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 2018, Issue 225

Issues

A simple traffic-light semiotic model for tagmemic theory

Vern Poythress
  • Corresponding author
  • New Testament, Westminster Theological Seminary, 2960 W. Church Road, Glenside, Pennsylvania, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2018-10-31 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2017-0025

Abstract

The complexity and flexibility of tagmemic theory, as a semiotic theory developed by Kenneth L. Pike, can be better understood by examining how it applies to a simple semiotic system like traffic lights. We can then compare the result with how it functions in analyzing a piece of natural language. Tagmemic theory introduces three observer viewpoints – the particle view, the wave view, and the field view. Each view generates a suite of questions to answer. Any one of the views results in a “complete” description of traffic lights, from which the information about the other views can be inferred. And yet each view is distinct in texture from the others, and the existence of such multiple views – each with a claim to emic integrity and each serving as a perspective on the whole – has to be accounted for in a robust semiotic approach. The same phenomena occur when we apply the three views to the analysis of meaning in natural language. The chief illustration is to analyze the meaning of the word dog in multiple ways. The multi-dimensional potential for semiotic analysis highlights the limitations of Aristotelian logic and symbolic logic, both of which simplify for the sake of rigor.

Keywords: tagmemic theory; particle; wave; and field views; observer viewpoint; emic; perspective; Kenneth L. Pike

References

  • Atkin, Albert. 2013. Peirce’s theory of signs. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/peirce-semiotics/ (accessed 8 August 2016).

  • Birkhoff, Garrett. 1948. Lattice theory. New York: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar

  • Fontaine, Lise. 2012. Language as social semiotic in Halliday’s systemic functional linguistics. Semiotix XN-7 http://semioticon.com/semiotix/2012/03/language-as-social-semiotic-in-hallidays-systemic-functional-linguistics/ (accessed 8 August 2016).

  • Headland, Thomas N., Kenneth L. Pike & Marvin Harris (eds.). 1990. Emics and etics: The insider/outsider debate. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

  • Hébert, Louis. 2016. Elements of semiotics. Signo http://www.signosemio.com/elements-of-semiotics.asp (accessed 8 August 2016).

  • Hong, Chong-Min, David Lurie & Jiro Tanaka. 1993. Umberto Eco: On semiotics and pragmatism: Interview. Harvard Review of Philosophy 3(1). 14–22.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in language, 350–377, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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 [1959]. Language as particle, wave, and field. In Ruth M. Brend (ed.), Kenneth L. Pike: Selected writings to commemorate the sixtieth birthday of Kenneth Lee Pike, 129–143, The Hague & Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Pike, Kenneth L. 1976. Toward the development of tagmemic postulates. In Ruth M. Brend & Kenneth L. Pike (eds.), Tagmemics Vol. 2, 91–127. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Pike, Kenneth L. 1982. Linguistic concepts: An introduction to tagmemics. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar

  • Pike, Kenneth L. & Evelyn G. Pike. 1977. Grammatical analysis. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Poythress, Vern S. 1976. Tagmemic analysis of elementary algebra. Semiotica 17(2). 131–151.Google Scholar

  • Poythress, Vern S. 1982. A framework for discourse analysis: The components of a discourse, from a tagmemic viewpoint. Semiotica 38(3/4). 277–298.Google Scholar

  • Poythress, Vern S. 2009. In the beginning was the word: Language – A God-centered approach. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.Google Scholar

  • Poythress, Vern S. 2013a. Information-theoretic confirmation of semiotic structures. Semiotica 193(1/4). 67–82.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Poythress, Vern S. 2013b. An information-based semiotic analysis of theories concerning theories. Semiotica 193(1/4). 83–99.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Poythress, Vern S. 2013c. Logic: A God-centered approach to the foundation of western thought. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.Google Scholar

  • Poythress, Vern S. 2015. Redeeming mathematics: A God-centered approach. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.Google Scholar

  • Waterhouse, Viola G. 1974. The history and development of tagmemics. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2018-10-31

Published in Print: 2018-11-06


Citation Information: Semiotica, Volume 2018, Issue 225, Pages 253–267, ISSN (Online) 1613-3692, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2017-0025.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in