______________________________________________________________________

The "Zeitschrift für Semiotik": Abstracts  ______________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
 

 _____________________________________

 

Umberto Eco 
Who is to blame for the confusion of denotation and reference? An attempt to find evidence 

Klaus Robering  
Is Augustine pious or piety Augustian? Object and entity in the predication theories of Aristotle, Leibniz and Frege 

Adelhard Scheffczyk  
From the signs of being to the being of signs: the semiotic philosophy of Husserl and Heidegger 

Rainer Habermeier 
Arnold Gehlen's anthropological view of symbols 
 
 

---

Who is to blame for the confusion of denotation and reference? An attempt to find evidence  

Umberto Eco, University of Bologna 

Summary. Signs have a meaning and refer to objects. Sign relations such as these are often characterized with the term "denotation". However the relationship of denotation to connotation, to intension and extension, to content from and content substance, to sense and reference, and to designation and significance is controversial. The article traces the reasons for the present terminological confusion back to Plato and Aristotle. It is shown in which way the relation between sign and object, which Aristotle had regarded as secondary - compared to the relation between sign and concept (or passion of the soul) and between concept and object - was gradually turned into the primary sign relation. This change of paradigm was prepared in the commentaries to Aristotle’s "Peri hermeneias" by Boethius, Anselm of Canterbury, Abaelard, Thomas Aquinas, Petrus Hispanus and William of Sherwood. It was carried through in the theories of supposition of Roger Bacon, Duns Scotus and Ockham. Hobbes and John Stuart Mill drew the terminological c onsequences which pattern semiotic discussions of today. 

 

---

Is Augustine pious or piety Augustian? Object and entity in the predication theories of Aristotle, Leibniz and Frege 

Klaus Robering, Technical University Berlin 

Summary. The essay presents and compares the approaches of Aristotle, Leibniz and Frege to the semantic structure of simple predications and of "syllogistic propositions". The three approaches differ not only in the semantic relations assumed but also in the entities which are said to be associated with the signs by these relations. What according to one theory may be a "mistake of analysis" or even "nonsense" may induce important conceptual developments within another framework. Two theories which are incompatible with each other may each be coherent in themselves and successful in their treatment of the shared data. With regard to "comparative" philosophy of science and history of science, this fact implies that there is no point in comparing isolated concepts, whereas it is rewarding to consider "theories as wholes". 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

---

From the signs of being to the being of signs:  semiotic philosophy of Husserl and Heidegger 

Adelhard Scheffczyk, University of Osnabrück 
 
Summary. Although neither Husserl nor Heidegger’s philosophy is centered around the concept of the sign, their positions and the differences between them are clearly shown by their treatment of this subject. Beginning with an analysis of signs, Husserl’s "Logische Untersuchungen" eventually shows that knowledge can well do without them, the essential criterion of knowledge being intuitive evidence. Heidegger, on the other hand, studies our involvement in sign processes rather than pure consciousness. In short, Husserl considers the logical aspects of knowledge as central and the semiotic ones as derived, whereas Heidegger neglects the logical aspects and lays stress upon (and in fact exaggerates) the semiotic ones. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

---

Arnold Gehlen's anthropological view of symbols  

Rainer Habermeier, Hitotsubashi-University, Japan 

Summary. Having introduced the reader into the four phases in Gehlen’s work, the author presents Gehlen’s philosophy of signs in contrast with corresponding approaches by Hegel, Schleier, Cassirer, Bühler, and Plessner. While animals react to signals and are thus tied to the signalised world, man creates symbols and manipulates symbols instead of objects. This puts man in a position to control the abundance of impulses, the wealth of stimuli, and the pressure to make decisions in a given solution. Gehlen’s hierarchy of types of symbol-mediated control (including sensomotoric behavior, experience, action, imagination, language, myth, and scientific knowledge) is outlined and critically discussed. 

© 1999-2001, Webmaster Research Center for Semiotics, Institute for Linguistics, Fac. 1, Technical University Berlin, Berlin, Germany