Deadline for Receiving Abstracts: 10 April 2010

How to define semiotics? Which practices delimit its knowledge? The first answer is that semiotics has to do with texts and with the different forms of inscriptions of meaning (written, graphical, figurative, oral, etc.) resulting from the manufacture of texts. By tradition, semiotics is actually associated with texts and their analyses. As a matter of fact, its range is larger than it appears to be at first sight, and its (meta)knowledge, above all in a modern perspective, can be compared with a sociology and an anthropology that takes into account the direct observation of human beings in society and culture. During this conference, we intend to reflect on this (meta)knowledge of semiotics and on its analytical instruments by following two complementary directions: (I) from individual observation to text and (II) and from text to culture. 

(I) From observation to text (and to texts)

Resorting to texts, independently from their specific forms (books, documentaries, photographs, etc.), is of course inevitable to ‘record’ experiences and events (individual and social, intimate and public, exotic and non-exotic). Nevertheless, we intend to displace the accent from the “text-result” to “the process-becoming-text” in order to concentrate, as much as possible, on what is going on during the time when meaning is captured and inscribed. We want to concentrate on how meaning is inscribed and captured according to experience, observation, participation, lived interaction, but also through the inscriptions, transcriptions, reconstructions and pre-analyses taking place during the whole process. In this perspective, instead of taking into account the text as an object external to the practice of the semiotician, we would like to ask the following question: On which bases, theoretical and practical, does a semiotician establish the text upon which he exercises his analysis? Like an anthropologist (who does fieldwork, participates and writes his/her ethnography), a semiotician can also have this role of “observer-inscriber” by using the analytical instruments characterizing his/her practice. If we apply the same perspective to culture, we can then investigate how the researcher’s observation and participation can contribute to model cultural objects. The questions are: How does a semiotician register cultural events? Through which modalities does a semiotician reflect upon the socio-cultural reality inside which s/he is situated? Moreover, are the instruments possessed by a semiotician powerful enough to catch reality or should s/he employ instruments elaborated by other disciplines?

(II) From text (and texts) to culture (and cultures)

In addition, a complementary question we would like to ask concerns the path leading from text(s) to culture(s). In this case, the problem is not only to register one’s own experience in vivo and to analyze it during the process of its construction, but it is a question of concentrating more on the means, old and new, possessed by the semiotician to focus on culture as an object of analysis. Here, again, we cannot dispense with written, visual, or oral texts. Nevertheless, we intend to concentrate more on the modalities through which the semiotic analysis of a culture allows us to seize the specificities of a culture and on the connection existing between text and culture. This question comprises two central aspects. A theoretical aspect, on the one side, going from text to culture (both considered as general objects); on the other side, an analytical aspect taking into account the specific modalities through which meaning is retranscribed, going from the analysis of a given text towards the culture manifested by the text. Can the instruments used to analyze texts be directly “applied” to culture? Or, on the contrary, does culture have some specific features which make useless the instruments of textual analysis?

The participants who intend to intervene in this second section (II. From text to culture) are invited to present their work where this operation of “application-conversion” between texts and culture takes place; participants can present as well their critical reflections concerning analyses of other researchers (not only semioticians, but also anthropologists, sociologists, historians, etc.) in order to show the modalities through which researchers construct, narratively and discursively, connection(s) between text(s) and culture(s). 

The participants who prefer the first section (I. From observation to text) are encouraged to take into account their own experience of observation and registration of meaning by accompanying it with their critical reflection. It is also possible, as implied by the general aim of the conference, to present a research project conjugating the two sections (I. and II.) concerning the (meta)knowledge of semiotics. The conference is also open to scholars and researchers belonging to other disciplines (linguistics, sociology, anthropology, etc.) who intend to interrogate their practices of analysis concerning the questions mentioned above and/or who intend to compare approaches. 

Organisation:

Estonian Institute of Humanities (EHI) and the Germanic-Romance Languages and Culture Institute of Tallinn University. In collaboration with the University of Liège. 

Organizing committee:

Sémir Badir, Stefano Montes, Licia Taverna

Information:

Deadline for submitting abstracts: April 10, 2010.

Abstract: 250-300 words.

Languages of the conference: English and French. 

Communications: 30 minutes.

Proceedings will be published

Send Abstracts to:

Sémir Badir ([email protected]) and Licia Taverna ([email protected]) 

For any further information please contact Sémir Badir or Licia Taverna