The semiotic phenomenology of inverse alteroception

References

Aristotle. c.335BCE [1970]. Poetics, G. F. Else (trans.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Search in Google Scholar

Arnheim, Rudolf. 1954. Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. Berkeley: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar

Bennett, Tyler James. 2021a. Detotalization and retroactivity: Black pyramid semiotics. Tartu, Estonia: Tartu University, PhD Dissertation. Available at: https://dspace.ut.ee/handle/10062/71156.Search in Google Scholar

Bennett, Tyler James. 2021b. Second generation semiology and detotalization. Linguistic Frontiers 4(1). 45–53. https://doi.org/10.2478/lf-2021-0010.Search in Google Scholar

Bonfiglioli, Stefania. 2008. Aristotle’s non-logical works and the square of oppositions in semiotics. Logica Universalis 2(1). 107–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11787-007-0021-z.Search in Google Scholar

Bråten, Stein. 1988. Dialogic mind: The infant and adult in protoconversation. In Marc Cavallo (ed.), Nature, cognition and system, 187–205. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.10.1007/978-94-009-2991-3_9Search in Google Scholar

Bråten, Stein. 1998. Infant learning by altercentric participation: The reverse of egocentric observation in autism. In Stein Bråten (ed.), Intersubjective communication and emotion in early ontogeny, 105–124. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Bråten, Stein. 2009. The intersubjective mirror in infant learning and evolution of speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/aicr.76Search in Google Scholar

Broden, Thomas F. 2000. Greimas between France and Peirce. American Journal of Semiotics 15–16(1). 27–89. https://doi.org/10.5840/ajs200015/161/42.Search in Google Scholar

Calbris, Geneviève. 2008. From left to right …: Coverbal gestures and their symbolic use of space. In Alan Cienki & Cornelia Müller (eds.), Metaphor and gesture, 27–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/gs.3.05calSearch in Google Scholar

Candel, Daniel. 2020. Extending the embodied semiotic square: A cultural-semantic analysis of “Follow your Arrow”. Semiotica 236–237. 275–295. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2018-0144.Search in Google Scholar

Corso, John J. 2014. What does Greimas’s semiotic square really do? Mosaic 47(1). 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1353/mos.2014.0006.Search in Google Scholar

DeSilva, Jeremy. 2021. First steps: How upright walking made us human. New York: Harper.Search in Google Scholar

Donald, Merlin. 1991. Origins of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Donald, Merlin. 2001. A mind so rare: The evolution of human consciousness. New York: W. W. Norton.Search in Google Scholar

Donald, Merlin. 2012. The mimetic origins of language. In Maggie Tallerman & Kathleen R. Gibson (eds.), Oxford handbook of language evolution, 180–183. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Eco, Umberto. 1984. Semiotics and the philosophy of language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.10.1007/978-1-349-17338-9Search in Google Scholar

Eco, Umberto. 1999. Kant and the platypus. New York: Harcourt Brance & Co.Search in Google Scholar

Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar

Foolen, Ad. 2019. The value of left and right. In Lachlan Mackenzie & Laura Alba-Juez (eds.), Emotion in discourse (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 302), 139–158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.302.06fooSearch in Google Scholar

Fox-Davies, Arthur Charles. 1909. A complete guide to heraldry. London: T.C. & E.C. Jack.Search in Google Scholar

Gallagher, Shaun. 2020. Action and interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Gallese, Vittorio & Alvin Goldman. 1998. Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2(12). 493–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(98)01262-5.Search in Google Scholar

Gibson, James J. 1979. The ecological approach to visual perception. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Search in Google Scholar

Gramigna, Remo. 2023. Oblique semiotics: The semiotics of the mirror and specular reflections in Lotman and Eco. Semiotica 255. 55–76. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2023-0164.Search in Google Scholar

Greimas, Algirdas Julien. 1989 [1984]. Figurative semiotics and the semiotics of the plastic arts, Frank Collins & Paul Perron (trans.). New Literary History 20(3). 627–649. https://doi.org/10.2307/469358.Search in Google Scholar

Greimas, Algirdas Julien & François Rastier. 1968. The interaction of semiotic constraints. Yale French Studies 41. 86–10. https://doi.org/10.2307/2929667.Search in Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195102512.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Hobson, Peter. 2006. The place of self in development. In Monograph published by society for research in development, Ms. No. 394, 128–154. Hoboken: Wiley.10.1111/j.1540-5834.2006.00394.xSearch in Google Scholar

Jameson, Fredric. 1987. Foreward. In Frederic Jameson & Algirdas Julien Greimas (eds.), On meaning: Selected writings in semiotic theory (Theory and History of Literature 38), vi–xxii. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kress, Gunther & Theo van Leeuwen. 1996. Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Kress, Gunther & Theo van Leeuwen. 2006. Reading images: The grammar of visual design, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203619728Search in Google Scholar

Kress, Gunther & Theo van Leeuwen. 2020. Reading images: The grammar of visual design, 3rd edn. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781003099857Search in Google Scholar

Kubler, John Albert. 1987. A reassessment of the aesthetics of audience response and audience-performer interaction in the theatrical event: The transpersonal paradigm. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Kugiumutzakis, Giannis. 1998. Neonatal imitation in the intersubjective companion space. In Stein Bråten (ed.), Intersubjective communication and emotion in early ontogeny, 63–88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kugiumutzakis, Giannis & Colwyn Trevarthen. 2015. Neonatal imitation. In James D. Wright (ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, 2nd edn., 481–488. Oxford: Elsevier.10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.23160-7Search in Google Scholar

Kull, Kalevi. 2010. Umwelt and modelling. In Paul Cobley (ed.), The Routledge companion to semiotics, 43–56. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Lacková, Ľudmila. 2023a. In the fold of the manifold: A reflection on Bloomsbury semiotics. Cognitive Semiotics 16(1). 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2023-2005.Search in Google Scholar

Lacková, Ľudmila. 2023b. Structural semiology, Peirce, and biolinguistics. Semiotica 2023(253). 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2022-0058.Search in Google Scholar

Lazier, Gil. 1968. Stage right versus stage left. Communication Quarterly 16(2). 8–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463376809385471.Search in Google Scholar

Lenninger, Sara & Göran Sonesson. 2023. Semiotics in picture and image studies. In Jamin Pelkey, Susan Petrilli & Sophia Melanson Ricciardone (eds.), Semiotics in the arts and social sciences (Bloomsbury Semiotics, Vol. 3), 149–168. London: Bloomsbury.10.5040/9781350139398.ch-8Search in Google Scholar

Lochlainn, Ailfrid Mac. 1952. The interpretation of heraldry. Journal of the County Louth Archaeological Society 12(4). 239–242. https://doi.org/10.2307/27728800.Search in Google Scholar

Lotman, Jurij M. 1989. The semiosphere. Soviet Psychology 27(1). 40–61. https://doi.org/10.2753/rpo1061-0405270140.Search in Google Scholar

Maldonado, Tomas. 1977. Vanguardia y racionalidad. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili [Translation of Avanguardia e razionalità, Turin: Einaudi 1974].Search in Google Scholar

McGilchrist, Iain. 2019. The master and his emissary: The divided brain and the making of the western world, 2nd edn. New Haven: Yale University Press.10.12987/9780300247459Search in Google Scholar

McManus, Chris. 2002. Right hand, left hand: The origins of asymmetry in brains, bodies, atoms and cultures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

McNeill, David. 2005. Gesture and thought. Chicago: Chicago University Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226514642.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Meltzoff, Adrew & Keith Moore. 1977. Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. Science 198. 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.198.4312.75.Search in Google Scholar

Meltzoff, Andrew & Keith Moore. 1983. Newborn infants imitate adult facial gestures. Child Development 54. 702–709. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1983.tb00496.x.Search in Google Scholar

Meltzoff, Andrew & Keith Moore. 1989. Imitation in newborn infants: Exploring the range of gestures imitated and the underlying mechanisms. Developmental Psychology 25(6). 954–962. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.25.6.954.Search in Google Scholar

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1945 [1962]. Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Search in Google Scholar

Palka, Joel W. 2002. Left/right symbolism and the body in ancient Maya iconography and culture. Latin American Antiquity 13(4). 419–443. https://doi.org/10.2307/972224.Search in Google Scholar

Peirce, Charles S. 1861–1913 [1931–1958]. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. 8 Vols. C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. W. Burks (eds.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cited as CP.Search in Google Scholar

Pelkey, Jamin. 2013. Cognitive chiasmus: Embodied phenomenology in Dylan Thomas. Journal of Literary Semantics 42(1). 79–114. https://doi.org/10.1515/jls-2013-0005.Search in Google Scholar

Pelkey, Jamin. 2017a. Greimas embodied: How kinesthetic opposition grounds the semiotic square. Semiotica 214. 277–305. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2016-0188.Search in Google Scholar

Pelkey, Jamin. 2017b. The semiotics of X: Chiasmus, cognition, and extreme body memory. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Search in Google Scholar

Pelkey, Jamin. 2018. Upright posture and the meaning of meronymy: A synthesis of metaphoric and analytic accounts. Cognitive Semiotics 11(1). 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2018-0003.Search in Google Scholar

Pelkey, Jamin. 2020a. Intercultural parallax: Comparative modeling, ethnic taxonomy, and the dynamic object. Semiotica 232. 147–185. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2019-0075.Search in Google Scholar

Pelkey, Jamin. 2020b. Researching visual semiotics online. TECCOGS: Revista Digital de Tecnologias Cognitivas 21(1). 116–145. https://doi.org/10.23925/1984-3585.2020i21p116-145.Search in Google Scholar

Pelkey, Jamin. 2022. Tonal iconicity and narrative transformation: Transverse embodied chiasmus in Sylvia Plath and Dolly Parton. In Sara Lenninger, Olga Fischer, Christina Ljungberg & Elżbieta Tabakowska (eds.), Iconicity in cognition and across semiotic systems (Iconicity in Language and Literature), 135–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/ill.18.07pelSearch in Google Scholar

Pelkey, Jamin. 2023. Embodiment and language. WIREs Cognitive Science 14(5). e1649. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1649.Search in Google Scholar

Porac, Clare & Stanley Coren. 1981. Lateral preferences and human behavior. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4613-8139-6Search in Google Scholar

Preston, Stephanie & Frans B. M. de Waal. 2002. Empathy: Its ultimate and proximal bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25. 1–72.10.1017/S0140525X02000018Search in Google Scholar

Rimkūnas, Rolandas & Giedrius Paulauskis. 2017. Coin dedicated to the 100th birth anniversary of Algirdas Julius Greimas, Lithuanian Mint. Online. Available at: https://monetos.lb.lt/en/eshop/coin-dedicated-to-the-100th-birth-anniversary-of-algirdas-julius-greimas.Search in Google Scholar

Scheler, Max. 1913 [1954]. The nature of sympathy, Peter Heath, Hamden (trans). London: Routledge & Kegan Press.Search in Google Scholar

Sheets-Johnstone, Maxine. 2011a. The imaginative consciousness of movement: Linear quality, kinaesthesia, language and life. In Tim Ingold (ed.), Redrawing anthropology: Materials, movements, lines, 115–128. Farnham: Ashgate.Search in Google Scholar

Sheets-Johnstone, Maxine. 2011b. The primacy of movement, 2nd edn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/aicr.82Search in Google Scholar

Skaggs, Steven. 2022. Semiotics in graphic design. In Jamin Pelkey & Stephanie Walsh Matthews (eds.), Semiotics in the natural and technical sciences (Bloomsbury Semiotics, Vol. 2), 297–318. London: Bloomsbury.10.5040/9781350139350.ch-13Search in Google Scholar

Sonesson, Göran. 2003. Why the mirror is a sign – and why the television picture is no mirror: Two episodes in the critique of the iconicity critique. S. European Journal for Semiotic Studies 15(2–4). 217–232.Search in Google Scholar

Sonesson, Göran. 2010. From mimicry to mime by way of mimesis: Reflections on a general theory of iconicity. Sign Systems Studies 38(1/4). 18–66. https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.2010.38.1-4.02.Search in Google Scholar

Sonesson, Göran. 2011. The mind in the picture and the picture in the mind: A phenomenological approach to cognitive semiotics. Lexia. Rivista di semiotica 07–08. 167–182.Search in Google Scholar

Sonesson, Göran. 2015. The mirror in-between picture and mind. Chinese Semiotic Studies 11(2). 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2015-0009.Search in Google Scholar

Sonesson, Göran. 2018. “The greatest story ever told”: Semiosis emerging from mimesis and/or narrativity. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on the evolution of language, 478–488. Torun: University of Torun.10.12775/3991-1.118Search in Google Scholar

Stern, Daniel N. 2004. The present moment in psychotherapy and everyday life. New York: W. W. Norton.Search in Google Scholar

Stjernfelt, Frederik. 2007. Diagrammatology: An investigation on the borderlines of phenomenology, ontology, and semiotics (Synthese Library 336). Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-5652-9Search in Google Scholar

Trevarthen, Colwyn. 2009. The intersubjective psychobiology of human meaning: Learning of culture depends on interest for co-operative practical work–and affection for the joyful art of good company. Psychoanalytic Dialogues 19(5). 507–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/10481880903231894.Search in Google Scholar

Turner, Mark. 2014. The origin of ideas: Blending, creativity, and the human spark. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Uexküll, Jakob von. 1909. Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere. Berlin: Springer.Search in Google Scholar

Uspensky, Boris A. 1975. ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ in icon painting. Semiotica 13(1). 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1975.13.1.33.Search in Google Scholar

Van Lier, Henri. 2003. Around homo in 80 theses: A fundamental anthropogeny, M. Lo (ed.), trans. P. Lottefier, abridged English version of Van Lier (2010). Available at: http://www.anthropogenie.com/.Search in Google Scholar

Van Lier, Henri. 2010. Anthropogenie. Bruxelles: Les Impressions nouvelles.Search in Google Scholar

Volli, Ugo. 1983. La forma della simmetria. Rassegna 13(1). 24–34.Search in Google Scholar

Woodcock, Thomas & John M. Robinson. 1988. The Oxford guide to heraldry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Zahavi, Dan. 2003. Husserl’s phenomenology. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Zlatev, Jordan. 2005. What’s in a schema? Bodily mimesis and the grounding of language. In Beate Hampe (ed.), Perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics, 323–342. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197532.4.313Search in Google Scholar

Zlatev, Jordan. 2008. The co-evolution of intersubjectivity and bodily mimesis. In Jordan Zlatev, Timothy Racine, Chris Sinha & Esa Itkonen (eds.), The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity, 215–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/celcr.12.13zlaSearch in Google Scholar

Zlatev, Jordan. 2013. The mimesis hierarchy of semiotic development: Five stages of intersubjectivity in children. Public Journal of Semiotics 4(2). 47–70. https://doi.org/10.37693/pjos.2013.4.8842.Search in Google Scholar

Zlatev, Jordan. 2014a. Image schemas, mimetic schemas, and children’s gestures. Cognitive Semiotics 7(1). 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2014-0002.Search in Google Scholar

Zlatev, Jordan. 2014b. Bodily mimesis and the transition to speech. In Marco Pina & Nathalie Gontier (eds.), The evolution of social communication in primates: A multidisciplinary approach (Interdisciplinary Evolution Research), 165–178. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-02669-5_9Search in Google Scholar

Zlatev, Jordan. 2015. Cognitive semiotics. In Peter Trifonas (ed.), International handbook of semiotics, 1043–1067. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-017-9404-6_47Search in Google Scholar

Zlatev, Jordan, Merlin Donald & Goran Sonesson. 2010. From body to mouth (and body). In Andrew Smith, Marieke Schouwstra, Bart deBoer & Kenny Smith (eds.), The evolution of language, 527–528. London: World Scientific.10.1142/9789814295222_0126Search in Google Scholar

Zlatev, Jordan & Piotr Konderak. 2023. Consciousness and semiosis. In Jamin Pelkey (ed.), History and semiosis (Bloomsbury Semiotics, Vol. 1), 169–192. London: Bloomsbury.Search in Google Scholar

Zlatev, Jordan, Timothy Racine, Chris Sinha & Esa Itkonen (eds.). 2008. The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/celcr.12Search in Google Scholar

Zlatev, Jordan, Przemysław Żywiczyński & Sławomir Wacewicz. 2020. Pantomime as the original human-specific communicative system. Journal of Language Evolution 5(2). 156–174. https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzaa006.Search in Google Scholar