Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
79 of 83 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
What does it mean to mean something?,
By arle lommel (iatt@byu.edu) (Anchorage, Alaska) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language (Advances in Semiotics) (Paperback)
If you want to know what meaning 'means' in linguistics inquiry then this is an incredible volume. Eco's discussion of theories of meaning based on dictionaries and encyclopedias and the relationship between the two shoud be read by linguists and computer scientists alike as this debate (which is really the heart of much of the book) has direct bearing on theories of grammar and artificial intelligence (much to the detriment of most modern theories of the latter). The only real complaint I have is that the initial chapter is quite dense and definitely not understandable for the reader not versed in at least some of his concepts--I had family members who wanted to know what I study and so I gave them this volume and they could not get past the first chapter to the meat of the book, which is very well written.
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Deep Analysis Of Semiotic Phenomena,
By
This review is from: Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language (Advances in Semiotics) (Paperback)
Umberto Eco has really delved deep into the field of semiotics and how it intersects with linguistic philosophy in this book. Eco presents a very detailed and logical exposition on semiotic phenomena and how we probably tend to categorize meaning in our brains.An important note: This book is NOT for the layperson in either of the fields of semiotics or linguistics. I have not been exposed to much of the former and hence had to research further in order to understand what he was talking about at points. It would have been helpful to have a glossary of terms to refer to. Overall this is a very interesting look at semiotic categorization and how it relates to linguistic meaning. Highly recommended for anyone who is already well-versed in linguistics and semiotics.
12 of 20 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Gestaltic inelegance on parade,
By
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language (Advances in Semiotics) (Paperback)
It seems to me, that you can divide the world's linguists into two categories. There are those who can use their linguistic insights to present their ideas clearly, simply and concisely, and there are those who instead use their linguistic insights to exhibit their vast knowledge of the subject via the liberal use of complexity, clever metaphor, and insider or otherwise obscure references and terminology. Eco is undeniably the consummate grandiloquent semiologue. As Edmund Kean remarked, "Complexity is easy, simplicity is hard." Methinks the truly brilliant linguist, would be one of few words. While reading this book, I just couldn't help thinking, what's wrong with this picture? Is this rocket science? No, I found here a pretentious alchemy, attempting to fashion lead into gold at the end of a semiotic rainbow.To get a sense of some of the discourse, try this for size, the concluding sentence of the chapter on symbol: "In any case, behind every strategy of the symbolic mode, be it religious or aesthetic, there is a legitimating theology, even though it is the atheistic theology of unlimited semiosis of or hermeneutics as deconstruction. A positive way to approach every instance of the symbolic mode would be to ask: which theology legitimates it?" p.163 So it ain't science, it's art. No, I take that back, it's a modern religious art (and seasoned with more than a little Dada). Such pseudointellectual bourgeoisie seem to thrive on belaboring the number of linguistic angels that can dance on the head of a pin. That, and a propensity for name dropping. The true measure of any "science," analysis, or even a mere methodology, is its results. Where's the beef? Sure, Eco is known to tell a good story now and then, but so do many others. Did it really take deep semiotic study to get him there? Well, perhaps it did. I guess that's evidence. Of a sort. Of something. A more down to earth book on "Semiotics" is Daniel Chandler's "Semiotics: The Basics." It's far more practical, and there's far less pretension. Still, it would appear that semioticians are yet struggling with basic definitions and lack coherent methodologies. You'd think by now they'd have figured out enough to get better at communicating with each other, at least. What good is analysis if it doesn't net some understanding, other than to buffalo the deans of universities into paying your bills? At this rate, significant semiotic insights are still a long ways off. What should we expect to come out of it? An awareness of cultural relationships and connections that will produce startling insights? A new language that is more concise, or suggested refinements of existing languages? The ability to communicate unique concepts that have been heretofore ineffable? Or perhaps, something much more modest-- the ability to identify and eliminate needless complexities and redundancies? Yes, I think that in particular would be a good start... However, I do give Eco three stars, for effort and the fact that it has provided some comic relief. Irony indeed...
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
See all 100 books citing this book
Suggested Tags from Similar Products(What's this?)Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product).
|
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
