Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A neglected classic vindicated: The place of George Herbert Mead in the general tradition of semiotics

A neglected classic vindicated: The place of George Herbert Mead in the general tradition of... ERKKI KILPINEN Although one cannot insist that the name of the American philosopher, George Herbert Mead (1863 ­1931), is literally unknown among semioticians, it is a fact that he has not received all the attention and recognition that is his due in this field. By `semiotics' I mean here the general theory of semiotic processes, an approach which could be called, paraphrasing Charles Peirce, `prope-linguistic semiotics'. This means a theory which covers more than the theory of linguistics and/or culture, but does not neglect those problem fields, either. My general impression is that precisely this wide problem field is the right context for Mead's multifarious and wide-ranging theories. As I shall try to show below, Mead has many similarities1 with his compatriot and predecessor, C. S. Peirce, who today is recognized as primus inter pares among the founders of semiotics. However, history has repeated itself in Mead's case also, in that his intellectual reception has been halting, half-hearted, and often from a skewed perspective. With this paper, I strive to make three particular points concerning Mead and his position in the semiotical tradition: (i) that he indeed has not figured prominently enough in this purview; (ii) that his http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Semiotica - Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies / Revue de l'Association Internationale de Sémiotique de Gruyter

A neglected classic vindicated: The place of George Herbert Mead in the general tradition of semiotics

Loading next page...
 
/lp/de-gruyter/a-neglected-classic-vindicated-the-place-of-george-herbert-mead-in-the-4ilOL4cGCM

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
de Gruyter
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG
ISSN
0037-1998
eISSN
1613-3692
DOI
10.1515/semi.2002.072
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

ERKKI KILPINEN Although one cannot insist that the name of the American philosopher, George Herbert Mead (1863 ­1931), is literally unknown among semioticians, it is a fact that he has not received all the attention and recognition that is his due in this field. By `semiotics' I mean here the general theory of semiotic processes, an approach which could be called, paraphrasing Charles Peirce, `prope-linguistic semiotics'. This means a theory which covers more than the theory of linguistics and/or culture, but does not neglect those problem fields, either. My general impression is that precisely this wide problem field is the right context for Mead's multifarious and wide-ranging theories. As I shall try to show below, Mead has many similarities1 with his compatriot and predecessor, C. S. Peirce, who today is recognized as primus inter pares among the founders of semiotics. However, history has repeated itself in Mead's case also, in that his intellectual reception has been halting, half-hearted, and often from a skewed perspective. With this paper, I strive to make three particular points concerning Mead and his position in the semiotical tradition: (i) that he indeed has not figured prominently enough in this purview; (ii) that his

Journal

Semiotica - Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies / Revue de l'Association Internationale de Sémiotiquede Gruyter

Published: Oct 9, 2002

References