| Trans | Internet-Zeitschrift für Kulturwissenschaften | 16. Nr. | August 2006 | |
|
1.2. Gesellschaftliche Reproduktion und kulturelle Innovation. Aus semiotischer Sicht |
||||
Gloria Withalm (Univ. für angewandte Kunst Wien & Institute for Socio-Semiotic Studies ISSS, Vienna) [BIO]
Within the major currents of modern semiotics, the Peirce-Morris mainstream (pragmati(ci)st and related ones), the "semiological" mainstream (the diverse structuralisms incl. poststructuralism), and the important approaches of biosemiotics and socio-semiotics are the most influential ones. Concerning the latter, the most elaborate theory hitherto developed is Ferruccio Rossi-Landi’s, in which the term "social reproduction" is a very central one. In his later work, he embedded the sign systems and processes theoretically in social reproduction, wherein they have a privileged function in the intermediary structure (structure/intermediary structure/superstructure): sign exchange = communication. Without sign use, nothing works. On the other hand, we can observe since the early 1960s the rise of a theoretical as well as an applied semiotics of culture (e.g. the Moscow-Tartu School in East Europe; Roland Barthes, Umberto Eco, and others in West Europe). In synthesizing the socio-semiotic and cultural-semiotic viewpoints we can approach the challenge to consider society (the people) and culture (people’s production) as a whole in an intersemiotic way, and thus also the topic of "Social Reproduction and Cultural Innovation". "Intersemiotics" indicates also that you’re welcome to partake irrespective of the semiotic current you feel indebted to, if only you want to tackle these problems. Therefore, we kindly ask for theoretical and applied semiotic contributions to questions and problems concerning all spheres of social reproduction, such as material production, sign production, and ideological production as well as especially their interrelationships and interdependencies. We would prefer if your contributions would also meet the provocations of our time, i.e., would show that semiotics is a valid tool for analyzing, assessing, and interpreting the present state of affairs (globalization, neoliberal hegemony, multiculturality, interculturality, subcultures, "clash of civilizations", terrorism, Third World problems, etc.), but historically oriented studies are also welcome, as well as strictly theoretical ones, insofar as they offer models for treating and overcoming the challenges of our time in society and culture (societies and cultures!).
Apart from "work", "social reproduction" is the core concept of Ferruccio Rossi-Landi’s socio-semiotics. In my paper I will concentrate on this topic and, starting from the cycle of production/exchange/consumption, present the major triads that combine to the overall schema of social reproduction. In addition, some more fragments of Rossi-Landian semiotics will be discussed which relate directly to the second part of the section title: cultural innovation.
As stated in the Call for Papers for this section, the first term in the section title, social reproduction, is the core concept of the socio-semiotics of Ferruccio Rossi-Landi. Accordingly, it seems appropriate to accompany the thematically and theoretically entirely different papers in the section with a brief introduction to Rossi-Landian semiotics. In order to comply also with the second notion in the title of the section, the overview will be complemented by discussing the way innovation is present in his concepts.
Since Ferruccio Rossi-Landi is still not as widely known as other important semioticians, I will start with a bio-bibliographical sketch.
Ferruccio Rossi-Landi was born in Milan on the 1st of March 1921. He taught philosophy at several European and US-American universities, his last position was Professor of Theoretical Philosophy at the University of Triest. Rossi-Landi died on May 5, 1985.
Figure 1
According to his own view, Rossi-Landi’s work can be divided into three phases (cf. Ponzio 1988: 8-10), though the major concepts tend tp reappear and the way he is dealing with problems is consistent throughout his writings:
- The first phase is characterized by two main topics. With his thesis he was the first one to present and discuss the writings of Charles W. Morris in the European context (Rossi-Landi 1953, 1975a, cf. also Petrilli 1992). In the second half of the 1950s, he worked on the constitution of meaning in ordinary language which lead to the concept of parlare comune or "common speech", presented in Significato, comunicazione e parlare comune (Rossi-Landi 1961).
- In the second phase (covering the 1960s and the early 1970s) he elaborated a theory of linguistic work, or more general of sign work. In 1968 he published Il linguaggio come lavoro e come mercato in which he proposed a fundamental homology between material production and linguistic production, taken up again in Linguistics and Economics ( 1975b). Another important book is Semiotica e ideologia ( 1972 ) .
- The topics of the third phase go, again, in two directions. On the one hand, he developed a concise theory of ideology (based on the "Dizionario teorico-ideologico", published in the journal Ideologie which he founded and co-edited (1967-72)), in particular the relations between (partly "false") consciousness, Weltanschauung or world view, and social practice (Rossi-Landi 1978, 1982, 1990). On the other hand, his writings concentrated on the theory of (the role of) signs within social reproduction (which he has started to formulate in Linguistics and Economics ( 1975b) and included in several chapters in his last book, Metodica filosofica e scienza dei segni (1985)).
To summarize his position within general semiotics, the term socio-semiotics would certainly be the most appropriate one. His theory is rooted in a dialectic and materialist philosophy, or, as he himself has characterized it once, a materialist and philosophic-anthropological approach.
Although he has focused on different topics throughout the years, his semiotics should not be read as consisting of isolated or separated parts. Rather , the various concepts are interconnected elements of one integrated theory, a complex network in which each and every idea, each and every argument has its unique and proper position.
Though the paper focuses primarily on the concept of social reproduction, a handful of other fragments of Rossi-Landian semiotics need to be briefly discussed.
Work - considered in an anthropological sense and with regard to both material and sign production - is the core concept of Rossi-Landi’s semiotics. Based on an integral reading of Marx’s writings on work (in particular chapter five of the First Book of Kapital, the Ökonomisch-philosophische Manuskripte and the Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie; cf. Rossi-Landi 1977: 36), Rossi-Landi distinguishes six elements which have to be involved in order to speak of work in the proper sense:
(i) the material on which one works;
(ii) the instruments (or utensils) with which one works;
(iii) the worker;
(iv) the working operations;
(v) the end [or "aim"] for which one works;
(vi) the product of the work. (Rossi-Landi 1975: 39; 1985: 15)
According to the different working situations, that is: work in the most general sense, work from an anthropocentric viewpoint, and actual productive work (cf. Rossi-Landi 1985: 12, 15-16; 1995: 142), the six moments can be reduced to three items. In the "fundamental triad", a triad which "originally indicates the relation of man with nature" (Rossi-Landi 1985: 12)(1), materials M are transformed by operations O (which comprise the worker, the actual working operations, the instruments and the aims) to the product P.
Figure 2
The basic triad can, of course, be understood in a dialectic sense. The material functions as thesis, the operation(s) as antithesis, the product is the synthesis (cf. Rossi-Landi 1985: 13). The basic triad is also the core element to build consecutive working cycles.
Rossi-Landi distinguishes two different modes in which a consecutive working cycle can be based on the preceding one.
Figure 3
In the classic dialectic sense (2nd working cycle in the diagram), the product of the preceding working triad, the synthesis, is used as new material (or thesis) to work on. "When the synthesis, in its new immediacy, becomes a new thesis, we have a triadic reproduction of a Hegelian type, which is the beginning of a necessitative chain of triads." (Rossi-Landi: 1995: 147)
However, there is also another possibility (1st working cycle) where "necessitation is overcome" and "some sort of freedom [...] is beginning to emerge" (Rossi-Landi: 1995: 147): an existing product is used in subsequent work as the instrument (the antithesis) to work on other materials. "The forming of a dialectical tension between a new thesis and a new antithesis is now open to empiricism and history." (Rossi-Landi: 1995: 147) Most of the diagrams presented in this paper, including Fig. 3) were not created by Rossi-Landi, but were developed over the years in collaboration with Jeff Bernard. There is however one impoirtant exception. For the presentation of the two types of dialectics there exists a small sketch on the typed manuscript of Rossi-Landi 1995. This sketch depicts the three cycles in a configuration like in Fig. 4.(2)
Figure 4
With regard to the topic of the section, the particular context in which the two types of dialectics first occurred is quite remarkable. Rossi-Landi introduced his new concept of dialectic processes in the late 1960s in a paper on avantgarde theater (Rossi-Landi 1966, 1972: 49-60), which shows that the concept is not only of interest for theoretical and philosophical considerations, but also elucidating for complex cultural sign production, and in particular new innovative processes. Except for very rare occasions, we never work on "virgin" materials. Every work, and the more so every sign work, is always a concatination of (at least) two working cycles: both the materials we work on, and the instruments we work with, are the result of previous (social or individual) work. Though the very term "innovation" hardly appears in Rossi-Landis writings, his characterization of the emerging freedom can be understood in this way. The self-reproducing dialectic mechanism is complemented by another procedure that allows (wo)man to do something new, produce something hitherto unknown, be it material in the narrow sense or semiosic.
Another concept that has to be at least briefly discussed with regard to "innovation" is the "homology between linguistic production and material production" (cf. Rossi-Landi 1977: 70-120; 1985: 47-84). As the name of the concept indicates, it proceeds from the premise that both linguistic (or more general sign) production and material production have developed along homologous evolutionary stages from the most simple and primitive procedures to the most complex. In addition to the zero level of "intact, unworked-upon nature" (Rossi-Landi 1977: 107), Rossi-Landi distinguishes ten consecutive levels. On each of these levels, there are pre-fabricated products of different complexity which enter new working processes.
Discussing the homology model in all its implications would certainly lead too far. So it may suffice to say that working with the different already existing products follows two different productional processes. Hence, the procedures of passing from one level to the next go in two directions. Whereas on several levels, the artefacts of the immediately preceding stage are just joined together to build the new type of artefacts (e.g. words are composed of monems), the artefacts of some levels have to be considered new totalities which are more than the mere sum of the respective parts used to make them. In this case, the artefacts of the precedings level(s) enter a dialectic relation and the new product is the synthesis, or the dialectic sum. Here comes again the aspect of innovation into a model: instead of a simple agglomeration, the artefacts are combined in a new way, thus creating integrated artefacts hitherto unknown.
But there is more to the homology model than just the ten levels, as is shown in the synoptic diagram in Figure 5 that brings together a graphic version of Rossi-Landi’s own table (Rossi-Landi 1977: 107; 1985: 84) with a visualization of three further constituents: (i) the five qualitative leaps, (ii) the corresponding five "parking lots", and (iii) the four articulations. This might help to grasp both the levels and the relations between them (Bernard & Withalm 1986a: 357).
Figure 5
With regard to the respective passages between the levels and the procedures leading to the dialectically new artefacts, Rossi-Landi speaks of (five) qualitative leaps. Although all artefacts can be, and are, used in further working cycles, Rossi-Landi distinguishes five particular sorts of reservoirs of products - "faute de mieux", as he says, he chooses the notion "parking lots of artefacts" (Rossi-Landi 1977: 109; cf. 1985: 86) - that are correlated to the five qualitative leaps:
For each of the levels in which a qualitative leap is realized, the artefacts, whose production is made possible by that leap and whose structure is characterized by it, so to say pour out of the productive process and stay there waiting. (Rossi-Landi 1977: 108; cf. 1985: 85)
Since each one of the five parking lots "is composed of artefacts of the previous level plus the work done to compose them, and will serve (together with new work to be done) to compose artefacts of the subsequent level" (Rossi-Landi 1977: 110; cf. 1985: 87), Rossi-Landi examines the dialectic processes and the kind of work and working operations which we encounter on the various levels and concludes "that it must necessarily be a similar dialectic as far as the substantial part of the whole process is concerned. And the substantial part is nothing else than the articulation of work." (Rossi-Landi 1977: 111; cf. 1985: 87)
Accordingly, and in sharp contrast to the standard linguistic concept of double articulation, Rossi-Landi insists that both material and linguistic production rest upon a quadruple articulation (cf. Rossi-Landi 1977: 113-118; 1985: 89-94). There are five parcheggi or parking lots where artefacts of the various levels are stored for further use, and Rossi-Landi is quite clear that outside the parking lots and the articulations, there is no communication.
However, this human dependence on artefacts already produced must not be considered as a limitation to freedom and creativity.
[T]he freedom of human behaviour cannot reside in something that wings its way above all parking lots of artefacts, but rather in conscious and original ways of using units of any level - up to the point of modifying from within the verbal and non-verbal sign systems to which we cannot avoid belonging. ( Rossi-Landi 1977: 116-117 )
Following the deep homology just described, we can take up the working triad presented at the very beginning, since it is also the basic one for a particular kind of work: linguistic work, or more general, sign work. A sign process (or semiosis) doesn’t just happen, but is the result of work, executed by each and everyone of us. Sign work is a special case of work in general. Accordingly, there has to be a result of the working operations, the product which we call the sign. From a semiotic viewpoint, a sign is not an entity, but a particular kind of (dialectic) totality of at least two parts. Rossi-Landi uses the terms signatum (or signata) and signans (or signantia) for these parts in order "to avoid the mentalistic ambiguity of Saussure's signifié" and signifiant respectively (Rossi-Landi: 1979c: 21). Signans and signatum "are put and/or kept together by human work of various descriptions" (Rossi-Landi 1979c: 22).
Although we have at first glance only two elements put together, the Rossi-Landian sign concept is not dyadic. In view of the inherent dialectics it was clear all the time, nevertheless we also have an explicit statement, given in one of his last lectures at the University of Bari: "Sono due elementi e siccome stanno insieme e agiscono necessariamente l’uno sull’altro, abbiamo un terzo elemento che è quello di questa loro azione reciproca." (Rossi-Landi 1988: 269; my italics).
Figure 6
Since work is the force which puts together the parts of the sign, everything that has been said before about work is also true for the sign. Although Rossi-Landi never tried to visualize his sign concept, diagrams might help to show the interrelatedness of the dialectic triad, the basic working triad and the sign triad. Considering the initiating role of work, the two triads can be superimposed to create a three-dimensional visualization, with the two parts of the sign on the side of the materials on which work is done, work which generates the relation between them). In Rossi-Landi’s own words, the sign is described in the following way:
[T]he sign is a synthesis of signans and signatum which floats, on the side of the signans, on an inexhaustible world of material bodies and, on the side of the signatum, on an inexhaustible world of social actions and institutions. [...]
To conclude, let us try to submit the following definition or characterization of the sign: the sign is a mediation between the material (in the usual sense of this term) and the social. In dialectic terminology, what happens when a sign is used is that a "social thesis" is mediated by means of a "material antithesis". The signans as an antithesis has immobilized that social piece and it has brought it at a new level as a signatum; [...] This synthesis is the social result that we call "a sign". (Rossi-Landi 1979c: 30-31; cf. 1985: 165)
So far, only the process of sign production and the abstract sign model were discussed. Signs, however, are not produced as single signs. They are embedded in larger semiosic units and belong to sign systems.
Rossi-Landi’s view of sign systems goes far beyond the usual description we find in semiotic theories. In just one paragraph he shows that the various concepts in his semiotics are not separate parts but rather interconnected elements of one integrated theory about signs and society.
The starting point of his definition (Rossi-Landi 1985: 242) is once again (sign) work with instruments on materials, which is carried out by a worker according to rules. But a sign system must not be reduced to a mere code, it encompasses also the semiosic context or the entire communicative situation, including the persons who actually exchange messages.
A sign system includes at least one code, that is: the materials on which we work and the instruments with which we work; but it includes also the rules to apply the latter on the former (the locus of the rules is a double one: in a certain way they are also within the code, but even more they are inside the one who uses them), the channels and the circumstances that allow communication, and, moreover, the senders and receivers who make use of the code. A sign system includes also all the messages which are exchanged or can be exchanged within the universe instituted by the the system itself. (Rossi-Landi 1985: 242)
At the end of the definition, Rossi-Landi explains the constitutive relation of sign systems and semiosis to the core concept of his semiotics - social reproduction:
In sum, a sign system is a slice of social reality and certainly not just a symbolic machine which is out there waiting at the disposition of whoever wants to use it. There is no social reproduction without sign systems and no human sign system can exist but within social reproduction. (Rossi-Landi 1985: 242)
The last quote finally touched the most comprehensive concept in Rossi-Landian socio-semiotics, since "social reproduction is the sum total of all processes by means of which a community or society survives, grows bigger, or, at least, continues to exist." (Rossi-Landi 1985 175) Viewed in its totality, there are several different processes that act within social reproduction. However, only the most fundamental ones will be discussed here.
The first one, summarized in the Schema of Social Reproduction (Rossi-Landi 1975: 65; 1985: 38), is the cycle of production - exchange - consumption, composed of "three indissolubly correlated moments" which social reproduction "always comprehends in a constitutive way" (Rossi-Landi 1975: 65).
Figure 7
The phase of exchange, conceived in a twofold way, is at the very center of the schema. It is simultaneously both external material exchange, and sign exchange, or communication. The latter is in itself the reduplication of the entire cycle and comprehends again "three indissolubly correlated moments": sign production, sign exchange and sign consumption.
The three basic moments of this dialectic triad are not only correlated but interrelated:, they "belong to the same totality, one does not exist without the other" (Rossi-Landi 1985: 180).(3)
When switching from the verbalized schema (which already includes a spatial presentation of the internal relations) to a diagrammatic form, the most adequate configuration is the triad, as indicated by the constant use of the term "triad" throughout Rossi-Landi’s writings on social reproduction. Proceeding from the basic dialectic triad representing the fundamental and dynamic circuit of production-exchange-consumption, the specific subtriad of communication can be inserted at the very point of exchange.
Figure 8
In the second model he introduces, Rossi-Landi goes back to the classic fundamental opposition (Rossi-Landi 1985: 180) of structure and superstructure, but he transforms the static opposition into a dynamic dialectic triadic process. In order to solve the old problem of how these two are actually interrelated and interdependent (cf. Rossi-Landi 1985: 181, 238-239), Rossi-Landi proposes a mediating element - sign systems. It should be noted that he inserts this element exactly at the moment of exchange where sign production, exchange and consumption were situated in the previous model. Accordingly, the process unfolds along the moments: modes of production/structure, sign systems and ideological institutions/superstructure.
For the overall topic of the section and the conference respectively, a third sub-triad of "three essential moments" (Rossi-Landi 1985: 100) might be of particular interest as the following remarks show:
Social practice continued to develop in its three principal forms: the struggle for production , that is, the appropriation and transformation of natural resources; class struggle in the wide sense of group distinctions, oppositions, and exploitation within every community and among different communities; and scientific research allowing for new technological developments in their turn furthering the struggle for production. (Rossi-Landi 1992: 69)
There is yet another triad for an integrated view of social reproduction, namely the one connecting past, present and future history.
Figure 9
In order to create a synoptic presentation of (Rossi-Landi’s writings on) social reproduction, all the triads can be brought together. The arrangement follows Rossi-Landi’s statements that there is an "intimate correspondence" between the (red) triad of modes of production - signs systems - superstructure (which contains in itself the duality of the structur/superstructure model) and the first triad of production - exchange - consumption (in blue), a correspondence already signaled by the consistent terminology (cf. Rossi-Landi 1985: 182). There is yet a second correspondence since the specific interrelation which characterized the triad of production-exchange-consumption can also be observed inside this triad.
Every mode of production and every ideological institution are also themselves sign systems [...] the way in which production and consumption are exchange just like exchange is production and consumption inside the social totality, they all belong to (Rossi-Landi 1985: 182).
Hence signs and sign systems are situated exactly in the position of exchange which is the mediating moment of the entire model.
Finally, and especially with regard to the innovation aspect, the triad of social practice - social reproduction (in its instrumental aspect) - history (Rossi-Landi 1985: 175-176, 179) deserves mentioning. Again based on the triad of productive work (work - instrument - product), the definitions for the three aspects that Rossi-Landi gives take account of the dialectics of work developed above: everything, including human beings themselves, can be used as materials or instruments and can become the product.
Figure 10
In the case of this most elementary triad (in green), the obvious product is history. At the same time, however, the human beings are intrinsically involved on all levels: "While producing history, humans produce and reproduce themselves by using themselves", although as Rossi-Landi adds, they mostly don’t know how (Rossi-Landi 1985: 176).
Any overview on Rossi-Landi, even a short one, has to include some remarks on his theory of ideology. As mentioned in the brief biographical sketch, it started with the entries to a "Dizionario teorico-ideologico"that appeared in the journal Ideologie in the early 1970s. The first edition of the book Ideologia appeared in 1978, followed by a new extended edition in 1982.
According to Rossi-Landi, ideology can be considered in two ways. One the one hand, in the alienated human situation, ideology can take the side of false consciousness / false thinking - leading to false practice. One the other hand, however, ideology can be interpreted as social programming , which aims at changing social practice - the same social practice that was just discussed as constituent aspect of social reproduction.
As pointed out by Rossi-Landi, the "most constructive aspect" of social practice is work which provides the foundation of material and linguistic (or more general: sign) production. Due to its pivotal role within social reproduction, social practice has also a close relation to "reality"(4) in any society:
Social practice also produced the myths, the illusions, the moral techniques and the techniques of control for the formation of the consensus that it needed as it went along - including different conceptions of reality. The main point here is that the very conception of reality prevailing at any given moment is an expression of the dominant social practice, and not the other way round. (Rossi-Landi 1992: 69)
At that point ideology can be brought into the discussion again: as it aims at changing social practice, ideology tries to change the future of a society, making the future world a better place to live in. Since the transmission element are sign systems, semiotics has to deal with these processes:
a semiotics unsupported by a doctrine of ideologies remains a specialized science, detached from praxis, despite the fact that it presents itself as a general science of signs (Rossi-Landi 1972: 8; transl. by Susan Petrilli).
© Gloria Withalm (Univ. für angewandte Kunst Wien & Institute for Socio-Semiotic Studies ISSS, Vienna)
NOTES
(1) All translations from Rossi-Landi 1985 are mine.
(2) The diagram heading "tools to build tools" is a quote of Jakobson (1969: 103) who "described man as the animal who produces instruments in order to produce further instruments: first order instruments (which are a first product) are used by man in, and only for, the production of second order instruments that are then used themselves for further aims (Rossi-Landi: 1995: 150). Sebeok words a similar formulation when he states, "Man, however, is the only animal that makes tools for making tools" (Sebeok 1967: 364).
(3) The way Rossi-Landi describes the specificity of the dialectic unity recalls that the interrelation of the three elements was already examined by Marx in his "Introduction" to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, when he talks about consumption giving the product the "finishing touch" (Marx 1961 MEW 13: 623):
"Die Produktion ist also unmittelbar Konsumtion, die Konsumtion ist unmittelbar Produktion. Jede ist unmittelbar ihr Gegenteil. Zugleich aber findet eine vermittelnde Bewegung zwischen beiden statt. Die Produktion vermittelt die Konsumtion, deren Material sie schafft, der ohne sie der Gegenstand fehlte. Aber die Konsumtion vermittelt auch die Produktion, indem sie den Produkten erst das Subjekt schafft, für das sie Produkte sind. Das Produkt erhält erst den letzten finish in der Konsumtion." (Marx 1961 MEW 13: 622-623) ["Production, then, is also immediately consumption, consumption is also immediately production. Each is immediately its opposite. But at the same time a mediating movement takes place between the two. Production mediates consumption; it creates the latter’s material; without it, consumption would lack an object. But consumption also mediates production, in that it alone creates for the products the subject for whom they are products. The product only obtains its ‘last finish’ in consumption." (<Marx_Grundrisse.pdf>, 25)]
Some pages later, Marx describes the dialectic relation of the three elements:
"Das Resultat, wozu wir gelangen, ist nicht, daß Produktion, Distribution, Austausch, Konsumtion identisch sind, sondern daß sie alle Glieder einer Totalität bilden, Unterschiede innerhalb einer Einheit." (Marx 1961 MEW 13: 630) ["The conclusion we reach is not that production, distribution, exchange and consumption are identical, but that they all form the members of a totality, distinctions within a unity." (<Marx_Grundrisse.pdf>, 29)]
(4) Before introducing the differentiated concept of "social reproduction itself, regarded in its instrumental aspect" (Rossi-Landi 1985: 179), the three elements of the triad, social practice - social reproduction - history, are introduced as "moments of reality in general" (Rossi-Landi 1985: 176).
REFERENCES
Bernard, Jeff & Gloria Withalm (1986a). "Ferruccio Rossi-Landis dialektisch-materialistische Zeichentheorie. Einordnung - Überblick - Diagrammatik". In: Dutz, Klaus D. & Peter Schmitter (eds.). Geschichte und Geschichtsschreibung der Semiotik. Fallstudien. Akten der 8. Arbeitstagung des Münsteraner Arbeitskreises für Semiotik, Münster 2.-3.10.1985 (=Materialien zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft und der Semiotik 2). Münster: MAkS Publikationen, 329-366
Bernard, Jeff & Gloria Withalm (1986b). "Materie Dialektik Arbeit / Gesellschaft Geschichte Vermittlung. Ortende Bemerkungen zu Rossi-Landis sozio-prozessualer Zeichentheorie". In: Schmid, Georg (ed.). Die Zeichen der Historie. Beiträge zu einer semiologischen Geschichtswissenschaft (= Materialien zur Historischen Sozialwissenschaft 5). Wien-Köln: Böhlau, 173-202
Bernard, Jeff & Gloria Withalm (1986c). "Zeichen im Kommunikationsprozeß, Modelle der Kommunikation und ihre zeichentheoretischen Bezüge". In: ÖGS-Projektteam. Zeichentheorie und Zeichenpraxis. Forschungsprojekt - Endbericht (gefördert vom BMWF). Wien: unpubl. typescript, 201-400
Bernard, Jeff & Gloria Withalm (1986d). "Zeichen und soziale Realität". In: ÖGS-Projektteam. Zeichentheorie und Zeichenpraxis. Forschungsprojekt - Endbericht (gefördert vom BMWF). Wien: unpubl. typescript, 1-200
Bernard, Jeff & Gloria Withalm (1987a). "Arbeit / Zeichen / Kommunikation. Modelle". In: Bernard, Jeff (Hg.). Semiotica Austriaca (= Angewandte Semiotik. 9,10). Wien: ÖGS, 61-78 [German version of 1987b]
Bernard, Jeff & Gloria Withalm (1987b). "Work / Signs / Communication. Models". Degrés n° 51: c1 - c16 [special issue Signs and Social Practice]
Bernard, Jeff & Gloria Withalm (1988a). "Theory of Signs - Practice of Signs. Contours of a Conception". In: Herzfeld, Michael & Lucio Melazzo (eds.). Semiotic Theory and Practice. Proceedings of the Third International Congress of the IASS, Palermo 1984. Berlin-New York-Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter, 59-67
Bernard, Jeff & Gloria Withalm (1988b). "Triadische Dialektik". Zeitschrift für Semiotik 10(1-2): 45-62 [special issue Semiotik und Marxismus]
Bernard, Jeff & Gloria Withalm (1991a). "Materie, Artefakte, Instrumente. Ein Differentialmodell der Zeichensysteme im Gesamtzusammenhang gesellschaftlicher Reproduktion". In: Bernard, Kelemen & Withalm 1991, 267-301
Bernard, Jeff & Gloria Withalm (1991b). "Ein Schlüssel zur Welt (des Denkens, der Zeichen und der Dinge). Ferruccio Rossi-Landi: Marxism and Ideology". In: Bernard, Kelemen & Withalm 1991, 367-390
Bernard, Jeff & Gloria Withalm (1993). "Vue d’ensemble sur le programme de recherche socio-sémiotique dde l’Association Autrichienne de Sémiotique". Variations sur l’objet. En hommage à Gérard Deledalle. = Special Issue of S-European Journal for Semiotic Studies 5(1,2): 165-187
Bernard, Jeff & Gloria Withalm (1994). "A survey of the socio-semiotic research program of the Austrian Association for Semiotics". In: Bernard, Jeff, Massimo A. Bonfantini, János Kelemen & Augusto Ponzio (ed.). Reading su Ferruccio Rossi-Landi. Semosi come pratica sociale (= Semiosis. Il senso e la fabbrica dei testi). Napoli: Edizione Scientifiche Italiana, 275-292
Bernard, Jeff & Gloria Withalm (2006). "Socio-Semiotics as a General Semiotics: Ferruccio Rossi-Landi (1921-1985)". In: Schmitz, Walter & Thomas A. Sebeok. (eds.). Das Europäische Erbe der Semiotik - The European Heritage of Semiotics (= Dresdner Studien zur Semiotik. 2). Dresden: W.E.B. Universitätsverlag [in print]
Bernard, Jeff (together with Ilse Hanl & Gloria Withalm) (1985). "Ferruccio Rossi-Landi: Metodica filosofica e scienza dei segni. Nuovi saggi sul linguaggio e l‘ideologia [with an appendix: Provisorische bibliographische Übersicht - Ferruccio Rossi-Landi]". Semiotische Berichte 9(1,2): 94-127
Bernard, Jeff, János Kelemen & Gloria Withalm (eds.) (1991). Dialectics, Semiotics, Materialism. In Memoriam Ferruccio Rossi-Landi. = Special issue S - European Journal for Semiotic Studies 3(1,2)
Marx, Karl (1961). "Einleitung [zur Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie]". In: MEW 13, 615-642; engl. translation quoted after Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy. London: Penguin 1973, transl. Martin Liclaus. Web online: Marx & Engels Internet Archive: <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Grundrisse.pdf>, 20-36 [here: 25, 29]; download: 2003-01-31
MEW = Karl Marx - Friedrich Engels - Werke. Berlin: Dietz
Petrilli, Susan & Augusto Ponzio (1998). Signs of Research on Signs = Semiotische Berichte 22(3-4)1998
Petrilli, Susan & Augusto Ponzio (2005). Semiotics Unbounded: Interpretive Routes through the Open Network of Signs. (= Toronto Studies in Semiotics and Communication). Toronto: University of Toronto Press
Petrilli, Susan (ed.) (1992). Social Practice, Semiotics and the Sciences of Man: The Correspondence between Morris and Rossi-Landi. = Special Issue Semiotica 88(1/2)
Ponzio, Augusto (1986). "On Rossi-Landi‘s Approach to Language and Sign". International Semiotic Spectrum 5: 3
Ponzio, Augusto (1988). Rossi-Landi e la filosofia del linguaggio. Bari: Adriatica Editrice
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1951). "De la communication d‘une langue au point de vue épistémologique et au point de vue opératif". In: Congrès international de philosophie des sciences (Paris, octobre 1949), Actes. Paris: Hermann, I° (Colloque d‘épistémologie), pp. 177-182
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1953). Charles Morris (= Storia universale della filosofia. 21). Roma-Milano: Bocca
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1961). Significato, comunicazione e parlare comune. Padova: Marsilio
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1966a). "Per un uso marxiano di Wittgenstein". Nuovi Argomenti, N.S. 1(1): 187-230 [German trans. in R.-L. 1974]
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1966b). "Schema per una dialettica del teatro d’avanguardia". Nuova Corrente 39-40: 285-292; re-published in Rossi-Landi 1972, 49-60
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1968). Il linguaggio come lavoro e come mercato. Milano: Bompiani, 2nd ed. 1972, 3rd ed. 1983
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1969). "Extension de l‘homologie entre énoncés et outils". In: X Congrès international de linguistes (Bucarest, 28 août-2 septembre 1967), Actes. Bucarest: Éditions de l‘Académie de la République socialiste de Roumanie, Vol. I, 503-508
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1972). Semiotica e ideologia. Milano: Bompiani
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1973a). Dialektik und Entfremdung in der Sprache. Frankfurt/M.: Makol [German trans. of chapters from R.-L. 1972]
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1973b). Ideologies of Linguistic Relativity (= Approaches to Semiotics, Paperback Series. 4). The Hague: Mouton
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1974). Sprache als Arbeit und als Markt. München: Hanser [new German trans. of R.-L. 1968; the first one of 1972 was withdrawn by the author]
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1975a). Charles Morris e la semiotica novecentesca. Milano: Feltrinelli [completed ed. of Rossi-Landi 1953]
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1975b). Linguistics and Economics (= Janua Linguarum, Series Maior 81). The Hague: Mouton, 2nd ed. 1977 [first publ. in: Current Trends in Linguistics. Vol. XII: Linguistics and Adjacent Arts and Sciences. The Hague: Mouton 1974, Part 8, 1787-2017]
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1976). Semiotik, Ästhetik und Ideologie. München: Hanser [some chapters from R.-L. 1972]
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1978). Ideologia. Milano: ISEDI
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1979a). "Ideas for a manifesto of materialistic semiotics". KODIKAS/Code 2: 121-123
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1979b). "Signs and bodies". In: Chatman, Seymour, Umberto Eco et Jean-Marie Klinkenberg (eds.). A Semiotic Landscape. Proceedings of the First Congress of the International Association for Semiotic Studies, Milan, June 1974. The Hague: Mouton, 356-359
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1979c). "Towards a Theory of Sign Residues". Versus 23: 15-32
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1981). "Wittgenstein: Old and New". ars semeiotica 4: 29-51
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1982). Ideologia. Milano: Mondadori [extended new ed. of Rossi-Landi 1978]
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1983a). Language as Work & Trade. A Semeiotic Homology for Linguistics & Economics. South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey [trad. anglaise de R.-L. 1968]
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1983b). "Das semiotische Modell der (Zeichen‑)Produktion". In: Bernard, Jeff (ed.), Didaktische Umsetzung der Zeichentheorie. Akten des 4. Symposiums der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Semiotik, Linz 1981 (= Angewandte Semiotik 2). Wien-Baden b.W.: ÖGS, 93-111
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1984). "Wittgenstein: Old and New". In: Tasso Borbé (ed.). Semiotics Unfolding. Proceedings of the Second Congress of the International Association for Semiotic Studies, Vienna, July 1979 (= Approaches to Semiotics 68). Berlin-New York-Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter, Vol. I, 327-344
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1985). Metodica filosofica e scienza dei segni. Nuovi saggi sul linguaggio e l’ideologia. Milano: Bompiani
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1988a), A Fragment in the History of Italian Semiotics. In: Herzfeld, Michael and Lucio Melazzo (eds.), Semiotic Theory and Practice. Proceedings of the Third International Congress of the IASS, Palermo, 1984. Berlin-New York-Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter , Vol. II, pp. 1053-1064
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1988b). "Il segno e i suoi residui". In: Ponzio 1988, 263-289 [= transcript of a lecture given at the Università degli studi di Bari on 19 April 1985, edited by Angela Biancofiore after a tape recording|.
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1990). Marxism and Ideology (= Marxist Introductions). Oxford: Clarendon Press [English transl. of Rossi-Landi 1982]
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1992). "On Some Post-Morrisian Problems". In: Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio. Between Signs and Non-Signs. Edited with an introduction by Susan Petrilli (= Critical Theory. 10). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 59-108 [Original publication in: Ars semeiotica 3/1978: 3-31]
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1995). "Work, Time, and Some Uses of Language". In: Bernard, Jeff (ed.). Zeichen/Manipulation. Akten des 5. Symposiums der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Semiotik, Klagenfurt 15.-16.12.1984 (= Angewandte Semiotik 6). Wien: ÖGS, 141-159
Withalm, Gloria (1992). La Sémiotique de Ferruccio Rossi-Landi. Wien/Perpignan: unpubl. typescript; to appear on <http://www.ferrucciorossilandi.com>
Withalm, Gloria (2004e). "Reconsidering Filmic Self-Referentiality in Terms of Rossi-Landian Concepts". In: Petrilli, Susan (ed.). Lavoro immateriale (= Athanor - arte, letteratura, semiotica, filosofia. 7). Roma: Meltemi, 325-335 [online: < http://www.uni-ak.ac.at/culture/withalm/wit-texts/wit03-r-l.html>]
1.2. Gesellschaftliche Reproduktion und kulturelle Innovation. Aus semiotischer Sicht
Sektionsgruppen | Section Groups | Groupes de sections
Inhalt | Table of Contents | Contenu 16 Nr.
