Einführung in die Semiotik.

by Umberto Eco, Jürgen Trabant (Translator)

Umberto Eco führt in die allgemeine Lehre von den Zeichen in einer gründlichen Gesamtschau ein. Für die Literatur- und Sprachwissenschaft, für Soziologie, Philosophie, Rhetorik, Kunst, einschließlich solcher Probleme wie Filmästhetik, Reklame, politische Propaganda, Trivialliteratur und Subkultur werden in gut faßlicher und fesselnder Weise neue Wege des Verständnisses aufgezeigt.

Genres: Philosophy, Semiotics, Nonfiction, Linguistics, Language, Theory, Reference

474 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1975

About the author

Umberto Eco was an Italian medievalist, philosopher, semiotician, novelist, cultural critic, and political and social commentator. In English, he is best known for his popular 1980 novel The Name of the Rose, a historical mystery combining semiotics in fiction with biblical analysis, medieval studies and literary theory, as well as Foucault's Pendulum, his 1988 novel which touches on similar themes.

Eco wrote prolifically throughout his life, with his output including children's books, translations from French and English, in addition to a twice-monthly newspaper column "La Bustina di Minerva" (Minerva's Matchbook) in the magazine L'Espresso beginning in 1985, with his last column (a critical appraisal of the Romantic paintings of Francesco Hayez) appearing 27 January 2016. At the time of his death, he was an Emeritus professor at the University of Bologna, where he taught for much of his life. In the 21st century, he has continued to gain recognition for his 1995 essay "Ur-Fascism", where Eco lists fourteen general properties he believes comprise fascist ideologies.

Reviews

[Miss Ravi]

یه نفری رو می‌شناسم که می‌گفت آدم‌ها ممکنه چیزهای زیادی بدونن اما از اون دونسته‌هاشون چیزهای خیلی کمی رو واقعاً «بفهمند». خیلی هم روی این فهمیدن تاکید داشت. من وقتی این کتاب رو خوندم و از همون اوایل یاد حرف‌های اون آدم افتادم و فهمیدم که چقدر این کتاب رو نمی‌فهمم. با وجودی که می‌دونم داره چی می‌گه.
بعضی صفحات رو دو سه باری خوندم، نه این‌که تاثیری نداشت ولی روی کلیّتش برام نتیجه‌ی زیادی نداشت. واسه همین نمی‌تونم الان امتیازی به این کتاب بدم. کسی که این کتاب رو پیشنهاد داد بهم، تاکید کرد که ازوناست که یه بار خوندن واسه‌ش جواب نمی‌ده. فقط باید یه فرصتی پیدا کنم که میل داشته باشم برگردم به فضای فولادی این کتاب.


اون‌طور که گودریدز رو رصد کردم من اولین ری‌ویو رو دارم برای این کتاب می‌نویسم و با این چیزهایی که نوشتم چه دلهره‌ای می‌ندازم به دل خواننده‌ها :))

کتابهایی هستند که سخت‌خوان‌اند ولی رسوخ‌ناپذیر نیستند، شاید بشه از آدم‌ها ناامید شد و بُرید اما از کتاب‌ها هرگز

[Conrad · Rating 2 out of 5]

Contains one of the best jokes I know. To paraphrase:

Two worn-out dogs with mangy coats run into a third dog on the streets of Moscow. This third dog has a gorgeous, shiny coat, and appears well-fed. The two dogs walk up to the third and ask, "How the hell did you get so much food? We're starving out here!" The third dog goes, "Well, there's this doctor Pavlov who runs this psychology institute. I walk in and he puts me in a warm room and rings a bell. All I have to do then is drool a little, and these well-trained doctors bring me a meal!"

Other than that it's pretty boring.

[Moshtagh hosein · Rating 4 out of 5]

سخت خوان اما پر نکته رفت تو لیست خوانش دوباره

[Charlie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I would strongly recommend this book to anyone who is a fan of language philosophy as the perfect counter point in which to observe what language does do rather than to meditate on how it does it. The other thing that is so refreshing about Eco is just how readable he is at the same time as conveying a great many very difficult concepts: Eco has no need to disguise ideas in murky rhetoric because he is a genuine intellectual who understands a great many complex phenomena.

There are of course many points on which I disagree with Eco: I feel in places he seems to bizarrely undermine the role of context, and he also seems to undermine the untranslatable modes of genuine communication that are particular to various mediums preferring to stress the multifarious manifestations that a given sign can take.

Ultimately I feel it is a massive injustice that a great many french structuralists have been given credit for there contributions to understanding language as well as a great many anglo-american philosopher, and whereas their epiphanies have often resided in their wonder at what they don't understand, Eco has been given very little credit for providing genuine solid ground work for genuinely understanding and getiing to the very root of a great many social phenomena.

[Kim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Definitely targeted an an audience already familiar with linguistics theory - be prepared to use your dictionary and favorite translation program.

Deep, systematic theory of semiotics that breaks down into theories of code production and theories of sign production.

I used it in a graduate class as an intro to semiotics and it was way too specialist and detailed for the purposes for which we needed it. I think, after discussion, that my students still got a lot out of it as it enabled us to talk about cultural and social influences of sign-production, as well as the role of the subject therein.

I only had the class read Chapters 0, 1, 2, and 4, so consequently I only read the same sections (hey man! pressures of keeping up with my teaching load - don't judge). I wish that I had time to read Chapter three, but that will have to wait for summer...

[Kirk Lowery · Rating 5 out of 5]

Before there was linguistics, there was semiotics.

[Maria Maniaci · Rating 1 out of 5]

Impenetrable. But that's probably me and not him--he's brilliant, but I'm new to this and this is not a primer. I read it because I had to, at about 10 pages per hour, and they were very long hours.

It's a pet peeve of mine when someone is in essence lecturing on a topic and they slip in and out of foreign languages for paragraphs at a time, then go on to build their own arguements on the untranslated text. Of course if you're reading this of your own voilition, maybe you've already read everything that Saussure and Hjelmslev wrote and that won't be an issue for you.

[Valentina Páez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Umberto Eco afirma que el hombre ya no es el sujeto responsable del lenguaje porque no es el quien lo habla sino que es habitado por el lenguaje. De modo que el lenguaje se convierte en el fundamento del pensamientos y la realidad

[Sal Coraccio · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book makes me feel sooo stupid.

[تیهو · Rating 1 out of 5]

امیدوارم که خود مترجم فهمیده باشه چی ترجمه کرده.

[Jacob Rush · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nobody tell Escalante I gave this 3 stars.

[Slava Skobeloff · Rating 4 out of 5]

I feel like Eco's book occupies a sort of awkward position for a lot of semioticians. On one hand, it's overly descriptive for a lot of purposes, and this becomes evident when you look at critical theorists who utilise semiotics, i.e Barthes, Althusser, that there really is no particular need to delve into as much detail as does Eco, and so therefore it seems more useful to isolate certain portions of Eco's text for reference (i.e for an ideological critique, his sections on ideology). But on the other hand, one also cannot understand these sections without knowing Eco's particular terminology (i.e sememe, code-switching, expression and content planes and so on).

It largely seems to depend on your purpose for reading the book. Analytic philosophers will no doubt find fascinating sections where Eco delves into the relation between semiotics and a t-theory (which, there is none, but he draws upon analytic philosophy heavily in certain portions), while communication theorists would no doubt find the entirety of the book useful. For someone with a more particular interest, such as that of critical theory, it might be more useful to once again, isolate and utilise only certain parts of the book that are relevant for your specific purposes. It is a highly detailed book containing definitions and explanations of even the simplest semiotic phenomena, such as denotation/connotation, which I probably will find useful in literary theory one day.

The book is not impossible to comprehend, it does delve into heavy linguistics and analytic philosophy oftentimes which can become tedious, and Eco seems to be a very careful writer in isolating what is semiotics, what is not semiotics, what is a sign, what is not a sign, and so on and so forth. This can no doubt make the reading experience frustrating but upon a re-reading everything should really become clearer, as Eco is not a particularly obscure writer by any means.

So, I don't know. I'll probably end up using some portions of this in the future. I don't know when, but until then I'll consider this book a good source to go back to once in a while.

[Brian · Rating 3 out of 5]

Eco has some very fun lines in this book and he reminded me that language is more like a land with boundaries that are constantly moving rather than a static tool, and that to speak is to participate in fighting for those boundaries, however little power we as individuals have. Anyway, it's so dense, though, that most of it went over my head, so I probably wouldn't recommend it to anybody but people who care deeply about learning about semiotics. But still, this made me want to read Name of the Rose.

[Robert Foschia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Do you need to know the intricacies of every counter- point Eco thinks if in terms of his theories? Hold this book two inches from your face because it demands you abandon the world. The last line is the only useful tidbit

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

I won't say this is going to make a great movie.... And by all means avoid giving it as an anniversary gift to all but the most cerebral social misfits. But for those of who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing we like.

[Mario Peimbert · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty difficult book if you're starting in linguistic.

[Colby · Rating 2 out of 5]

Excruciatingly hard to understand [dimmy]

[Nimsi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Es un libro que te enseña a ver los signos de la vida.

[Matthew B. · Rating 4 out of 5]

I picked up Umberto Eco's Theory of Semiotics as an introduction to formal semiotics because I found the discussions of semiotic topics in The Name of the Rose interesting and pretty well-presented, so I thought Eco would be a good source for more information on the subject. He does in fact hit on a lot of the same points he would later put into the mouth of William of Baskerville, though in much greater depth and (of course) in the jargon of modern linguistics rather than mediaeval scholasticism. His explanations can be a little opaque because he frequently assumes the reader is familiar with terminology employed by particular earlier scholars (Peirce, Katz and Postal, etc., so not obscure writers by any means, but ones I happen not to have read); he also sometimes (not often but every now and then) commits the cardinal linguistics-scholarship sin of not giving examples. But on the whole his exposition is pretty lucid, though the extremely brief last chapter is a little weird, partly inspired, I believe, by Marxist concepts which he does not quite fully bring out.

[Alexander Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

There arent many books this complete on the subject, and this is the more scientifically applicable approaches. If someone has an ideological bent, however, one should consider Saussure's lectures first. My main complaint is that this book could have been better organized into more modular chunks beyond "Theory of Codes" "Theory of Signs" and "Production of Signs". It's hard to swallow all of this at once, and some of the subsections feel kind of nonsequitor-esque initially. There's not as much limear motivation for the organization. For that reason only, i suggest a new semiotician start with Peirce and Barthes, then read this.

[нєνєℓ ¢ανα · Rating 4 out of 5]

Brilliant, savvie, influential, so technical, a bit dry and complicated... Eco's theory of semiotics is a great feat... the signs that disconnect reality with your inner reality... at the end of the day, what have mattered the most was the transcendental impact upon your own significance horizon about the reality around you!

[Moon · Rating 1 out of 5]

Capítulo uno: mas o menos
Capítulo dos: interminable
Capítulo tres: pasable
-------
Siento que fue una mala eleccion de primer libro para adentrarme en el contenido de la semiótica.
Muchas partes me resultaban un tanto confusas y siento que los ejemolos de distraían demasiado. Aún así creo que pude de cierta forma aprender algo de él.

[Andy · Rating 4 out of 5]

A complex and difficult read but thought provoking and worthwhile.

[Zehra K · Rating 2 out of 5]

I suppose I'm rating Eco more than I am the book. Was ok.

[Ishtar · Rating 5 out of 5]

best introduction to semiotics.

[D.Z. Pen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Influential work

[Michael Slattery · Rating 4 out of 5]

As people often say about books like this, it’s an impressive achievement.

[Lars]

complex

[Yeger · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interessante se appassionato del tema ma un po' troppo ripetitivo. Pensato per l'università e per lo studio di un esame, non per una lettura interessante.

[K.L. Brogdon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eco's mind, unparalelled.