Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.58.0402170005130.12726@panix3.panix.com>
From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>
To: Cyb <cybermind@listserv.aol.com>,
"WRYTING-L : Writing and Theory across Disciplines" <WRYTING-L@LISTSERV.UTORONTO.CA>
Subject: Various from Eco's A Theory of Semiotics
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:05:23 -0500 (EST)
Various from Eco's A Theory of Semiotics ..a sign is always an element of an _expression plane_ conventionally correlated to one (or several) elements of a _content plane._ Properly speaking there are not signs, but only _sign-functions._ ..the classical notion of 'sign' dissolves itself into a highly complex network of changing relationships. ..under the name of /'code/ the engineer is considering at least four different phenomena: (a) A set of _signals_ ruled by internal combinatory laws. (b) A set of states [of X] which are taken into account as a set of _notions_ .. about the state of [X] and which can become .. a set of possible communicative contents. (c) A state of possible _behavioral responses_ on the part of the destination. (d) A _rule_ coupling some items from the (a) system with some of the (b) or (c) system. This rule establishes that a given array of syntactic signals refers back to a given state of [X], or to a given 'pertinent' segmentation of the semantic system; that both the syntactic and the semantic units, once coupled, may correspond to a given response; or that a given array of signals corresponds to a given response even though no semantic unit is supposed to be signalled; and so on. Only this complex form of rule may properly be called a _'code.'_ ************** It might be valuable to have an online reading of the work? Anyway it's worth thinking about - Alan