Let me start out by saying that this reading is one the most high-minded, and hard to absorb pieces of informational text I have ever read. The basic gist of the article got to be very redundant and long winded, as I think all academic texts are made to be. Maybe there are a set of unspoken rules about writing academic papers that requires them to be mind-numbing. Anyway, This was about signs, and the theories of what they consist of. It has been said that they consist of a signifier and a signified, the signifier being the expression itself, and the signified being the content it imparted. Also, I think the concept that language is arbitrary, and a word can have more than one meaning is something the author wanted to impart. There was also a theory about a three part representation which included an example like the stop light being the representamen, the interpretant being the idea of stopping at the light and the object which would be cars physically stopping. I think these theories are both right, and the rest of the article is a pissing contest about who can break down the system of signs into more categories and interpretations.
0 comments:
Post a Comment