Lynch meets Moser: cognition, brain and environment

The proposal of Cognition and the Built Environment (MØYSTAD, 2017) is that architecture is a basic mode of human cognition. The production as well as the use of our environment is a cognitive process in and of itself. Building human environment relates to and is informed by the prior built environment. One of Christopher Alexander’s observations (1987) was that “building cities” actually means changing cities. Project by project. This insight carries implications for how we understand architecture, for how we understand the human brain and for how they interact. This paper will outline (1) the interaction between some spatial and morphological properties of the built environment on one hand, and (2) some of the recently discovered properties of the brain on the other, which seem to mirror similar properties of the external environment. Based on these two sets of properties I will then (3) make a brief discussion of some theories that seem to suggest an outline, not complete but still useful, of the cognitive relationship between (1) and (2).L'idée soulevée par Cognition et l’Environnement Bâti (MØYSTAD, 2017) est que l’architecture est un mode de base de la cognition humaine. La production ainsi que l’utilisation de notre environnement est un processus cognitif en soi. Construire l’environnement humain se rapporte à l’environnement antérieur et est informé par celui-ci. Une des observations portées par Christopher Alexander (1987) est que « construire les villes » signifie en fait « changer les villes ». Projet après projet. Cette idée influence la façon dont nous comprenons l’architecture, la façon dont nous comprenons le cerveau humain, et la manière dont ils interagissent. Cet article étudie d’une part (1) l’interaction entre les propriétés spatiales et morphologiques de l’environnement bâti, puis d’autre part (2) certaines des propriétés du cerveau récemment découvertes. Ces dernières semblent refléter des propriétés similaires à celles de l’environnement extérieur. M’appuyant sur ces deux ensembles de propriétés, je porterai ensuite (3) un regard critique sur plusieurs théories semblant suggérer une esquisse, incomplète mais néanmoins utile, de la relation cognitive entre (1) et (2)

Floch - Zilberberg: the wölfflinian controversy

Parmi les nombreuses innovations théoriques de Jean-Marie Floch, sa redécouverte de Wölfflin a marqué une date dans l’histoire de la théorie sémiotique ; redécouverte d’un structuralisme pré-structural accompagné d’un développement théorique considérable, dans l’œuvre de Floch, permettant l’extension de la « vision baroque » opposable à la « vision classique » bien au-delà du domaine qui lui a donné naissance, au delà même des univers esthétiques, pour entrer de plain-pied dans le champ de la communication sociale (médiatique, technique, politique, etc.) contemporaine. Or, les propositions de Claude Zilberberg (notamment dans « Présence de Wölfflin », n° 23-24 des Nouveaux Actes Sémiotiques, 1992) ont profondément modifié la perspective théorique sur l’héritage du célèbre historien de l’art, suscitant un désaccord avec Floch. En interrogeant le statut du débat au sein de la communauté sémiotique, illustré ici par les divergences tues entre les sémioticiens, on analyse ces deux « lectures » de Wölfflin, leurs différences formelles, leurs rapports respectifs avec le sensible, leurs horizons théoriques – catégoriel d’un côté, tensif de l’autre. On met alors l’accent sur deux points de divergence, concernant le statut de l’affect et le problème de la profondeur. On montre les empiètements entre les deux approches et leur profonde convergence. Mais surtout on suggère ici un dépassement possible de la controverse en analysant la distinction classique / baroque sur fond de perception et en termes de « rythme », c’est-à-dire comme variation de tension entre les événements accentuels d’une série syntagmatique. On fait ainsi intervenir la question de la nuance, celle de la non-résolution de syntagmes accentuels, voire de la discordance entre niveaux accentuels. Cette contribution à la connaissance d’un phénomène essentiel dans l’histoire des formes permet aussi de reposer la question de sa dénomination. Comment nommer en effet ce qui constitue, à travers tant de matériaux langagiers (non verbal et verbal), tant de domaines de communication, tant de moments et de contextes historiques, une trame insistante au sein de la culture occidentale, au cœur même de sa « grammaire d'expression » dont l’opposition «classique/baroque » n’est au fond qu’une émergence exceptionnelle, mais locale ?Among Jean-Marie Floch's many theoretical innovations, his rediscovery of Wölfflin marked a milestone in the history of semiotic theory; a rediscovery of a pre-structural structuralism accompanied by a considerable theoretical development in Floch's work, enabling the 'baroque vision', opposed to the 'classical vision', to be extended far beyond the field that gave rise to it, even beyond aesthetic universes, to enter into the field of contemporary social communication (media, technology, politics, etc.). However, Claude Zilberberg's proposals (notably in "Présence de Wölfflin", n. 23-24 of Nouveaux Actes Sémiotiques, 1992) have profoundly altered the theoretical perspective on the legacy of the famous art historian, and have led to a disagreement with Floch. By examining the status of the debate within the semiotic community, illustrated here by the unspoken differences between semioticians, we analyse these two "readings" of Wölfflin, their formal differences, their respective relationships withthe sensible, and their theoretical horizons -categorical on the one hand, tensive onthe other. We then highlight two points of divergence, concerning the status of affect and the problem of depth. We show the encroachments between the two approaches and their profound convergence. But above all, we suggest a possible way out of the controversy by analysing the classical/baroque distinction on a background ofperception and in terms of 'rhythm', i.e. as a variation in tension between the accentual events of a syntagmatic series. This brings into play the question of nuance, the non-resolution of accentual syntagms, and even discordance between accentual levels. This contribution to our knowledge of an essential phenomenon in the history of forms also raises the question of how to name it. Indeed, how can we name what constitutes, across so many language materials (non-verbal and verbal), so many fields ofcommunication, so many historical moments and contexts, an insistent weft within Western culture, at the very heart of its 'grammar of expression', of which the 'classical/baroque' opposition is basically only an exceptional, but local, emergence

Object and metaobject in semiotics: a unique relation

In semiotics and linguistics, the need for an epistemologically-defined and specific object concerning the vast field of various communicative phenomena and for a specific meta-object or metalanguage is strengthened by the structural approach, which also brings with itself a change in the idea of language science leading to a dual science: a “one made up of two”. It is a science that does not consider its categories as autonomous but in relation to “otherness”, namely other categories. In this duality, historicity presents itself as a layered structure of asymmetrical times, as an actualization of semantic potentia: the theoretical object reveals itself as a “chronotope” whereby the space of the theory intertwines with the movement of time. Language uses always the same ancient material for its innovations; it is capable of speaking about itself, of being the object and condition of its meta-object; it speaks of itself by producing an open metalanguage resulting from a process of translation or self-translation, i.e., metareflection. The relationship between object and meta-object is ambivalent and is constitutive of language science: the object (language) contains its theory. Hence their "unique relationship".In semiotica e in linguistica la necessità di un oggetto epistemologicamente definito e specifico rispetto al vasto campo dei vari fenomeni comunicativi, e di uno specifico meta-oggetto o metalinguaggio, si rafforza con l’approccio strutturale che porta con sé anche un mutamento dell’idea di scienza del linguaggio, porta a una scienza duale: “uno formato da due”. Si tratta di una scienza che non considera le sue categorie come autonome, ma le considera “per altro”, in relazione con altre categorie. Nella dualità la storicità si prospetta come compartecipazione di strati di tempi asimmetrici, come attualizzazione di potenzialità semantiche: l’oggetto teorico si palesa come un “cronotopo” per cui lo spazio della teoria s’intreccia col movimento del tempo. La lingua utilizza sempre la stessa materia antica per le sue innovazioni, è capace di parlare di se stessa, di essere oggetto e condizione del suo meta-oggetto; parla di se stessa producendo un metalinguaggio aperto, risultante da un processo di traduzione o di autotraduzione, di metariflessione. Il rapporto fra oggetto e meta oggetto è ambivalente ed è costitutivo della scienza del linguaggio: l’oggetto (il linguaggio) contiene la sua teoria, ragion per cui il loro è un “rapporto unico”

Sobre la (des)organización institucional de la semiótica como disciplina

Semiotics, as the field dealing with the production of meaning-making mechanisms, was supposed to be a holistic project. Semioticians in the 20th century were concerned about providing semiotics an epistemological identity. For instance, semiotics was aimed at following a meta-role (Greimas, 1976) as ‘a metadiscipline of all academic disciplines’ (Posner, 2003, p. 2366). In fact, Sebeok (1976) deemed semiotics as a ‘doctrine of signs’, refusing to call it a science or a theory. Despite this sophisticated terminology, semiotics remained poorly organised in the national academic systems. This lack of organisation in the academic institutions did not allow semiotics to show this allegedly federative role of general knowledge. Instead, semiotics ended up receiving different designations such as ‘esoteric knowledge’, ‘cabalistic language’, ‘formalistic paranoia’, and so forth. This paper delves into the institutional disorganisation of semiotics by addressing two main aspects. Firstly, the lack of interest by early semioticians to accurately organise their field in the institutions, and secondly, how this treatment, as a meta-field, thwarted its aspirations to be considered as a fully-fledged discipline. Thirdly, I engage in a current discussion (Parra, 2020) in semiotics that questions how semiotics has favoured applied approaches to the production of meaning.La semiótica, como el campo que lidia con la producción y reproducción de los mecanismos de producción del sentido, estaba destinada a ser un proyecto holístico. Los primeros semiólogos del siglo XX se preocuparon por dotar a la semiótica con una identidad epistemológica. Por ejemplo, la semiótica estaba destinada a seguir un papel “meta” (Greimas, 1976) en tanto que una meta-disciplina de todas las disciplinas académicas” (Posner, 2003, p. 2366). De hecho, Sebeok (1976) la denominaría como “doctrina de los signos”, rechazando considerarla una ciencia o una teoría. Apesar de esta sofisticada terminología, la semiótica siguió estando pobremente organizada en los sistemas académicos nacionales. Dicha falta de organización en las instituciones académicas no le permitió mostrar ese presunto papel federativo sobre el conocimiento en general. En lugar de ello, la semiótica terminó recibiendo una serie de designaciones, como son: “conocimiento esotérico”, “lenguaje cabalístico”, “paranoia formalista”, etcétera. Este artículo examina la desorganización institucional de la semiótica a través de dos aspectos principales. En primer lugar, la falta de interés de los primeros semiólogos para organizar adecuadamente su campo en las instituciones, y, en segundo lugar, cómo este tratamiento, en tanto que meta-campo, frustró sus aspiraciones para ser una disciplina plenamente establecida. Por último, atraigo la atención a una discusión actual dentro de la semiótica (Parra, 2020), la cual cuestiona el estancamiento de la teoría semiótica, al favorecer enfoques aplicados a la producción del sentido

Morphogenèse de la marque Jean Nouvel : l’exemple du Manifeste de la Louisiane

This paper intends to show the scope of a wider question, which is what is Territorial Branding? and why this issue is important for us architects.One of the oldest levers of Territorial Branding are the Brand Architects, more commonly called Star Architects. It would seem that the identity of their brand, represented by a proper noun (their own), like Jean Nouvel, Frank Gehry, Rem Koolhaas, among others, is confused with the values they are building up. We see that, in general, the Brand-Architect7 organizes his/her brand around one manifesto, or several manifesti, which most times sound like a revolution and underline the values that characterize it, like the leading element of the strategy for each project. We’ll explore how Jean Nouvel achieves this, through his Louisiana Manifesto. We will analyse the link between Praxis and Theory as fundamental components of any architectural approach, from the example of the Nouvel Manifesto applied to the project Le Grand Pari(s) (The Greater Paris). This example will lead us to the study of rhetoric as a strategy of Nouvel’s brand.Cet article veut montrer la portée d’une question plus large: qu’est-ce que le Branding Territorial sous la perspective sémiotique ? et pourquoi cette question est importante pour nous, architectes. L’un des plus anciens leviers du Branding Territorial réside dans les Brand Architectes, plus communément appelés Star Architectes. Il semblerait que l’identité de leur marque, représentée par un nom propre (le sien), comme Jean Nouvel, Frank Gehry, Rem Koolhaas, entre autres, se confonde avec les valeurs qu’ils construisent dans leurs oeuvres. On voit qu’en général, le Brand Architecte organise sa marque autour d’un manifeste, ou, plusieurs manifestes qui sonnent le plus souvent comme une révolution et soulignent les valeurs qui le caractérisent, comme l’élément phare de la stratégie de chaque projet. Nous explorerons comment Jean Nouvel y parvient, à travers son Manifeste de la Louisiane. Nous analyserons le lien entre Praxis et Théorie comme composantes fondamentales de toute démarche architecturale, à partir de l’exemple du Manifeste de Nouvel appliqué au projet du Grand Pari(s) . Cet exemple nous conduira à l’étude de la rhétorique comme stratégie de la marque Jean Nouvel

A contribution from Voloshinov's philosophy of language to semiotic studies

This article aim to discuss how Voloshinov's philosophy of language (2017 [1929]) can contribute to semiotic studies, especially in its philosophically sociological character. First, we start with a definition of the historical-epistemological perspective that characterizes our reflection, and we highlight one of the moments in which Voloshinov's philosophy was explicitly present in the work of Juri Lotman [1922 1993], one of the most important semioticians. Second, we characterize the sociologism of 1920s and 1930s in the USSR in which Voloshinov worked scientifically, a factor that greatly contributed to define his philosophy of language as an epistemically sociological stance. Finally, we begin to discuss, after a brief debate on the philosophical primacy of social interaction that is presupposed by that philosophy, how Voloshinov's concept of enunciation (2017 [1929]) can serve as a starting point for a semiotic in a sociological hue. This article aims to contribute to the defense of interdisciplinary logic in the field of language studies. In addition, it is intended to participate in epistemological and historical approach to ideas.Este artigo tem como objetivo discutir como a filosofia da linguagem de Volóchinov (2017 [1929]) pode apresentar uma contribuição aos estudos semióticos, sobretudo em seu caráter filosoficamente sociológico. Em primeiro lugar, partimos de uma definição da perspectiva histórico-epistemológica que caracteriza a nossa reflexão, e evidenciamos um dos momentos em que a filosofia volochinoviana explicitamente esteve presente na obra de Iúri Lotman [1922-1993], um dos mais importantes semioticistas da história desse campo. Em segundo, caracterizamos o sociologismo das décadas de 1920 e 1930 da URSS em que Volóchinov atuou cientificamente, fator que muito contribuiu para que a sua filosofia da linguagem pudesse assumir uma postura epistemicamente sociológica. Por fim, passamos a discutir, após um breve debate sobre o primado filosófico da interação social que é pressuposto por tal filosofia, como o conceito de enunciado de Volóchinov (2017 [1929]) pode servir como ponto de partida para uma semiótica que se queira sociológica. Antes de mais nada, este artigo pretende-se uma contribuição à defesa da lógica interdisciplinar no campo dos estudos da linguagem, além de um trabalho que se deseja participante de um movimento de abordagem epistemológica e histórica das ideias

Sur l'objet d'une sémiologie fonctionnelle : vers une typologie des indices

Cet article se penche sur deux problèmes survenus lors du développement de la sémiologie pendant la seconde moitié du vingtième siècle, à savoir : (1) le débat autour de l’objet de la sémiologie : cette dernière traite-t-elle de la signification ou de la communication ? et (2) la question de savoir comment établir une typologie des indices, laquelle se trouve à la base de la conception de l’objet propre à la sémiologie. Afin d’examiner ces problèmes, nous nous focalisons sur quelques travaux des représentants principaux de la sémiologie dite fonctionnelle, notamment Georges Mounin, Eric Buyssens et Luis Prieto. Ce sont essentiellement les travaux de Prieto qui sont utilisés pour en dégager une typologie des indices qui permette de concevoir un objet spécifique à la sémiologie de la signification, et, en même temps, de présenter clairement le but d’une telle sémiologi.The article touches upon two problems that arose in the development of semiology in the second half of the twentieth century, namely: (1) the debate over the proper object of semiology: signification or communication? and (2) the problem of how a typology of indices (indications), which underlies the conception of the proper object of semiology, can be established. In order to tackle these problems, the article restricts itself to a treatment of the works by the main representatives of a functional semiology, to wit, Georges Mounin, Eric Buyssens and Luis Prieto. Especially the works of Prieto are used to unravel a typology of indices that ultimately allows to conceive the object of a specific semiology of signification and to clearly present its aims

Four questions on Semiotics: its history, its place, its epistemological bases

À l’occasion de la publication de Pratiques discursives du savoir. Le cas sémiotique (2022), les animateurs du présent dossier ont adressé à son auteur, Sémir Badir, quatre questions relatives à l’historiographie et l’épistémologie de la sémiotique. La première question aborde différentes manières de concevoir l’histoire de la sémiotique, soit autour d’un projet théorique, soit autour d’une notion, en cherchant à identifier son destinataire idéal. La deuxième question porte sur les liens entre les théories de Saussure, de Hjelmslev et de Greimas. Badir défend l’intérêt d’une approche discursive (plutôt que notionnelle ou théorique), consistant à mettre en évidence le contexte disciplinaire, la matérialité du discours ainsi que le domaine épistémique dans lesquels ces liens sont posés, s’affichent et se rendent actifs. Un troisième volet concerne l’évolution de la sémiotique postgreimassienne. L’existence d’un programme de recherche n’est pas douteuse. Mais, au lieu de conduire à des applications étendues, la sémiotique revient constamment vers ses propres fondements théoriques. On s’interroge finalement sur les rapports qu’entretient la sémiotique avec les disciplines voisines. Le programme de la sémiotique prétend avoir des répercussions sur l’organisation générale des sciences, mettant ainsi en évidence le statut épistémologique particulier, non disciplinarisé, de cette pratique discursive du savoir.On the occasion of the publication of Pratiques discursives du savoir. Le cas sémiotique (2022), the organizers of the present dossier addressed four questions to its author, Sémir Badir, relating to the historiography and epistemology of Semiotics. The first question addresses different ways of conceiving the history of Semiotics, either around a theoretical project, or around a notion, seeking to identify its ideal addressee. The second question concerns the links between the theories of Saussure, Hjelmslev and Greimas. Badir argues in favor of a discursive (rather than notional or theoretical) approach, highlighting the disciplinary context, the materiality of discourse and the epistemic domain in which these links are posited, displayed and made active. A third aspect concerns the evolution of post-Greimasian Semiotics. The existence of a research program is not in question. But instead of leading to widespread applications, Semiotics constantly returns to its own theoretical foundations. Finally, there is the question of semiotics' relationship with neighboring disciplines. The Semiotic program claims to have repercussions on the general organization of the sciences, thus highlighting the particular, non-disciplinarized epistemological status of this discursive practice of knowledge

O efeito de sentido do movimento no audiovisual: um estudo sobre o cinetismo como formante da expressão a partir da vinheta Intolerância, da Globo News

The institutional vignette Intolerance of the Brazilian TV channel Globo News is the object of analysis in this article. Illustrated and directed by Israeli designer Noma Bar, Intolerance reveals in its discursive structures how the view of the hegemonic media of a Latin American country about the indenitarian conflicts between East and West is aligned with Western powers. In the wake of the theoretical contributions developed by Jean-Marie Floch in visual semiotics, the paper proposes to consider kineticism as a constitutive formant of visuality in audiovisual texts, and the analyzed vignette is notably exemplary object to demonstrate the hypothesis.A vinheta institucional Intolerância, do canal de televisão por assinatura brasileiro Globo News, constitui objeto de análise do presente artigo. Ilustrada e dirigida pelo designer israelita Noma Bar, Intolerância revela em suas estruturas discursivas como o olhar da mídia hegemônica de um país latino-americano sobre os conflitos identitários entre ocidente e oriente está alinhado com as potências ocidentais. Na esteira das contribuições teóricas desenvolvidas por Jean-Marie Floch em semiótica visual, o trabalho propõe considerar o cinetismo como formante constitutivo da visualidade em textos audiovisuais, sendo a vinheta analisada objeto notadamente exemplar para demonstrar a hipótese