Yoád,
Thanks for your engagement.
> I wonder how many of these authors that you
> mention are by vocational definition /semioticians/?
Very few. I think Barthes and Eco actually had "semiotics" in their titles. Metz might have (?).
I don't understand the significance of the question, though. Few cultural and literary critics have vocational names based on theories they use. Most critics are relatively eclectic and pragmatic anyway. Paul de Man was a "literary theorist," even though he is (in)famous for his use of deconstruction (and posthumous scandal). It is hard to dispute, however, that langue and parole are centrally operational in Foucault's and Derrida's thought, for example, whether or not they vocationally called themselves semioticians.
Neither, I think, would Klaus say that he is a semanticist. I assume he identifies as a design researcher, whose contribution (well, one of them) is to develop an ambitious understanding of the role of semantics in design.
> In a similar manner to yours, it's possible to aligned them to the
> development of structuralism.
Agreed. Some have explicitly argued that semiotics and structuralism are two names for the same thing. Jonathan Culler, for example.
> (By the way, why did you leave Roman Jakobson out of your list?)
Because this is email, not the published version of the Oxford Handbook of Semiotics. It was not intended as a substantive omission.
> I'd like to suggest that these authors all used semiotics [...]
While I don't necessarily agree with your suggestions, I have no desire to mount any objection to them.
My objection was to indefensible assertions that come across as merely political--meant to marginalize through straw manning.
I have no objections to informed criticisms of semiotics, of which there are many strong ones (though I have not seen them here). I don't have an Aunt Levi-Strauss (alas!), so I have no need to defend semiotics or structuralism per se.
> Compared to linguistics design and semiotics are like spring chickens :)
If one understands semiotics to about theorizing signification, then it goes back to ancient Greece (in the West). That is, what Peirce and de Saussure occupy themselves with and label "semiotics" are two thousand year old topics. In fact, in an earlier lifetime, I published a book on the transmission of ancient grammar theory into the Latin Middle Ages and beyond, and I would say that a lot of that ancient/medieval theory was semiotic in nature.
Jeffrey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|