1981
DOI: 10.2307/3684090
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
69
0
10

Year Published

2010
2010
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 145 publications
(79 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
69
0
10
Order By: Relevance
“…The first group is, in effect, the researchers from semiotics in general and literary semiotics in particular. The main figures in the domain of semiotics are Kristeva (1981), Riffaterre (1978), Frow (1986), Culler (1981), Meinhof and Smith (2000) and Chandler (2005). Researchers on the domain of semiotics mainly concern to explore the complex and heterogeneous nature of literary works through conducting intertextuality analysis.…”
Section: Review Of Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first group is, in effect, the researchers from semiotics in general and literary semiotics in particular. The main figures in the domain of semiotics are Kristeva (1981), Riffaterre (1978), Frow (1986), Culler (1981), Meinhof and Smith (2000) and Chandler (2005). Researchers on the domain of semiotics mainly concern to explore the complex and heterogeneous nature of literary works through conducting intertextuality analysis.…”
Section: Review Of Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…is that elements of a text do not have intrinsic meaning as autonomous entities but derive their significance from oppositions which are in turn related to other oppositions in a process of theoretically infinite semiosis'. 96 This perspective still attempts to control the irreducible plurality of the given circumstances by pressing them into a predetermined scheme. It operates with the idea of a recognizable underlying 'syntax' structuring the legal operations.…”
Section: From Network To Rhizomementioning
confidence: 99%
“…For it is the shock effect of references to breaches of moral taboo which gives myth its 'meaning'... the moral point is made clear by emphasising the over-whelming disasters which are directly associated with the mythical breach of non-nality. (Leach 1973in Culler 1981 Given this , it begins to become clearer as to why media stories about child stars hold such power to shock. The child who has transgressed into adult territory creates 'vicarious excitement', the immoral behaviour of greedy parents who are supposed to protect their children shocks us and we feel a sense of satisfaction at learning of the downfall of such ambiguous individuals who represent a threat to our shared social order.…”
Section: The Power Of Taboomentioning
confidence: 99%