science of semiology; the laws discovered by semiology will be applicable to linguistics.
Saussure used the term semiology, whereas Peirce used the term semiotics. Confusion can occur between these two concepts.Teun A. We have discourse analysis, and its many branches stylistics, rhetoric, narrative or argumentation analysis, as well as syntactic, semantic or pragmatic analysis, and of course conversation analysisbut "cognitive analysis" is not a well-known, standard way of looking at text or talk.
We have a cognitive psychology of discourse processing production, comprehensionand we have a social psychology of discourse the Loughborough school called "discursive psychology", but the latter rejects any mental approach and in fact advocates a more ethnomethodological approach to discourse within social psychology.
So, if we speak about "cognitive analysis"it is something we have to invent ourselves. And we must show why it is relevant for our understanding of discourse.
The argument behind such an attempt is that text and talk do not exist in isolation. Most obviously, discourse analysis since many years emphasizes the relevance of the study of context for our understanding of many aspects of discourse.
Relevant in such contexts are the social domain e. Part of the context, however, are also some of the 'cognitive' properties of the participants, such as their aims, beliefs, knowledge and opinions.
Without taking into account, we cannot understand why people are speaking or writing at all, or how they show adapt what they say or write to the knowledge or other beliefs of the recipients. In other words, not only because of a 'mentalist' aim to understand the processes of actual discourse comprehension or production, but also for important contextual reasons, a study of the cognitive aspects of communication is highly relevant.
In this introductory working note, we provide an outline of how to do a 'cognitive' analysis of discourse. For more than 25 years, cognitive psychology has been actively engaged in the study of the processes of discourse production and comprehension.
Emerging from the psycholinguistic study of sentence processing in the s and s, this approach emphasized that mental processes of understanding should not be limited to isolated sentences. People produce and understand whole discourses, and even the processing of words, clauses and sentences needs to be studied as integrated part of the processes involved in the production or comprehension of discourse.
Thus, instead of analyzing 'given' structures, such a more 'strategic' approach, studies discourse processing 'on line', at several levels at the same time, as a fast but imperfect sequence of mental acts that are geared towards 'making sense' of the respective words, clauses, sentence, paragraphs etc of discourse. Thus, in a cognitive analysis, interpretation is not static, nor an abstract procedure, as in linguistic semantics, but a dynamic, ongoing process of at first tentatively assigning meaning and functions to units of discourse.
In order to account for such processes of production and understanding, psychology makes use of a large number of more or less technical notions describing various aspects of the 'mind':.
Although the theory just summarized is more or less the standard-theory with the exception of the role of context models, which is not yet generally known and accepted, but consistent with current theorythere are many other cognitive properties of the mind involved in the processing of discourse.
Thus, discourses are also produced and understood as a function of socially shared attitudes and ideologies, norms and values, and possibly other forms of 'social cognition'. So far there is not get a generally accepted theory of these forms of socially shared mental representations, nor of their role in discourse processing. Against this highly simplified background of a theory of discourse processing, we may try to develop a type of discourse analysis that takes into account the mental representations and processes described above.Discourse viewed from linguistic angle is a text functioning in a communicative situation.
The text analysis tends to deviate from its structural semantic trend to approach corporal functioning in both artificial and natural methods of text production. Denoting the text as dynamic interface of functional and pragmatic fields we attempt to specify it as a product of informational exchange undergoing coding decoding and copying.
We put forward the assumption that presentation of a certain information is performed not by a separate semiotic unit, but by the whole system of codes as well. Our approach to the text originates from initial mentally chosen direction of idea to speech textual activity, provided that the will of communicators participates between these two marginal actions. We treat personality from the point of view of mind operation through realization of self consciousness as a part of cultural interface with modern world.
Discursive competence, which is based on linguistic, situational and cultural awareness of communicants, is considered as the key question of informational exchange. Key words: cultural interface, discursive competence, realization of consciousness, global concretization. Russia I. Documents: Advanced Search Include Citations.
Powered by:.It is important because it synthesizes these issues, not because it covers those issues in a distinct or authoritative form. Social semiotics makes semiotics more broadly useful, and Social Semiotics assists in this process. Three texts between them have helped to give currency and substance to the term and field of Social Semiotics. These three sets of influences have had distinct agendas and trajectories which enrich Social Semiotics, and each opens up specific connections with other fields of inquiry, within semiotics under that name, and beyond.
Halliday was primarily a linguist. Hodge and Kress were influenced by Halliday, and added a diverse semiotic base, incorporating the sometimes rival traditions of Saussure and Peirce. This scope has the effect of problematizing any boundary that might have been supposed to exist around the specificity of Social Semiotics.
Social Semiotics has become social semiotics, arguably benefiting both. The broader field of social semiotics is the site of intersection between two more currents, not usually called semiotics but in practice implicitly or explicitly drawing on a social semiotic orientation and tool kit.
Social Semiotics, which has many affinities with both, can act as a grand node, linking each to the other, reframing them within a wide network of related traditions. At the same time it can serve the salutary effect of bringing these vigorous traditions into the field of semiotics, energising semiotics and making its insights more widely available and appreciated.
This prestige gave his intervention great impact, while at the same time it has kept the scope of that influence mainly within the study of verbal language. In one interpretation of his project he points to an as-yet undeveloped social semiotics to complete the work of his purely linguistic theory. However, in a more positive interpretation he is opening the way to a more complex relationship between linguistics and semiotics, in which insights into verbal codes, as understood with a more adequate linguistics, will illuminate the study of all other codes.
In this sense his linguistic theory, framed to have a more adequate account of social forces and contexts, is already a strand in a Social Semiotics which did not yet exist when he wrote. In spite of work by some of his followers e. The key premises of his linguistic theory, which work equally well as general premises for Social Semiotics, are:. This is the case with all semiotic codes.
That is, a functional perspective is a key to the inseparable relationship between semiotics and society, structure and function. The semiotic interpersonal and textual functions are more obviously social, but are inseparable in semiotic practice from the interpersonal.
One of the authors, Gunther Kress, had studied with Halliday in the late s. Brown and A. It also incorporated theorists of language from outside the discipline of linguistics, such as Herbert Marcuse, Jean Piaget and Sigmund Freud. But crucially this project framed the field with a critical account of society derived from Marx. Semiotics is the minimal framework for the study of social meanings because there are complex patterns of similarities and differences across different codes, and because social meanings typically flow continually between different codes.
Social meanings cannot be tracked only in one code, even in verbal language as the dominant one. The supposed dominance and autonomy of the verbal code is indeed an ideological assumption whose taken-for-granted truth needs to be questioned by social semiotics. Power and solidarity are key dimensions of social structures and related meanings, inseparably related in social semiotic practice.
Ideologya key category in Marxism, is also central in social semiotic analysis, but inflected by social semiotic principles to become the idea of the ideological complex. Instead of the usual assumption that ideology is false consciousness, consistent with itself but misrepresenting reality on behalf of ideologues, the minimal unit of meaning in an ideological complex is its functional set of contradictions, motivated by the need for ideologues to balance issues of power and solidarity for their relations with those they are addressing.
The relationship with realitytreated as a problem for semiotic theory in most forms of semiotics, is seen as constitutive in social semiotic practice.
Reality-claims and their contestation are woven into every semiotic act, and determine their social effect. Transformations occur everywhere in social semiosis, in texts and systems of classification, as semiosic activity works over different versions of reality for many reasons, all of which have social origins and meanings.
The concept of transformations taken from Chomsky but transformed is a crucial strategy for analysing the diachronic dimension time, change which in its different scales is part of every social semiotic fact, interacting inseparably with relations as they exist within any given time.
Yet there are good reasons both conceptually and genealogically for seeing it as a branch of social semiotics. Both developed at more or less the same time from Critical Linguistics. This term gained currency through the work of Michel Foucault, perhaps the best known social theorist of his time. However, Foucault was a grand theorist rather than a local analyst, a highly intelligent commentator on a range of issues in the formation of modernity who did not develop or need a method as such, capable of analysing instances of discourse.
There are many reasons why CDA ought to have situated itself in a semiotic framework.Cognitive Semiotics is characterized as an emerging interdisciplinary matrix of disciplines and methods, focused on the multifaceted phenomenon of meaning. Peircean, Saussurean, Greimasianand even less a particular theory. On this basis, a number of generalizations on what CS deals with and how it does so. The following five characteristics are given: productive combination of theory and empirical research, methodological triangulation including first-person methodsinfluence of phenomenology, dynamism of meaning, and transdisciplinarity.
Cognitive Semiotics henceforth CS is an emerging interdisciplinary matrix of sub-parts of disciplines and methods, focused on the multifaceted phenomenon of meaning. As shown below, while CS practitioners indeed focus on what is specific about human forms of meaning-making, there is widespread agreement that this can only be properly understood in a comparative and evolutionary framework. Thus understood, CS cuts through and stretches across existing disciplinary divisions and configurations.
Peircean, Saussurean, Greimasianand even less a particular theory e. Existential Semiotics. But labels, while useful for organizing both concepts and fields of knowledge, are not essential.
Finally, CS is not just a new and fancier name for traditional cognitive science. The relationship between the two interdisciplinary matrixes is complex and deserves more attention than can be given here.
There is considerable overlap, and in a number of ways the relation is still open to negotiation. Dennett CS is considerably more pluralist in its ontological and methodological commitments, and thus arguably, with a firmer foot in the humanities than cognitive science. The following two sections present a non-exhaustive survey of CS research, in order to give the reader a broad overview of the field.
The first section is organized on the basis of groups and academic institutions that have provided a basis for the academic establishment of CS. Then the review turns to a few particular research areas, summarizing the work of key contributors.
This overview is by no means fully comprehensive, but hopefully sufficiently so to give the reader an idea of the diverse set of topics under the prevue of CS, and the methods employed in investigating them.
Finally, we will return to the questions of why CS is needed and what its ultimate contributions to knowledge could be. However, in the sense outlined in the introduction, CS truly appeared only in the mids. The ground was thus set for a rapprochement. This was, of course, addressed insightfully by classics such as Piaget and Vygotsky, but new concepts, methods of investigation, and a wealth of data have made it a very fruitful area, as described in the following section. These have been put to use mostly in the analysis of linguistic semantics, in particular with respect to puzzling phenomena such as subjectivity, iconicity, metaphor, and fictive motion.
A major publication is that of P. Brandt Language is investigated as a coordinative activity, where symbolic patterns are aligned and negotiated to facilitate and constrain social coordination e. The work of these researchers explicitly combines ideas from linguistics, semiotics, experimental psychology and neuroscience, thereby demonstrating that CS is ongoing practices and not just a programmatic enterprise.
At the same time, both Bundgaard and Stjernfelt apply their semiotic analyses to empirical phenomena of concern for CS, such as aesthetics, mental imagery, animal communication, and human gestures. The program has an impressive number of students and guest lecturers, and contributes to the reputation of CfS as a vanguard of the field.
Todd Oakley integrated cognitive linguistic concepts with a thorough investigation of the role of attention processes in a recent monograph: From Attention to Meaning: Explorations in Semiotics, Linguistics, and Rhetoric The most notable result from the collaboration between Oakley and Brandt was the establishment of the journal Cognitive Semiotics, which began in The volumes published so far have been devoted to topics such as agency, consciousness, and cognitive poetics, and have featured prominent authors from both the cognitive sciences and the humanities.
An interdisciplinary group — departing from linguistics while expanding to visual communication, gesture, and behavioral studies on consumer preferences — was established in at the Copenhagen Business School, with Per-Durst Andersen as research director. What remains is to spell out how such a framework can change the day-to-day practice of scientists, in particular of linguists and psychologists concerned with notions such as meaning construction and sense making.
Brier is pursuing efforts in this direction in collaboration with Ole Nedergaard and other members of the group. This controversial proposal is supported by a good deal of linguistic evidence, as well as references to research within cognitive psychology.
Empirical studies — e.