Основи семіотики

by John Deely, Анатолій Карась (Translator)

Увазі читача пропонується системна і цілісна праця в галузі теорії знакових систем. Їі підготував провідний фахівець названого напряму сучасний американський філософ професор Джон Ділі_ Читач може скласти належне уявлення про доробок професора Ділі, ознайомившись з доданою в кінці книги бібліографією з теорії та історії семіотики взагалі. Значне місце серед названих тематичних джерел належить працям самого Дж. Ділі, деякі з них написані у співавторстві з відомими Томасом Сібоком та Умберто Еко. Книга «Основи семіотики›› за своїм задумом, підходом до проблематики і стилем викладу матеріалу претендує на переусвідомлення парадиґм, пануючих у науковому мисленні, засвідчуючи певним чином важливі методологічні і світоглядні парадокси, з якими зіштовхнулася сучасна теоретична наука. У своїй праці Дж. Ділі, застосовуючи поняття Томаса Куна, окреслює вузлові пункти інтелектуальної інтерпретації людини і світу у той спосіб, що робить, з одного боку, явною світоглядно-методологічну кризу, а з другого - революціонує наукове мислення у таких напрямах, що стосуються загальних філософсько-теоретичних підходів.

Genres: Philosophy

232 pages, Paperback

First published July 1, 1990

Reviews

[Virginia · Rating 2 out of 5]

This text contains interesting information, but the delivery of this information is hilariously (and, I suspect, intentionally) poor. Deely appears incapable of writing a coherent sentence. I found that I frequently lost the meaning of his sentences by the time they finally reached their ends. I would backtrack, rearrange the parts of the sentences in my head, cut out completely unnecessary clauses and references, put what remained (the little bit containing meaning) into a more conventional syntax, and have it make sense. Similarly, at some points early in the text, Deely would begin using technical terms; at first, I assumed that I had missed out on prerequisite readings to understand this text of "Basics." This was not the case. He would, much later, think to define the terms, forcing the reader to either proceed without a true understanding of the earlier chapter(s), or go back and reread them. In one particularly awful instance, Deely begins using several common terms in contexts in which they made no sense. Then, in a later chapter, actually toward the end, he basically says, "Oh yeah, in semiotics, those terms mean something quite different from their usual definitions." Deely also spends a great deal of time arguing with other semioticians, making me think that this work is not, as he claims, meant to be an introductory text, but is rather an introduction to Deely's thoughts on semiotics.

This text is not dense. It is bad. I do not recommend it to anyone. Semiotics is fascinating, but Deely does not do it justice.

[Ejansand · Rating 3 out of 5]

A cardinal sin of academic writing, to me at least, is indulging the need to communicate thoughts in as esoteric a manner as possible. In the English language, Deely is the master of writing things which are impossible to read without doubling back and tracing the sentence structure.

This is a real shame, because the ideas the ideas contained in this work are groundbreaking, even if they seem to be reaching farther than they should in their rough form. Hopefully someone can develop Deely’s inquiry, and in doing so “translate” his work into readable English.

[Metaphora · Rating 1 out of 5]

Si quieres la reseña corta, solo diré una palabra: terrible.

Si sigues aquí, encontrarás la enumeración de algunos porqués.

Leí una traducción de 1996 que desde el título me hizo desconfiar del nivel del texto (el título original es «Basics of Semiotics», en español le pusieron «LOS Fundamentos de LA Semiótica»).

Es poco probable que la traducción haya alterado el texto al grado de que las ideas sean otras, aunque yo guardaría esa esperanza para no tener que decir que es el peor texto “teórico” que he leído. Afirma cuestiones que pueden llevar a una mente inexperta a caer en pseudociencia al decir cosas como que “un método es un punto de vista” (p. 53).

Tiene mucha bibliografía prominente referenciada al final. Sin embargo, los textos citados en el cuerpo y al pie de página a lo largo de los capítulos es mínima. Estoy segura que si el autor hubiera leído toda esa bibliografía tendríamos un texto con menos qué desear.

En mi opinión, existen textos de semiótica más amigables, claros, precisos, actualizados y menos pretenciosos. Si lo tienen en casa, tal vez podría iluminarles más echándolo al fuego.

[Micah Neely · Rating 5 out of 5]

I actually finished one time straight through, the first third to a half a dozen times, and various selections a few more times.

This is a very, very difficult book to read, but it is the very best introduction to semiotics you will find. I would venture to guess that you cannot get to the end without this book significantly changing your view of reality. For most people, that means you won't make it through this book.

I should note that this is Peirceian semiotics with a neoclassical/scholastic flair. This is not the lightweight stuff you'll get in an advertising class.

[Jeff · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was my introduction to the Semeiotics of Charles Peirce. Brilliant! A must read for anyone interested in semeiotics,.

[Paulius Jevsejevas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not having read much of Deely's work before, I found this book very stimulating throughout. While not an easy read, it is the most comprehensive and illuminating introduction to the Peircean strand of semiotics I have read thus far. But it is also much more than that, an exposition of Deely's original thinking on semiotics, its history, as well as a provocative manifesto for the future of the field.

With a background in structural semiotics, I was somewhat disappointed by the way it's presented in the book. Most of the strong criticism seems accurate in intention, but much of it is not well grounded. (E.g. the discussion of Saussure is limited to his definition of the sign and does not take into account other concepts basic to later developments of the structural strand of semiotics, such as form, value, system)

[Anthony Vecchio · Rating 3 out of 5]

Deely does not have a grasp of writing grammatically streamlined sentences, and this work is a fine example of that. On the other hand, Deely does have a strong grasp of the historical sources that inform the categorization he employs, and so there is much to commend in the book vis-a-vis the "doctrine of signs" and its subdivision in relation to the historical narrative informing it. So, for those at an intermediate level in learning semiotics, and who are willing to wade through the perambulatory prose, it is worth reading as a way of screening and better organizing what one has already learned elsewhere.

[Anna · Rating 4 out of 5]

A pivotal read for any individual studying social sciences, humanities, or hard sciences. Deely thoroughly explains the history of semiotic theory and the processes of semiosis in varying domains. While his thoughtful explanations are long-winded and drenched in one of the most egregious examples of indirect stylized academic writing, Deely presents a comprehensive overview of the field of semiotics that is essential for understanding the relationships between all things in the world.