| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Jf9acih5ug","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ28Ӻ","startOffset":1584,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ28Ӻ","endOffset":2608°Ӻ,"quote":"DISPLACEMENT has to become “symbolicity”. To turn into a symbol, the sign’s one-to-one relation to a perceptual “referent” must be severed Ӷ40Ӻ. That is to say, the sign must be semantically tied to a representation that is independent of the perceptual signals available at any time (not only at the time and place of the sign’s use). Thus, the semanticity of a linguistic sign is constituted, not by a tie that links it to a “thing”, but by one that links it to a representation or concept Ӷ35Ӻ. The fact that a sign, be it verbal or non-verbal, has acquired symbolicity, does of course not preclude that it still be used as a perception-bound sign whenever there is a perceptual input that corresponds to the representation it designates; nor does it preclude that it be used by the sender to trigger a conventional active response in the receiver (as in the case of an ‘imperative’). But what gives a sign the status of symbol is that it can be used without such a “stimulus” and without triggering the active response.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321079218495795044192":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Prämisse","data_creacio":1551206787923°
|
