What do you think?
Rate this book
Teorie del simbolo
Focusing on theories of verbal symbolism, Tzvetan Todorov here presents the first history of semiotics. From an account of the semiotic doctrines embodied in the works of classical rhetoric to an exploration of representative modern concepts of the symbol found in ethnology, psychoanalysis, linguistics, and poetics, Todorov examines the rich tradition of sign theory.
416 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1977
10 people are currently reading
204 people want to read
About the author
Tzvetan Todorov
199 books363 followersIn Bulgarian Цветан Тодоров. Todorov was a Franco-Bulgarian historian, philosopher and literary theoretician. Among his most influential works is his theory on the fantastic, the uncanny and marvellous.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
January 8, 2022
Summary: Good Book. A bit of an overview that gives you the high level at adequate depth on Symbology (which in this case means letters and numbers). Still a bit newer to this topic.
p. 10 "Theory is to be taken in a loose sene; the word is opposed to 'practice', rahter than to "nontheoretcial reflection." Just realize everything has to be in this context.
p. 16 Excerpt from On Interpretation - "Spoken words are the symbols of mental experience and written words are the symbols of spoken words."
p. 20 they talk about the lekton, which is the idea that an object or idea evokes a sound.
p. 46 - Here they are using Augustine's idea that "the immense majority of signs are phonic." I don't agree with this, b/c I think phonics is the innovation that was then implied to sound, i.e. it's backwards. Hence, the rest of the chapter has to be read in that framework. Doesn't change the logic of the chapter, just have to realize this is a supposition.
p 49 Quote from Augustine's On Christian Doctrine: "But since one thing may resemble another in a great variety of ways, signs are not valid among men except by common consent."
p. 61 Here they talk about the idea that Rhetoric is really just for persuading. A lack of rhetoric is no good
p. 69 "eloquence needs freedom. It does not flourish when its aim is preescribed by dogma, whether political or religious, nor when it is asked to join in the service of the truth. Eloquence prospers only in the search for truth, not merely illustration of a particular truth.
p. 74+ He talks about the masculinity of rhetoric. A weird way to discuss it, but I guess that was really important at one time.
p. 78 - Locke is not cool with Rhetoric and this is where discourse comes into play and Rhetoric dies.... for a time.
p. 89 - they go into this thing where language is or is not figurative.
Generally speaking, in the chapter on the end of rhetoric, I think he calls it too soon. Instead, the chapter might have been better placed logically as a calming of rhetorical styles to something else and now, we have definitely entered back into an age of Rhetoric. Missed opportunity, but at least it's presented as a thing. I didn't know about the thing, so good to know when reading what was up in the 1700s.
p. 144 and a lot of this chapter, they are trying to talk about the idea of language attempting to motivate like via sounds, into the natural. It's a very nuanced point. I don't have a relevant use case for this so I can't totally tell what the purpose of this is at this time.
p. 155 - There's this dude Moritz who is all about beauty. I don't know enough about this dude, so the point is heresay, but approximately he's presenting as thus:
"Paradoxically, beauty is closer to uselessness than to usefulness."
p. 156 - " The beautiful object does not require an end outside of itself, for it is so perfected in itself that the entire purpose of its existence is found in itself." (It's an accomplishment in itself, there's nothing else to do, virtue, etc).
p. 199 - Idea is that symbol before was separated from allegory. Kant & Goethe had other thoughts. Here were' more in the format of the allegorical representation in the mind.
p. 221 this idea of the expression of the inexpressible.
p. 235 they define 3 lang types... (Hieroglyphic, symbolic, and epistolary). Ok.... the deal is, i don't totally get the division between the first 2.
p. 242 - They talk about a mystical abstraction in sumols... metonymy. (figure of speech) This is the beginning of associative language.
p. 250 we move toward the whole idea of association expanded Freud's dream work.
p 268-270... prob only relevant to linguists, this idea that things outside of words are not language. Stupid, but there you go.
p. 10 "Theory is to be taken in a loose sene; the word is opposed to 'practice', rahter than to "nontheoretcial reflection." Just realize everything has to be in this context.
p. 16 Excerpt from On Interpretation - "Spoken words are the symbols of mental experience and written words are the symbols of spoken words."
p. 20 they talk about the lekton, which is the idea that an object or idea evokes a sound.
p. 46 - Here they are using Augustine's idea that "the immense majority of signs are phonic." I don't agree with this, b/c I think phonics is the innovation that was then implied to sound, i.e. it's backwards. Hence, the rest of the chapter has to be read in that framework. Doesn't change the logic of the chapter, just have to realize this is a supposition.
p 49 Quote from Augustine's On Christian Doctrine: "But since one thing may resemble another in a great variety of ways, signs are not valid among men except by common consent."
p. 61 Here they talk about the idea that Rhetoric is really just for persuading. A lack of rhetoric is no good
p. 69 "eloquence needs freedom. It does not flourish when its aim is preescribed by dogma, whether political or religious, nor when it is asked to join in the service of the truth. Eloquence prospers only in the search for truth, not merely illustration of a particular truth.
p. 74+ He talks about the masculinity of rhetoric. A weird way to discuss it, but I guess that was really important at one time.
p. 78 - Locke is not cool with Rhetoric and this is where discourse comes into play and Rhetoric dies.... for a time.
p. 89 - they go into this thing where language is or is not figurative.
Generally speaking, in the chapter on the end of rhetoric, I think he calls it too soon. Instead, the chapter might have been better placed logically as a calming of rhetorical styles to something else and now, we have definitely entered back into an age of Rhetoric. Missed opportunity, but at least it's presented as a thing. I didn't know about the thing, so good to know when reading what was up in the 1700s.
p. 144 and a lot of this chapter, they are trying to talk about the idea of language attempting to motivate like via sounds, into the natural. It's a very nuanced point. I don't have a relevant use case for this so I can't totally tell what the purpose of this is at this time.
p. 155 - There's this dude Moritz who is all about beauty. I don't know enough about this dude, so the point is heresay, but approximately he's presenting as thus:
"Paradoxically, beauty is closer to uselessness than to usefulness."
p. 156 - " The beautiful object does not require an end outside of itself, for it is so perfected in itself that the entire purpose of its existence is found in itself." (It's an accomplishment in itself, there's nothing else to do, virtue, etc).
p. 199 - Idea is that symbol before was separated from allegory. Kant & Goethe had other thoughts. Here were' more in the format of the allegorical representation in the mind.
p. 221 this idea of the expression of the inexpressible.
p. 235 they define 3 lang types... (Hieroglyphic, symbolic, and epistolary). Ok.... the deal is, i don't totally get the division between the first 2.
p. 242 - They talk about a mystical abstraction in sumols... metonymy. (figure of speech) This is the beginning of associative language.
p. 250 we move toward the whole idea of association expanded Freud's dream work.
p 268-270... prob only relevant to linguists, this idea that things outside of words are not language. Stupid, but there you go.
May 18, 2024
This is a veritable whirlwind tour of theories from Plato’s time to the twentieth century
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews