Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Semiotica

Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies / Revue de l'Association Internationale de Sémiotique

Editor-in-Chief: Danesi, Marcel


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.509

CiteScore 2018: 0.23

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.232
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.478

Agenzia Nazionale di Valutazione del Sistema Universitario e della Ricerca: Classe A

Online
ISSN
1613-3692
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 2015, Issue 207

Issues

Kenneth L. Pike and science fiction

Dinda L. Gorlée
Published Online: 2015-07-17 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2015-0043

Abstract

Kenneth L. Pike’s tagmemic explanation of his etic-emic equivalence corresponds to the notion of “approximate” translation. According to a weaker version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, Pike’s cross-cultural and multilingual perspective of Bible translation approximates the duality and triadicity of Peirce’s immediate/emotional, dynamical/energetic, and final/logical interpretants. Pike’s astronautical examples of the artificial language Kabala-X translated into English and the science fiction story of the Earthmen who invaded Mars are fictional and creative artifacts of human-alien cryptography leading, as argued here, to false semio-logical reasoning.

Keywords: translation; etic-emic approach; tagmemics; equivalence/non-equivalence; linguïculture; cryptography

References

  • Anderson, Myrdene & Dinda L. Gorlée. 2011. Duologue in the familiar and the strange: Translatability, translating, translation. In Karen Haworth, Jason Hogue & Leonard G. Brocchi (eds.), Semiotics 2010, 221–232. Toronto: Legas.Google Scholar

  • Beard, Mary. 2013. What was Greek to them. New York Review of Books 60(19). 25–27.Google Scholar

  • Beaugrande, Robert de. 1991. Linguistic theory: The discourse of fundamental works. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Catford, J. C. 1965. A linguistic theory of translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Chadwick, John 1973. Linear B. In Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Diachronic, areal, and typological linguistics (Current trends in linguistics 11), 537–568. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Freudenthal, Hans. 1960. Lincos: Design for a language for a cosmic intercourse, vol. 1. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

  • Gorlée, Dinda L. 1990. Degeneracy: A reading of Peirce’s writing. Semiotica 81(1/2). 71–92.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gorlée, Dinda L. 1998. Der Fall Kenneth L. Pike: Neue Perspektiven für den sprachwissenschaftlichen Ansatz in der Übersetzungsforschung. In Peter Holzer & Cornelia Feyrer (eds.), Text, Sprache, Kultur: Festschrift zum 50jährigen Bestehen des Instituts für Übersetzer- und Dolmetscherausbildung der Universität Innsbruck, 69–86. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

  • Gorlée, Dinda L. 2012a. Wittgenstein in translation: Exploring semiotic signatures (Semiotics, communication, and cognition 9). Berlin & Boston: Walter De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Gorlée, Dinda L. 2012b. Goethe’s glosses to translation. Sign Systems Studies 40(3/4). 340–368.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gorlée, Dinda L. & Myrdene Anderson. 2011. Kenneth L. Pike’s semiotic work: Arousing, disputing, and persuading language-and-culture. American Journal of Semiotics 27(1/4). 243–255.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hutchins, W. J. 1984. Machine translation and machine-aided translation. In William Frawley (ed.), Translation: Literary, linguistic, and philosophical perspectives, 93–149. Newark: University of Delaware Press; London & Toronto: Associated University Press.Google Scholar

  • Jakobson, Roman. 1959. On linguistic aspects of translation. In Reuben A. Brower (ed.), On translation, 232–239. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Concluding statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in language, 350–377. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Jakobson, Roman & Morris Halle. 1971. Fundamentals of language, 2nd edn. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Morris, Charles. 1946. Signs, language, and behavior. New York: George Braziller.Google Scholar

  • Mossop, Brian. 1996. The image of translation in science fiction and astronomy. The Translator 2(1). 1–26.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nida, Eugene A. 1950. Learning a foreign language: A handbook for missionaries, 2nd edn. New York: National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.Google Scholar

  • Nida, Eugene A. 1964. Toward a science of translating: With special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

  • Nuessel, Frank. 1996. The symbolic nature of Esperanto. Semiotica 109(3/4). 369–385.Google Scholar

  • Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1966. The Collected Papers of Charles S. Peirce, 8 Vols., C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. W. Burks (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Pike, Kenneth L. 1957. Language and life. Glendale: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Pike, Kenneth L. 1967. Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior, 2nd edn. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Pike, Kenneth L. 1972 [1961]. Stimulating and resisting change. In Ruth M. Brend (ed.). Kenneth L. Pike selected writings to commemorate the fiftieth birthday of Kenneth Lee Pike, 151–159. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Pike, Kenneth L. 1973. Science fiction as a test of axioms concerning human behavior. Parma Eldalamberon 3(June). 6–7.Google Scholar

  • Pike, Kenneth L. 1993. Talk, thought, and thing: The emic road towards conscious knowledge. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Putnam, Hilary. 1964. Robots: Machines or artificially created life? Journal of Philosophy 59(21). 668–691.Google Scholar

  • Sapir, Edward. 1957. Culture, language and personality: Selected essays, David G. Mandelbaum (ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

  • Sebeok, Thomas A. 1979. The sign & its masters. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

  • Sebeok, Thomas A. 1981. The play of musement. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

  • Sebeok, Thomas A. 1985. Enter textuality: Echoes from the extra-terrestrial. Poetics Today 6(4). 657–663.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Star Trek: The Motion Picture. 1979. Dir. Robert Wise. With William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, and James Doohan. Los Angeles: Paramount Pictures.Google Scholar

  • Todd, Loreto. 1990. Pidgins and creoles, 2nd edn. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Valdman, Albert. 1973. Some aspects of decreolization in Creole French. In Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Diachronic, areal, and typological linguistics (Current Trends in Linguistics 11), 507–536. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Wallace, John. 1984. Translation theories and the decipherment of Linear B. In William Frawley (ed.), Translation: Literary, linguistic, and philosophical perspectives, 188–218. Newark: University of Delaware Press; London & Toronto: Associated University Press.Google Scholar

  • Walton, Kendall L. 1978. How remote are fictional worlds from the real world? Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 37. 11–23.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Whorf, Benjamin Lee 1979. Language, thought & reality, John B. Carroll (ed.), 14th edn. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2015-07-17

Published in Print: 2015-10-01


Citation Information: Semiotica, Volume 2015, Issue 207, Pages 217–231, ISSN (Online) 1613-3692, ISSN (Print) 0037-1998, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2015-0043.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in