MULTIMODAL SIMULACRUM AND VISUAL SEMIOSIS

Autores

  • Éric Trudel Université de Moncton

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22478/ufpb.2446-7006.46v27n3.64720

Resumo

This article addresses the problem of mental imagery in the interpretation of iconic signifieds. It examines, with regard tothe iconic sign, François Rastier’s hypothesis that “mental images are constrained (but not entirely determined) by signifieds [in context]” (RASTIER, 1991, p. 242), it being understood that, in Rastier’s systematics, the signified, which belongs to the semiotic
sphere, is distinguished from the concept, which belongs to the cognitive sphere. More precisely, it is a matter of transposing to visual semiosis the concept of the multimodal simulacrum proposed by Rastier (1991), a kind of eidetic content that would be generated or at least solicited by the semantic structure of the message. In this hypothesis, the interpretation of the iconic sign would cognitively elicit presentations that potentially combine different represented sensory modalities, and also possibly abstract features. The conceptual transposition proposed in this article integrates the results of work in the field of cognitive psychology on mental imagery with Rastier’s proposals.

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Referências

DENIS, Michel, Image et cognition. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1989.

DENIS, Michel,“Imagerie mentale”. In:Vocabulaire des sciences cognitives, Olivier Houdé (Ed.). Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 2003a, pp. 222-225.

DENIS, Michel,“Représentation”.In:Vocabulaire des sciences cognitives, Olivier Houdé (Ed.). Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 2003b, pp. 382-384.

GROUPE μ, Traité du signe visuel. Paris: Seuil, 1992.

GROUPE μ,Principiasemiotica. Aux sources du sens. Bruxelles: Les Impressions nouvelles, 2015.

HÉBERT, Louis, Introduction à la sémantique des textes. Paris: Honoré Champion, 2001.

HÉBERT, Louis, “Typologie des structures du signe: le signe selon le Groupe μ.” Actes Sémiotiques, n. 113, 2010, http://epublications.unilim.fr/revues/as/1761 (accessed May 6, 2022).

HÉBERT, Louis,Dictionnaire de sémiotique (version 15.1). 2021, https://semiotique.org/(accessedMay 6, 2021).

KLINKENBERG, Jean-Marie,Précis de sémiotique générale. Paris: Seuil, 1996.

KURTS-WÖSTE, Lia,“Les formes symboliques artistiques au prisme de la musique: pour une approche trans-sémiotique”.Signata, n. 8, 2017, pp. 341-370, http://journals.openedition.org/signata/1418(accessed May 6, 2022).

LE NY, Jean-François,“Comment (se) représenter les représentations.” In:Les représentations, Stéphane Ehrlich (Ed.), Psychologie française, n. 30, 1985, pp. 231-238.

LUPIEN, Jocelyne,“La polysensorialité dans les discours symboliques plastiques.” In:Action, passion, cognition d’après A. J. Greimas, Pierre Ouellet (Ed.). Québec/Limoges: Nuit blanche éditeur/Pulim, 1997, pp. 247-265.

MISSIRE, Régis,“Examen du concept d’impression référentielle dans la sémantique interprétative

de François Rastier – Du domaine d’objectivité à l’objectivité du domaine”.Champs du signe, n. 12, 2001, pp. 145-160. (unpaginatedfacsimile)

RASTIER, François, Sens et textualité. Limoges: Lambert-Lucas, 1989 (expanded 2nd edition, 2016).

RASTIER, François, Sémantique et recherches cognitives. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1991.

Downloads

Publicado

2022-11-03

Edição

Seção

TRADUÇÕES