Against the Frame

The paper explores theoretical foundations of the frame from two semiotic perspectives: that of the Saussurean dyadic sign dominant in the European tradition and that of the triadic sign of the Peircean/American descent. If – within the post- Saussurean agenda – meaning can be fairly easily “framed”...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Wojciech Kalaga
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: University of Tartu Press 2016-07-01
Series:Sign Systems Studies
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/sss/article/view/15913
id doaj-87ea5732e0f344819773ac4721efa129
record_format Article
spelling doaj-87ea5732e0f344819773ac4721efa1292021-04-02T14:33:06ZengUniversity of Tartu PressSign Systems Studies1406-42431736-74092016-07-01441/210.12697/SSS.2016.44.1-2.08Against the FrameWojciech Kalaga0Institute of English Cultures and Literatures, Department of Literary and Cultural Theory, University of Silesia, Poland, Grota-Roweckiego 5, 41–205 SosnowiecThe paper explores theoretical foundations of the frame from two semiotic perspectives: that of the Saussurean dyadic sign dominant in the European tradition and that of the triadic sign of the Peircean/American descent. If – within the post- Saussurean agenda – meaning can be fairly easily “framed” and closed in the field of the signified, Peirce’s concepts of interpretant and infinite semiosis implement a mechanism which inherently obliterates the frame. Given this duality of approaches, the contention “No meaning without a frame” is thus true and paradoxical at the same time, and that paradox goes far beyond the Derridean concept of the parergon, which only belongs to both the inside and the outside. The frame, as construed in this paper, is not merely a material or imaginary, inactive partition, but is itself an operational agent which isolates and delineates a text ontologically as the other of the context, and simultaneously subverts that otherness by necessitating further semiosis and its own partial self-erasure. Regarding the interrelations amongst texts and between text and context, the frame is thus envisaged, and investigated in the paper, not so much as a factor of resistance or separation, but as an osmotic boundary facilitating rather than preventing a bi-directional flow of meanings. Putting this in epistemological terms, one may say that interpretation – paradoxically again – requires an enframing of its object, but at the same time it dissolves the stipulated frame and reaches beyond it.https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/sss/article/view/15913frameboundaryPeirceinfinite semiosisnebular text
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Wojciech Kalaga
spellingShingle Wojciech Kalaga
Against the Frame
Sign Systems Studies
frame
boundary
Peirce
infinite semiosis
nebular text
author_facet Wojciech Kalaga
author_sort Wojciech Kalaga
title Against the Frame
title_short Against the Frame
title_full Against the Frame
title_fullStr Against the Frame
title_full_unstemmed Against the Frame
title_sort against the frame
publisher University of Tartu Press
series Sign Systems Studies
issn 1406-4243
1736-7409
publishDate 2016-07-01
description The paper explores theoretical foundations of the frame from two semiotic perspectives: that of the Saussurean dyadic sign dominant in the European tradition and that of the triadic sign of the Peircean/American descent. If – within the post- Saussurean agenda – meaning can be fairly easily “framed” and closed in the field of the signified, Peirce’s concepts of interpretant and infinite semiosis implement a mechanism which inherently obliterates the frame. Given this duality of approaches, the contention “No meaning without a frame” is thus true and paradoxical at the same time, and that paradox goes far beyond the Derridean concept of the parergon, which only belongs to both the inside and the outside. The frame, as construed in this paper, is not merely a material or imaginary, inactive partition, but is itself an operational agent which isolates and delineates a text ontologically as the other of the context, and simultaneously subverts that otherness by necessitating further semiosis and its own partial self-erasure. Regarding the interrelations amongst texts and between text and context, the frame is thus envisaged, and investigated in the paper, not so much as a factor of resistance or separation, but as an osmotic boundary facilitating rather than preventing a bi-directional flow of meanings. Putting this in epistemological terms, one may say that interpretation – paradoxically again – requires an enframing of its object, but at the same time it dissolves the stipulated frame and reaches beyond it.
topic frame
boundary
Peirce
infinite semiosis
nebular text
url https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/sss/article/view/15913
work_keys_str_mv AT wojciechkalaga againsttheframe
_version_ 1721562002203082752