Volume 16, Issue 4

In the face of myriad crises in modern societies, semiotic inquiry has many valuable contributions to make. However, the long-standing dominant analytical paradigms in the field have made it exceedingly difficult, if not altogether impossible, to tackle the countless unanalyzable aspects of semiosis in the human condition. What needs to be done in semiotics is to highlight another mode of knowing, synthetic thinking, without excluding the analytical mode. Drawing inspiration and strength from classical Eastern philosophies and aesthetics, notably I Ching and Laozi , as well as classics and advances in global semiotics, the present paper proposes a cultural semiotics of jingshen , understood here as the holistic flux of mind, vitality, and creativity. This route of inquiry seeks cogent coalescence of the two foregoing modes of knowing so as to better inform semiotics in a new age. At the same time, it creates a unique methodology: the fusion of revelatory “embodied cognition” and “cognition via knowledge/ abstraction.” Viewed in this light, the purpose or function of semiotics is not limited to understanding signs and sign relations or uncovering laws governing the evolution of semiosis, but more importantly it embraces the improvement of mental capacity, the expansion of cognitive space, and the liberation of human thinking.

At present, semiotic studies at home and abroad generally attach importance to the interpretation of symbols themselves, while the efforts in researching on the cognitive subject of symbols needs to be intensified and more attention should be paid to the process of symbolic activities. Cultural semiotics of jingshen attempts to construct a brand-new cognitive paradigm, not only to interpret the meaning of symbols, but also to develop the study of the relationship between the subject and the object in symbolic activities. In fact, the process of symbolic activities has been constantly emphasized in traditional Chinese culture. Although for an individual “the known” is infinite and “the knowable” is finite, the limitation of “the knowable” can be overcome through “self-cultivation.” The Chinese sages raised the concept of the “unity of three-tiered self-cultivation,” namely “unity of the mind and the body,” “unity of the mind and the objective world,” and “unity of apriorism and empiricism.” From the perspective of the cognitive paradigm, this concept gives due attention to the process of symbolic activities by emphasizing the effect of the cultivation of the cognitive subject on symbolic cognition and interpretation. The unity of the “three-tiered self-cultivation” of the cognitive subject can promote the development of a cultural semiotics of jingshen to construct an ideal cognitive paradigm in pursuing jingshen freedom and liberating symbolic meaning.

The earliest extant depictions of the human face are not simply realistic but represented through specific technologies (means) and techniques (styles). In these representations, the face was probably idealized in order to empower its agency through simulacra. The history of art sees humans become increasingly aware of the impact of technology and technique on the production of visual representations of the face. With photography, and even more so with its digital version, technology is developed, hidden, and miniaturized so as to democratize and market technique. The result, however, a naturalization of technology, is increasingly problematic in the era of algorithms: artificial intelligence absorbs the social bias of its engineers. This is particularly evident in the domain of “digital cosmetics”: successful apps are used to process and share billions of facial images, yet few critically reflect on the aesthetic ideology underpinning them. This is an urgent task for visual, social, and cultural semiotics.

In Chapter 10 of Introducing semiosic translation by Torres-Martínez (2019: 172–177), “On the origins of semiosic translation, the role of semiosis in translation and translating and the nature of sign systems: Response to Jia,” the author makes a critical analysis of my article “Semiospheric translation types reconsidered from the translation semiotics perspective” (2019), criticizing that (1) my semiospheric translations are both semiotically problematic and ideologically loaded; (2) my view of translation is untenable from a cognitive perspective; and (3) translation is not a special case of semiosis, finally pointing out that semiotic processes, and not individual signs, are the source of all types of translations. In this paper, I intend to briefly state and then reply to each of these three points.

The conceptualization of intercultural communication competence (ICC) has been updated tentatively since it was formulated in the 1970s. A common recognition is that development of ICC can only be realized through an individual’s adaptation, which results from the integration of the multiple forces within the individuals themselves. However, most of the existing research on ICC has focused on the conscious aspects of competence like abilities or skills that are distinguishable, that is, what to adapt, rather than the less conscious aspect, or its correlation with the unconscious part, that is, the how to adapt, or what the process of adaptation is. The absence of investigation into the adaptation process may have been a consequence of the educational context of studies on ICC, which depends much on, or is heavily affected by, the Cartesian dualistic viewpoints that emphasize the dichotomy of mind–body while ignoring the “middle” in between. Based on our previous semiotic analysis that explained the process of intercultural communication as a form of semiosis, this paper adopts more perspectives from edusemiotics to conceptualize learning following a triadic framework with emphasis on the process as the “middle,” which renders it possible to reflect on the process of individuals’ adaptation in contexts of intercultural communication.