Hamlet

One of the most effective aspects of Hamlet is Shakespeare’s ability to place the audience within the mind of the reader. Throughout the play, Hamlet desperately attempts to piece together his father’s death. Although the ghost appears to Hamlet within the first act of play, Hamlet is not entirely convinced that Claudius murdered his father and, therefore, develops the play-within-a-play and other tests. Similarly, many scholars question whether Hamlet’s insanity is real, or feigned to conceal his plans to kill Claudius. As Hamlet grapples with the events surrounding his father’s death, this confusion is mirrored in the audience’s attempt to understand Hamlets actions and apparent madness.

Semiotics

I found the reading on semiotics very interesting, however it was also confusing. I had to re-read certain parts of the article in order to understand it. It was impressive how someone can study signs and symbols the way the author did.

Semiotics

I found the articles dealing with semiotics pretty interesting but still very difficult. Still, I can understand how this helps to gain an insight on understanding the kind of words people use in particular stories to help evoke certain emotions or images about a particular work. I really didn't think people could have so many different views on this type of topic but I have to agree with Michelle about Peirce's view of semiotics since for me, his theory on the subject covered so many different ideas with his three triads. I'm still pretty lost on certain things, but I'm sure it'll all be covered tomorrow.

The Subject of Semiotics

This is an interesting reading but some may find it to be obvious that signs and symbols do mean different things to different people. What I found interesting was that even the same word in the same language when spoken by a different person can mean something else. This subject may be easier to understand for a person who speaks different languages, comes from a different culture or religion. They can compare and contrast their experience with words and symbols. When I started to learn French it was quite amazing to learn that some of the words sound the same and mean the same thing. For example, positve is positif in french.

Well, I certainly would not miss going back to reading stories. This theory sounds like a cross between something so obvious and something so ludicrous. Perhaps its application is a bit silly. Of course, though everything can be symbolized by other things (as in Gulliver's Travels in Book III), but different people may associate the same object with different symbols based on different experiences, even within the same culture. Also, because psycho-analysis was talked about in relation to semiotics prejudices me, as I happen to think that psychoanalysis is, overall, though it is an interesting theory with interesting ideas, silly. Semiotics is also a theory that is very interesting and can be taken very far and wild (not a typo, I do mean wild, not wide), it should be put into practice very conservatively as it does not seem to be a very practical system of analysis (if, indeed, such a system exists!)

It's cool, but not for here

Semiotics happens to be a very interesting topic and especially in English literature class. It happens to be integral to understand the nature of words that have symbolic and significant meaning to reveal the numerous layers of meaning that particular word has in a language. However I feel that it is almost useless to learn about the different theories of semiotics in a class such as ours. I believe this class is geared towards learning about literature and reading numerous texts that display the true beauty of literature, of which it has been until now. However learning the science behind semiotics and the different theorists, and reading almost 120 pages on the topic seems rather pointless for our discussion. If this class was part of the Linguistics & Communications department, that would be a totally different story.

I understand semiotics to be the study of how signs and symbols are understood. I also believe it includes how language is developed to correspond to these symbols. In our culture of mass media and communication this can become very complicated as different cultures assign different meanings to the same symbol or sign. There are so many people from different parts of the world, different cultures, religions and so forth,that communicate with each other. At times i wonder how we do it without problems. I mean how do we just understand each other? I think it goes beyond just the language and somewhere in our subconscious we know what is being said or what the person is trying to do at times. Its like when your at times square and tourists ask for help they point to where they want to go or what they are trying to find and with simple hand signals you direct.
Everything we do, say, see, or hear can be a sign or symbol .The clothes we wear and our physical expression can be a method of communication. When it comes to emotional expression i think it is easier to understand meaning. I mean happy is happy, and it is connected to a smile. But at the other end i understand that some cultures do not allow for such expressions in public and so forth.
Semiotics seems to be a very complicated or vast field of study because it can be very specific to a relationship, a home or whatever the context is. Symbols, signs, language it can become a very specific thing between individuals. People do it all the time they develop little signs for each other for different things. I have seen on the discovery channel how they follow these large families with sextuplets or like sixteen children, and you notice how the children develop their own ways to communicate and the doctors notice it too. These kids even develop their own ways of pronouncing words with each other.

Semiotics was a very tough and abstract reading. I had to read certain topics many times to fully grasp the ideas. I believe the theories would have proved much clearer if the analogies were not so vague. Saussure's notion is that a "sign" is broken up into two different pieces, signified and the signifier. I agree with Saussure's idea that the signified and signifier goes through the notion which he calls "more or less equivalent". The concept behind that is a sign can have many interpretations through many different people, but there will always be a set of "signifieds" that remain constant through each person. I believe that is true because there are certain words that will have a universal definition. For example the word "Sun" has a universal definition. Immediately one would think of a sunrise, mornings, summer etc. However a majority would not think about darkness, nights and cold.

Semiotics is a theory of signs and symbolism. Several theories were discussed in this reading by our author. The author decides to go back into history to pick historical figures mentality on the matter.
I liked how Peirce broke down the meaning of signification into "sign" , "interpretant", and and "the object". It helps to break down the symbolism in an easier fashion.
The transitions from the different theorists was flowing very well.
Freud Causes great controversy with readers and societies in the world. But also help new theories to come about

Semiotics is a very interesting topic to study. I never really much thought into symbols or signs before. I never even really thought about our language and the meaning behind everything. I found that some of it was a bit difficult to understand. The overall point that is being made is clear but the way they go about discussing their theories is confusing.

I didnt quite know what the semiotic theory was going in to this. But after I read it more thoroughly I understood that different things have meanings and symbols. For example when we think of something like apple pie, it has a symbolic value. We see it a s all american, a symbol of our freedom and our culture.

Semiotic Theories

This is the first time that i was introduced to semiotic theories. in fact i had never even heard of this before. At first i was completely confused with Saussures theory and the meaning behind it. i guess i had never realized that symbols and signs could be completely different and that there were even 2 parts to a sign. i have never learned anything about language and its importance until now. what made things more clear to me was reading the semiotic theory accoridng to Charles Sanders Pierce. I understood his theory of triads which include signs, interpretnets and objects. In the analysis of his third triad, the object, it is stated taht there is a crucial distinction betweeen experience and thought. I found this to make the most sense, especially after the two words were defined...experience being a world of things with no intellectual access to them and thoughts being only a way ok knowing. I further liked the idea of man being the product of language. esentially, we are the sign and we create language in our own mind. This idea made me think back to prior class discussions and how each of us have our own view and our own meaning of incidents based on our own experience. i felt that i could most clearly understand this theory.