FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2316244313> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2316244313 endingPage "245" @default.
• W2316244313 startingPage "245" @default.
• W2316244313 abstract "form of labor power, so prominently analyzed by Marx, is a key feature of capitalist society. With regard to the interaction of subjects at the existential level, or exchange, we encounter first the question of who will occupy the position that favors expression, or extrinsic value, on the one hand, and the position that favors content, or intrinsic value, on the other. Any act of exchange involves the opposition between expression and content, or what can also be termed extrinsic and intrinsic value, exchange value and use value. Accordingly, the agents of exchange--structurally considered-are opposed with regard to their basic aims: the satisfaction of a need in the acquisition of an intrinsic value or the enhancement of value in the continued process of exchange (Marx's classical analysis in the first book of Capital). A similar political positioning of subjects, here described with reference to the economic level, occurs at the cultural level as a positioning of subjects within discourse. There is always an opposition in any act of symbolic exchange between the tendency to privilege the signifier, on the one hand, and the tendency to privilege the signified, on the other. The Structure and Antistructure of the Model Before considering how the model may also apply to the individual subject, how individual and societal instantiations interact, and what constraints there are on the kind of linear change that I have been describing, let us put forth an overview of the model as it has been constructed thus far. By associating two axiomatic concepts--identity/difference and their correlative, similitude-with a characteristic semiotic substance, modality, and moment, the model has been generated on the analogy of a structuralist combinatory, which reproduces all the logical permutations of a set of elementary terms. In contrast to the structuralist procedure, however, the model of semiotic change does not generate the semiotic universe by replicating the sign as elementary structure of signification, or by any form of repetition or analogy. Rather, it insists that the sign is always subject to change and that it must ultimately be defined in terms of semiotic boundaries. The model appears to put contradictory possibilities into play-the privileging of the signifier and signified, respectively--though in the location of these two privileged terms at different levels of substance contradiction does not actually occur. In summary, then, the model has three levels of substance, or types of semiotic embodiment: signification may take a cognitive form, as in the This content downloaded from 207.46.13.28 on Tue, 30 Aug 2016 05:15:05 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms L6fgren / Projecting a Model of Semiotic Change 257 conventional notion of language or text,15 or it may be embodied in physical reality; these correspond to the cultural and economic levels, respectively.16 Also, signification may be invested by subjects, in which case the question of contestation arises, and thus the political level, with respect to both the cognitive and physical types of signification. Each level of substance has three modalities, corresponding to the links in signification in the two diagrams above: in terms of the cultural level, the link of content to percept (or senseme), percept to concept (or semanteme), concept to signifier (word, morpheme). I have named these the ontic, existential, and textual modalities, respectively. Each modality is a type of sign susceptible to variation, in the relation of expression and content, in terms of three moments of form: identity, similitude, and difference. Though each modality is subject to variation in terms of the three moments, each has a different temporality. The temporality of the textual modality is synchronic; its three moments arise simultaneously, linking elements in the continua of sound, meaning, and perception (see Saussure, to whose account the present model adds the continuum of perception). The existential modality is dialectical, as its moments are constructed diachronically, but with a continuous synchronic totalization. By contrast, diachrony takes a radical form in the ontic modality, such that the attempt toward totalization can never be complete: while existential (or epistemic) change is relatively discontinuous, ontic change constitutes radical discontinuity. The dated third epoch/first period paradigm of representation and centralized perspective, for example, can be reassigned a local and restricted validity in the third period, while second-epoch essentialism can only figuratively be reconstructed in the third epoch. Newtonian physics retains a restricted validity after relativity theory, while Ptolemaic astronomy has no validity in the modern epoch. Though each modality may be characterized as undergoing change, there are, strictly speaking, only three fundamental moments, since substance and form are correlatives: formal change is always also a change in substance. Identity, strictly speaking, only exists as material being in its raw state. Only in that state is the signifier literally identical with the signified. While identity may seem to apply in the perception of physical objects, 15. This is not to deny the material nature of the text but to stress the difference of this materiality from that type of sign, in which not only the signifier but the signified is material. 16. These different types of semiotic embodiment also involve a distinction between qualitative and quantitative signification, but this issue will not receive further consideration in the present context. This content downloaded from 207.46.13.28 on Tue, 30 Aug 2016 05:15:05 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 258 boundary 2 / Summer 1997 where the physical is a stimulus that is clearly linked to a physiological response, the percept does not remain free from social construction and the determination through difference. Similarly, absolute difference in the relation of signifier and signified could only exist where there was no question of a material substratum at all, a pure relation of linguistic markers with no conceptual or perceptual grounding whatsoever. Table 1 illustrates the model as a whole (though at the price of distorting its dynamic qualities), emphasizing the three absolute moments (in bold italics) of identity, similitude, and difference, which are characterized by signified dominance, split dominance, and signifier dominance, respectively. In the first moment, material and ontic concreteness implies a limit of transparence, the presence of the signified and the absence of the signifier. Properly speaking, this is the absence of the sign as such, the limit of semiosis rather than a semiotic condition as such. We can imagine it as infantile symbiosis, or as a primal economy in which the object is naturally given, though in the latter case, this transparency exists only in a restricted sense as an effect of social structure. The second momentsimilitude -characterizes the second period of the second epoch, the existential modality, and the political level. In this central, but split, moment, the confrontation of subjects gives equal primacy to expression and content-in this instance, self and other. From a cultural standpoint, the other is a projection of the self, while from an economic standpoint, the self is constructed in the negation of the material other. In the confrontation of subjects, the economic will, in effect, operate as the unconscious of the cultural, though change will open the possibility for subjects to be constructed in relations of mutuality rather than negation, thus shifting dominance to the cultural level. Finally, the third moment of difference, occurring at the cultural level and in the textual modality, implies the absence of the signified and thus the semiotic limit of opacity. Between the irrecoverable limit of transparence and the unachievable limit of opacity, a dynamic semiotic universe opens itself. It is in accordance with these two absolute absences and a split center of displacement that the model can be said to be deconstructive. The model of semiotic change is a kind of impossibility, but it is precisely for this reason that it may lend itself to a historical analysis that is not only descriptive but also normative in a nonmetaphysical and nonfoundationalist sense. This normative aspect will be considered below in the context of integrating historical paradigms, but at this point we can already note one key aspect of evaluation: since the model posits both identity and difference This content downloaded from 207.46.13.28 on Tue, 30 Aug 2016 05:15:05 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms L6fgren / Projecting a Model of Semiotic Change 259 Table 1. The Correlation of Categories in the Model of Semiotic Change Substance Modality Ontic Existential Textual Temporality Moment Moment Moment Culture Textual Difference Synchronic Similitude" @default.
• W2316244313 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2316244313 creator A5011586547 @default.
• W2316244313 date "1997-01-01" @default.
• W2316244313 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2316244313 title "Projecting a Model of Semiotic Change" @default.
• W2316244313 doi "https://doi.org/10.2307/303769" @default.
• W2316244313 hasPublicationYear "1997" @default.
• W2316244313 type Work @default.
• W2316244313 sameAs 2316244313 @default.
• W2316244313 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2316244313 countsByYear W23162443132017 @default.
• W2316244313 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2316244313 hasAuthorship W2316244313A5011586547 @default.
• W2316244313 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2316244313 hasConcept C139997677 @default.
• W2316244313 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2316244313 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2316244313 hasConceptScore W2316244313C138885662 @default.
• W2316244313 hasConceptScore W2316244313C139997677 @default.
• W2316244313 hasConceptScore W2316244313C144024400 @default.
• W2316244313 hasConceptScore W2316244313C41895202 @default.
• W2316244313 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2316244313 hasLocation W23162443131 @default.
• W2316244313 hasOpenAccess W2316244313 @default.
• W2316244313 hasPrimaryLocation W23162443131 @default.
• W2316244313 hasRelatedWork W2059576587 @default.
• W2316244313 hasRelatedWork W2108202824 @default.
• W2316244313 hasRelatedWork W2314052222 @default.
• W2316244313 hasRelatedWork W2361293148 @default.
• W2316244313 hasRelatedWork W2484797353 @default.
• W2316244313 hasRelatedWork W2562537925 @default.
• W2316244313 hasRelatedWork W2762183869 @default.
• W2316244313 hasRelatedWork W2953310579 @default.
• W2316244313 hasRelatedWork W3133191644 @default.
• W2316244313 hasRelatedWork W4252146645 @default.
• W2316244313 hasVolume "24" @default.
• W2316244313 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2316244313 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2316244313 magId "2316244313" @default.
• W2316244313 workType "article" @default.