Preview

SibScript

Advanced search

Semiotics of the Chinese Hieroglyph: From Iconic and Indexical Sign to Symbolic

https://doi.org/10.21603/sibscript-2024-26-4-576-586

Abstract

Chinese hieroglyphic writing has developed ways of recording meanings that differ from those in alphabetic systems, which generates interest in the hieroglyph as an object of research. This study complements the semiotic theory, which is usually applied to alphabetic systems, while looking for a complementary way to describe the ambiguous semiotics of Chinese writing. The study relied on a cross-disciplinary approach, i.e., the theory of semiosis in synthesis with the cultural-historical concept and a tertiary artifact as a link between them. A tertiary artifact corresponds to the semiotic sign-symbol, which is an implicit valuable textual category that cannot be manifested in a specific sign. The theory of artifacts was used in conjunction with a semiotic approach to the analysis of Chinese writing, both at the level of individual signs and at the text level. Diachronically, Chinese hieroglyphic signs tended towards symbolic semantics as they evolved, especially in cases where object nomination was motivated. As a synchronic example, the authors used a compositionally complex text of Wang Wei’s poem Magnolia Valley (辛夷坞), which illustrates the symbol both implicitly and explicitly. The analysis proved that semiotic ideas applied to alphabetic languages can be applied to Chinese writing but with the following caveat: in Chinese text, the implicit semantics of the symbol, being associated with a visually vivid imagery, hints at the symbol hidden behind the lines. Unlike letters, the hieroglyph possesses an additional technical potential for constructing an explicit series of images, thus contributing to a more effective comprehension of the main idea and morals, the emergence of which is regulated by its symbolic mode.

About the Authors

P. P. Dashinimaeva
Banzarov Buryat State University
Russian Federation

Polina P. Dashinimaeva

Ulan-Ude


Competing Interests:

Conflict of interests: The authors declared no potential conflict of interests regarding the research, authorship, and / or publication of this article.



S. V. Dambueva
Banzarov Buryat State University
Russian Federation

Sofia V. Dambueva

Ulan-Ude


Competing Interests:

Conflict of interests: The authors declared no potential conflict of interests regarding the research, authorship, and / or publication of this article.



References

1. Brazgovskaya E. E. In the labyrinths of semiotics. Essays and studies on general semiotics and semiotics of art. Moscow-Ekaterinburg: Kabinetnyi uchenyi, 2018, 224. (In Russ.)

2. Gotlib O. M. Fundamentals of grammatology of Chinese writing. 2nd ed. Moscow: VKN, 2019, 312. (In Russ.)

3. Dashinimaeva P. P. Methodological restart of artifact theory: Regional languages functioning description. Bulletin of Buryat State University, 2018, (4-2): 3–8. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18101/1994-0866-2018-2-4-3-8

4. Kosareva E. K., Stefanovskaya S. V. Classification of 成语 (chengyu) of traditional wedding ceremony in terms of axiological approach. Aktualnye nauchnye issledovaniia v sovremennom mire, 2021, (12-11): 380–388. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/dvhexv

5. Cole M. Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Moscow: Kogito-Tsentr, 1997, 432. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/raxurr

6. Kryukov M. V. The language of Yin inscriptions. Moscow: Nauka, 1973, 135. (In Russ.)

7. Lebedeva D. S. Semiotic weakening of the strong hieroglyphic sign "sun" in the Chinese language. Philology. Theory & Practice, 2023, 16(10): 3280–3286. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30853/phil20230509

8. Lotman Yu. M. Inside the thinking worlds. St. Petersburg: Azbuka-Attikus, 2022, 448. (In Russ.)

9. Lurye S. V. Generalized cultural script and socio-cultural systems functioning. Zhurnal sotsiologii i sotsialnoy antropologii, 2010, 13(2): 152–167. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/ncfhjx

10. Proskurin S. G. Semiotics. Language, Culture, and Law. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg: Lan, 2024, 252. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/kjjnfs

11. Serdyuchenko G. P. Chinese writing and its reform. Moscow: Vost. lit., 1959, 55. (In Russ.)

12. Solntsev V. M. Chinese writing. Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary, ed. Yartseva V. N. Moscow: Sov. Entsikl., 1990. (In Russ.) URL: https://tapemark.narod.ru/les/226a.html (accessed 10 Feb 2024).

13. Khadeeva A. P. The nominative density of top of the "wedding ritual" frame as representation of the value of ritual in the Chinese language. 2nd Gottlieb Readings: Fundamental and topical problems of Oriental and Regional studies of the Asia-Pacific countries: Proc. Intern. Sci. Conf., Irkutsk, 18–21 Sep 2018. Irkutsk: ISU, 2018, 291–295. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/ypgfyd

14. Bakhurst D. Consciousness and revolution in Soviet Philosophy: From the bolsheviks to Evald Ilyenkov. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, 292.

15. Cheng F. Chinese poetical writing. Charlottesville: Indiana University Press, 1982, 255.

16. Cole M. Re-covering the idea of a tertiary artifact. Cultural-Historical Approaches to Studying Learning and Development. Societal, Institutional and Personal Perspectives, eds. Edwards A., Fleer M., Bøttcher L. Singapore: Springer, 2019, 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6826-4_20

17. Cole M., Derry J. We have met technology and it is us. Intelligence and technology. The impact of tools on the nature and development of human abilities, eds. Steinberg R. J., Preiss D. D. NY-L.: Routledge, 2005, 209–227.

18. Dewey J. Human nature and conduct: An introduction to social psychology. NY: Henry Holt and company, 1922, 333.

19. Eco U. Semiotics and the philosophy of language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1983, 242.

20. Engeström Y. Learning, working, imagining. Twelve studies in activity theory. Helsinki: Orienta Konsultit Oy, 1990, 272.

21. Fenollosa E., Pound E. The Chinese written character as a medium for poetry. NY: Fordham University Press, 2008, 240.

22. Habib L., Wittek L. The portfolio as artifact and actor. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 2007, 14(4): 266–282.

23. Luria A. R. The problem of the cultural development of the child. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1928, 35: 493–506.

24. Miettinen R. The riddle of things: Activity theory and actor-network theory as approaches to studying innovations. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1999, 6(4): 170–195.

25. Nelson K. Social cognition in a script framework. Social cognitive development: Frontiers and possible futures, eds. Flavell J. H., Ross L. NY: Cambridge University Press, 1981, 97–118.

26. Peirce C. S. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1935, vol. 2, 249.

27. Taniguchi I. The Chinese written character as semiogenesis. The Journal of Human Sciences, 1983, 19(3): 1–12.

28. Ting L. Towards a semiotics of Chinese characters. Signs and Media, 2022, 1(2): 111–141. https://doi.org/10.1163/25900323-12340017

29. Wartofsky M. Models. Representation and the Scientific Understanding. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1979, 398.

30. Tang Lan. Chinese philology. Beijing: Shanghai Ancient Books Publishing House, 2005, 171. (In Chin.)

31. Wang Li. Ancient Chinese. Beijing: Zhonghua Bookstore, 2015, 572. (In Chin.)


Review

For citations:


Dashinimaeva P.P., Dambueva S.V. Semiotics of the Chinese Hieroglyph: From Iconic and Indexical Sign to Symbolic. SibScript. 2024;26(4):576-586. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/sibscript-2024-26-4-576-586

Views: 197


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2949-2122 (Print)
ISSN 2949-2092 (Online)