Of the variety of language problems of one of the most important is the problem of meaning. On the question, what is the value, you can immediately give an approximate answer, saying that the value it's what the sign says. Such a definition of values is acceptable, provided that we know what the sign, ie definition of value requires a definition of the linguistic sign. Science deals with the study of the value semantics, it is closely related to the study of properties of objects to perform the function of signs, the creation of the general theory of signs in all their manifestations, that is the task of science of semiotics, which is a synthesis of philosophical, linguistic and cultural ideas. The relevance of the study of semiotic concepts due to the special status of the language in the context of the humanities. Semantics and semiotics have a relatively young age in the status of a particular area of scientific knowledge. Its birth can be dated to the beginning of the last century, when they saw the light of the work of Charles Peirce, Charles Morris and F. de Saussure. Along with the increasing interest in the language increases the need for systematization of methodological approaches and understanding of the mosaic view of language, which is difficult to reconstruction and description. Hardly having registered as a scientific discipline, semiotics quickly disintegrated into many private semiotician, where its philosophical content pushed aside.
This article presents Yuri Lotman’s reflections on a reception of a literary work in the context of contemporary theories of reading. The first part of the article presents Lotman’s position in an evolutionary perspective from Lectures on structural poetics (1964) to Culture and explosion (1992). The second part places Lotman’s position in numerous contemporary conceptions of reception and points to the close resemblance to Umberto Eco’s ideas, which were developed in his book Lector in fabula.
The aim of this paper is to conduct a comparative analysis of two culture codes, semantic and asemantico-asyntactic, as tools for ordering reality and discovering the meaning of events. Belinsky and Gogol’s lives and their mutual relations are the subject of our research. The antinomy, and even irreconcilability of codes is observed in concepts of the human and the world. According to the semantic code which was used by Gogol, a person is a part and, at the same time, a reflection of God’s order, and the world is dichotomic (sacral – sinful, meaningful – meaningless, spiritual – material); it is an area for the fight between good and evil. Belinski, in turn, following the asemantico-asyntactic code, put the human at the centre of the rational world. At the beginning of the 40’s, when Belinsky could still interpret Gogol’s writings within the frameworks of asyntactico-asemantic culture code, he regarded himself as similar to Gogol. The split occurred after the book Chosen pieces of a correspondence with friends was published. The tragedy of not being understood, which both great Russian thinkers faced, was evidence for the existence of two separate sign and meaning systems within one culture. It must be added that the systems developed against the background of state order, which was coded by the syntactic culture code. Further research needs to be conducted in this field.
Artykuł ukazuje możliwości wykorzystania dorobku teoretycznego Pierre’a Bourdieu na gruncie mocnego programu Jeffrey’a C. Alexandra. Rozwiązanie problemu redukcjonizmu możliwe jest dzięki reinterpretacji kluczowych pojęć Bourdieu w duchu semiotyki kultury Jurija Łotmana. Łotmanowskie rozumienie kultury, uwzględniające reprodukcję i kreację, pozwala wyjaśnić nie tylko, w jaki sposób struktury wpływają na jednostki, ale również w jaki sposób jednostki posługują się nimi.
EN
The article shows the possibilities of using Pierre Bourdieu’s theoretical achievements on the basis of Jeffrey C. Alexander’s strong program. It is possible to solve the problem of reductionism by reinterpreting Bourdieu’s key concepts in through the lenses of Yuri Lotman’s semiotic theory of culture. Lotman’s understanding of culture, including the reproduction and creation, allows to explain not only how structures affect individuals, but also how individuals use structures.
Автор статьи сосредоточивает свое внимание на принципах сознательного самосозидания русскими писателями собственной личности в жизни и в творчестве, составивших основу биографической концепции Юрия Лотмана, которая получила реализацию в ряде его теoретических работ и в двух писательских биографиях. Акцент в статье делается на идее 'внутреннего строения' как нравственном самосовершенствовании, выраженной Гоголем в "Авторской исповеди", и на развитии ее ученым в теории литературной биографии. В результате проведенного анализа автор статьи приходит к выводу, что для семиотической модели русской писательской исповеди чрезвычайно значимо наличие 'внутренней истории' как движения от 'бессознательности' (обольщение ложной целью) к 'сознательности' (обретение истины).
EN
The author of the article focuses on the principles of Russian writers’ conscious creation of their own personality in life and work; it is the basis of Yury Lotman’s biographical conception that was realized in a number of his theoretical works and in two biographies of the writer. In the article the emphasis is placed on the idea of inner composition as the moral self-improvement that Gogol represented in the "Author’s Confession"; and on its development by the scholars in the theory of literary biography. As a result of the conducted analysis, the author of the article comes to the conclusion that the presence of 'inner history' as an action 'from unconsciousness' (the delusion by the false aim) to 'consciousness' (the finding of the truth) is very important for the semiotic model of the Russian writer’s confession.
W artykule został podjęty problem możliwości zastosowania rozwiązań teoretyczno-metodologicznych z dziedziny cybernetyki do badań nad zjawiskami kultury. Według postawionej hipotezy badawczej uzupełnienie teorii badań systemowych i metodologii rosyjskiej szkoły tartusko- moskiewskiej o koncepcję cybernetycznego modelu systemów autonomicznych Mariana Mazura pozwoli, po pierwsze, precyzyjnie ustalić granice kultury, po drugie – określić przynależność poszczególnych jej elementów do ściśle określonych modułów na podstawie pełnionych przez nie funkcji i, po trzecie, ustalić charakter interakcji systemu kulturowego z innymi systemami w tym politycznym, społecznym, ekonomicznym. W dalszej perspektywie badawczej należałoby sprawdzić praktyczną przydatność modelu do badania zjawisk kultury poprzez studia przypadków.
EN
In the paper the problem of possibilities to apply some of the theoretico-methodological conclusions from the field of cybernetics to investigating the problems of culture has been studied. According to the proposed hypothesis, the theory of system approach and the methodology that was worked out by the Moscow-Tartu school of semiotics combined with the concepts and methodology of the cybernetic model of autonomous systems by Marian Mazur will allow the researchers first of all, to determine where exactly the borders of a culture are; secondly, to group the elements of a culture into modules according to their functions and, finally, to recognize the type of interactions between the cultural system and the other systems such as: political, social, economical etc. In the further research perspective, thorough studies over the specific cases of cultural phenomena is necessary to verify the possibilities of application the new methodological tool on practice.
Szkoła tartusko-moskiewska semiotyki kultury była jednym z najciekawszych zjawisk w światowej semiotyce i w nauce radzieckiej. W niniejszym artykule próbuję opisać i wyjaśnić fenomen tej szkoły za pomocą kategorii teoretycznych, które sama sformułowała. Jest to uprawnione podejście, ponieważ − jak wskazywali członkowie szkoły − teksty naukowe opisujące kulturę są same tekstami kultury. W pierwszej części przedstawiam dwie koncepcje semiotyczne pochodzące od Jurija Łotmana: koncepcję twórczości jako twórczego przekładu oraz teorię systemów binarnych i ternarnych. W drugiej części próbuję zastosować tę pierwszą koncepcję do wyjaśnienia fenomenu innowacyjności szkoły. Argumentuję, że brała się ona z ogromnej różnorodności perspektyw i poglądów uczestników szkoły oraz z jedności, którą nadawało użycie jednolitego języka teoretycznego i sposób zorganizowania prac szkoły. W trzeciej części wskazuję, że szkoła tartusko-moskiewska miała charakter ternarny, czym wyraźnie różniła się od binarnej kultury komunistycznej. Dyskurs szkoły był subwersją, a nie inwersją dominującego dyskursu ideologicznego. Tylko dzięki temu szkoła ta mogła mieć twórczy charakter. W zakończeniu przedstawiam niezwykłe paralele strukturalne między szkołą, XIX-wiecznymi rosyjskimi salonami i ruchem Solidarności.
EN
Tartu-Moscow Group was one of the most amazing phenomena in the world of semiotic and Russian humanities in general. In the paper I try to describe and explain the phenomenon of that scientific school using theoretical categories which it introduced. It is a legitimate procedure since, as was pointed out by the Group’s members, scientific texts describing the culture are themselves texts of culture. In the first part I present two semiotic ideas of Yurii Lotman: the idea of creativeness as a creative translation and the theory of binary and ternary systems. In the second part I attempt to apply the first idea to the explanation of innovative activity of the Group. I argue that the source of its creativity was great diversity of theoretical frameworks and attitudes of the Group’s members combined with unity provided by a common theoretical language and a way in which the Group was organized. In the third part of the paper I indicate that the discourse of the Tartu-Moscow Group was ternary and distinguished it from the prevailing binary communist culture. The discourse of the Group was a subversion, rather than inversion of the dominant ideological discourse. Only for that reason the Group could be creative. In conclusion I draw some structural similarities between the Group, literary salons of 19th Russia and the Polish social movement of Solidarity.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.