|
|
|
| The Limit of Rationality：the idea of Semiotic Interpretation of construction and Its Implication |
| LU Yi |
| College of Literature, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510631 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The idea of “symbolic interpretation” is a contemporary response to the relation between closed text and open understanding. It originated from the semiotic thought of pragmatic philosopher C.S. Pierce, and was put forward by the Italian semiotician Umberto Eco after reflecting on Saussure’s linguistic semiotics. In his book “The Limits of Interpretation”, he divides text interpretation into two stages of, namely, semantic interpretation and symbolic interpretation, and tries to construct the latter into a universal interpretation idea based on semiotic theory. According to Pierce’s theory about the semiotic triadic relation, “the final logical interpretant” developed from the “interpretant” not only functions as the limit of meaning but also plays an important dialectical role in revealing its philosophical level to “interpretazione semiotica”. On the classical philosophical proposition related to the concept of “truth”, Pierce denies the transcendental truth and advocates practice leads to truth. To avoid “over interpretation”, Eco criticizes the subjective interpretation and text-centrism and emphasizes Pierce’s idea of “self-control”. Finally, Eco discovers the creativity in the limit of rationality through narrative practice of parody, and finds a pragmatic approach which must go beyond the text on the basis of the text in the circle between texts and practices.
|
|
Received: 10 January 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] Eco U.Confessions of A Young Novelist[M].London: Harvard UP,2011.
[2] Culler J.In Defence of Overinterpretation[A].Collini S.Interpretation and Overinterpretation[C].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1992.112.
[3] Eco U.I limiti dell’interpretazione[M].Milano: Bompiani, 1990.
[4] Eco U.Trattato di semiotica generale[M].Milano:Bompiani,1975.
[5] Katz J J, Fodor J A.The Structure of a Semantic Theory[J].Language,1963,39(2):170-210.
[6] Eco U.Sulla letteratura[M].Milano: Bompiani,2003.359.
[7] Saussure F.Course in General Linguistics[M].translated by Baskin W.New York:Columbia University Press,2011.68-71.
[8] Peirce C S.Writings of Charles S. Peirce:A Chronological Edition.Vol.3:1872-1878[M].Bloomington:Indiana University Press,1999.66-68.
[9] Eco U.Opera aperta[M].Milano: Bompiani,1997.291.
[10] Peirce C S.Logic as Semiotic: The Theory of Signs[A].Buchler J.Philosophical Writings of Peirce[C].New York: Dover,1955.269-289.
[11] Eco U.Peirce’s Notion of Interpretant[J].MLN,1976,91(6):1457-1472.
[12] Ricoeur P.Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences: Essays on Language, Action, and Interpretation[M].translated by Thompson J B.New York:Cambridge University Press,1981.14-19.
[13] Caruso P.Conversazioni con Claude Lévi-Strauss, Michel Foucault,Jacques Lacan[M].Milano:U.Mursia,1969. 81-82.
[14] Rorty R.Consequences of Pragmatism:Essays,1972-1980[M].Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,2001.152.
[15] Peirce C S.What Pragmatism Is[J].The Monist,1905,15(2):161-181.
[16] Eco U.Il Pendolo di Foucault[M].Milano:Bompiani, 1996. 494-495.
[17] Plato.The Republic [M].translated by Shorey P.Massachusetts: Harvard University Press,1942.431.
[18] Aristotle.The Metaphysics[M].Massachusetts:Harvard University Press,2003.146-207.
[19] Eco U.The Limits of Interpretation [M].Bloomington:Indiana University Press,1994.14-15.
[20] Eco U.Overinterpreting Texts[A].Collini S.Interpretation and Overinterpretation[C].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1992.
[21] Eco U.Diario minimo[M].Milano: Bompani,2002. |
|
|
|
2021, Vol. 38 
