Communication Studies currently undergoes a crisis of paradigms that requires an ontological review that must begin with a debate about the conditions of possibility of every communicational phenomena. In this article we argue that semiosis offers a conceptual framework that allows for the study of communication as qualitative action. Semiosis, or the action of the sign, is here defined as a fundamental process based on perception that models the world of species, creating cognition and culture. At the core of semiosis (...) are dynamic structures that the authors have defined as ‘ontological diagrams’. The first purpose of Semiotics of Communication is to understand how these modeling systems evolve ontologically and phylogenically, producing, in the case of human culture, means of communication ever more varied and technologically advanced. (shrink)

The term ‘impact’ has become the kind of word which, when it relates to the evaluation of technological advances in contemporary culture, suggests signs of erosion, debilitation and evasion. The misinformed and indiscriminate use of the term in the most varied of contexts has created an impasse in the cultural semiotic approach, where sign systems are viewed in terms of borders and relations. The objective of this article is to examine the trivialisation of the use of the ballistic metaphor in (...) this explosive moment of the culture. For this, we will refer to the formulations presented by the semiotician, Juri Lotman, in his book, appropriately entitled Culture and Explosion. To what degree is the concept of explosion presented as a counterpart to the notion of impact? The desire to find answers to this question is what motivated this inquiry. (shrink)

The main focus of this article is the analysis of the concept of semiosphere as it has emerged from the conception of culture as information — instead of describing the transmission of messages from A to B, it is based on the general process of meaning generation. Following Lotman’s criticism on the paradoxes in communication and its theoretical domain, the article confronts the paradoxical concepts on: (1) the concept of message transmission from the addresser toaddressee; (2) the notion of isolated (...) processing systems; (3) the idea that culture speaks a unique language. From the standpoint of the semiosphere, the new object for studying such controversies could be found in the concept of text. When text is taken at the centre of the analysis of culture, nothing appears in an isolated fashion. Lotman’s thinking does not fear the new hypothesis in proposing the conceptual domain of semiosphere to the scientific study of culture. (shrink)

Resumo Como se organizam os meios para que seus produtos sejam oferecidos a seus usuários como produtos de comunicação? Esta é a pergunta que sustenta e justifica o estudo da gramática dos meios, segundo a articulação de códigos eletrônicos geradores das linguagens icônicas em processos perceptuais e cognitivos. Orienta-se pelas explorações que M.McLuhan formulou em suas análises e exercícios de seu projeto pedagógico e também na metodologia semiótica dos processos de articulação sintática, semântica e pragmática.

The term ‘impact’ has become the kind of word which, when it relates to the evaluation of technological advances in contemporary culture, suggests signs of erosion, debilitation and evasion. The misinformed and indiscriminate use of the term in the most varied of contexts has created an impasse in the cultural semiotic approach, where sign systems are viewed in terms of borders and relations. The objective of this article is to examine the trivialisation of the use of the ballistic metaphor in (...) this explosive moment of the culture. For this, we will refer to the formulations presented by the semiotician, Juri Lotman, in his book, appropriately entitled Culture and Explosion. To what degree is the concept of explosion presented as a counterpart to the notion of impact? The desire to find answers to this question is what motivated this inquiry. (shrink)

The main focus of this article is the analysis of the concept of semiosphere as it has emerged from the conception of culture as information — instead of describing the transmission of messages from A to B, it is based on the general process of meaning generation. Following Lotman’s criticism on the paradoxes in communication and its theoretical domain, the article confronts the paradoxical concepts on: (1) the concept of message transmission from the addresser toaddressee; (2) the notion of isolated (...) processing systems; (3) the idea that culture speaks a unique language. From the standpoint of the semiosphere, the new object for studying such controversies could be found in the concept of text. When text is taken at the centre of the analysis of culture, nothing appears in an isolated fashion. Lotman’s thinking does not fear the new hypothesis in proposing the conceptual domain of semiosphere to the scientific study of culture. (shrink)

Projection is a dialogical mechanism that concerns the relationship among things in the world or in various systems, both in nature and culture. Instead of isolating these systems, projection creates an ecosystem without borderline. Projection is a way to comprehend how different cultures can link, enrich and deveop one another by understanding the relationship among different culture traditions can be related to one another by considering the nature of their sign system. That is why it is that the object of (...) semiotics of culture is not culture but its sign systems. That is why we understand the nature of relationship among sign system as projection. In this article, we are interested in a particular kind of projection: that one in which the formulations of semiotics of culture of Slavic tradition project themselves onto the Brazilian culture. The conceptual field of Russian semiotics - dialogism, carnivalization, hybridity, border, outsideness, heteroglossia, textuality and modelling semiotic sign system - projects itself on the equally defining aspects of the semiotic identity of the Brazilian culture. I will refer here to two sets of projections: the concept of textual history, as a possibility to reach internal displacement within the culture, and the notion of semiodiversity produced by the meeting of different sign systems. (shrink)

Projection is a dialogical mechanism that concerns the relationship among things in the world or in various systems, both in nature and culture. Instead of isolating these systems, projection creates an ecosystem without borderline. Projection is a way to comprehend how different cultures can link, enrich and deveop one another by understanding the relationship among different culture traditions can be related to one another by considering the nature of their sign system. That is why it is that the object of (...) semiotics of culture is not culture but its sign systems. That is why we understand the nature of relationship among sign system as projection. In this article, we are interested in a particular kind of projection: that one in which the formulations of semiotics of culture of Slavic tradition project themselves onto the Brazilian culture. The conceptual field of Russian semiotics - dialogism, carnivalization, hybridity, border, outsideness, heteroglossia, textuality and modelling semiotic sign system - projects itself on the equally defining aspects of the semiotic identity of the Brazilian culture. I will refer here to two sets of projections: the concept of textual history, as a possibility to reach internal displacement within the culture, and the notion of semiodiversity produced by the meeting of different sign systems. (shrink)

RESUMO O ensaio revê a análise crítica de V. N. Volóchinov a respeito dos processos de transmissão discursiva, questionando estudos consagrados das categorias estilísticas e impressionistas. Ao descobrir formas em que o discurso citado tensiona a citação fazendo emergir um discurso quase direto, que tanto pode ser do narrador como da personagem, Volóchinov entende ter encontrado uma outra história do discurso, muito mais favorável à manifestação da bivocalidade como reação ativa ao discurso de outrem e como plena manifestação do ideologema. (...) Inferimos, por conseguinte, que o problema examinado pelo teórico se coloca como uma nova episteme discursiva nos estudos dialógicos. ABSTRACT This essay reviews the critical analysis of V.N. Voloshinov with respect to the process of discursive transmission, questioning consecrated studies of stylistic and impressionistic categories. Voloshinov, on discovering ways in which reported speech creates tension in the citation, causing a quasi-direct discourse to emerge, which can be attributed to both the narrator as well as the character, understands he has found another history of discourse that is much more favorable to the manifestation of bivocality as active reaction to the discourse of the other, and as a full manifestation of the ideologeme. We infer, thus, that the problem examined by the theorist establishes a new discursive episteme in dialogic studies. (shrink)