Iconicity and mimicry represent two distinct but related fields in semiotic studies. Academic history shows both fields have crossed the border between Nature and Culture and have thus blurred the distinction of the t...Iconicity and mimicry represent two distinct but related fields in semiotic studies. Academic history shows both fields have crossed the border between Nature and Culture and have thus blurred the distinction of the two domains in certain aspects. In terms of etymology and history of ideas, both terms are traceable to classical antiquity: one to Plato, the other to Aristotle. In modern research history, iconicity and mimicry have curiously converged in Peirce. For all their supposedly close relationship, the two areas have rarely crisscrossed and to date there has not been sufficient attention paid to "iconicity in mimicry" or "mimicry as icon"—except in biosemiotic studies, probably because of the empirical visibility, transparency and hence selfevidence of their identification. As to the fledgling applied science of biomimetics, for all its enviable achievements in engineering and industry, researchers in the field have shown little interest in the conceptual history of mimicry, let alone that of iconicity. The pages that follow will offer a philological excursus, which hopes to bring Peirce into rapport with Plato, and link current "biomimicry" to its classical prototype in Aristotle's writings on animals.展开更多
This paper aims to interpret Jurij Lotman's concept of autocommunication in terms of the trite theme of ‘negative influence' in cross-cultural studies.By situating retroactively Lotman in the historical conte...This paper aims to interpret Jurij Lotman's concept of autocommunication in terms of the trite theme of ‘negative influence' in cross-cultural studies.By situating retroactively Lotman in the historical context of the 1970 s when the research field of influence study was undergoing heated debate, the paper fills in a missing link of the reception of Lotman by Anglo-American and Chinese readerships in the early and the middle 1970 s.The paper argues that with regard to his own revision of Roman Jakobson's model of communication, Lotman demonstrates reflexively and bears witness to the phenomenon of ‘negative influence', where the recipient at once adopts and rebukes his sources.The paper raises and attempts to answer the following set of pertinent questions:(1) What ‘negative influence' is;(2) How ‘negative influence' can be recast in the Jakobsonian model of speech communication;(3) How ‘negative influence' can be reinterpreted in terms of ‘autocommunication' or the other way around;(4) What implications ‘autocommunication' has in the writing of national and transnational literary historiography.展开更多
文摘Iconicity and mimicry represent two distinct but related fields in semiotic studies. Academic history shows both fields have crossed the border between Nature and Culture and have thus blurred the distinction of the two domains in certain aspects. In terms of etymology and history of ideas, both terms are traceable to classical antiquity: one to Plato, the other to Aristotle. In modern research history, iconicity and mimicry have curiously converged in Peirce. For all their supposedly close relationship, the two areas have rarely crisscrossed and to date there has not been sufficient attention paid to "iconicity in mimicry" or "mimicry as icon"—except in biosemiotic studies, probably because of the empirical visibility, transparency and hence selfevidence of their identification. As to the fledgling applied science of biomimetics, for all its enviable achievements in engineering and industry, researchers in the field have shown little interest in the conceptual history of mimicry, let alone that of iconicity. The pages that follow will offer a philological excursus, which hopes to bring Peirce into rapport with Plato, and link current "biomimicry" to its classical prototype in Aristotle's writings on animals.
文摘This paper aims to interpret Jurij Lotman's concept of autocommunication in terms of the trite theme of ‘negative influence' in cross-cultural studies.By situating retroactively Lotman in the historical context of the 1970 s when the research field of influence study was undergoing heated debate, the paper fills in a missing link of the reception of Lotman by Anglo-American and Chinese readerships in the early and the middle 1970 s.The paper argues that with regard to his own revision of Roman Jakobson's model of communication, Lotman demonstrates reflexively and bears witness to the phenomenon of ‘negative influence', where the recipient at once adopts and rebukes his sources.The paper raises and attempts to answer the following set of pertinent questions:(1) What ‘negative influence' is;(2) How ‘negative influence' can be recast in the Jakobsonian model of speech communication;(3) How ‘negative influence' can be reinterpreted in terms of ‘autocommunication' or the other way around;(4) What implications ‘autocommunication' has in the writing of national and transnational literary historiography.
