Han-liang Chang | National Taiwan University (original) (raw)

Papers by Han-liang Chang

Sign Systems Studies, 2006

Thomas A. Sebeok’s global semiotics has inspired quite a few followers, noticeably Marcel Danesi,... more Thomas A. Sebeok’s global semiotics has inspired quite a few followers, noticeably Marcel Danesi, Susan Petrilli and Augusto Ponzio. However, for all the trendiness of the word, the very concept of global should be subject to more rigorous examination, especially within today’s ecological and politico-economic contexts. With human and natural disasters precipitating on a global and almost quotidian basis, it is only appropriate for global semioticians to pay more attention to such phenomena and to contemplate, even when confined to their attics, the semiotic consequences of disasters. The paper probes into the semiotic implications of the tsunami disaster that claimed quarter of a million lives in South and Southeast Asia during the Christmas holidays in 2004, and proposes a semiotics of disaster, developed from the discussions of the eighteenth-century British Empiricist philosopher Thomas Reid and the contemporary semiotician David S. Clarke, Jr. As the word’s etymology indicates,...

Sign Systems Studies, Dec 31, 2001

Abstract. For all his profound interest in Secondness and its manifestation in vari-ous kinds of ... more Abstract. For all his profound interest in Secondness and its manifestation in vari-ous kinds of indices, including deictics, Peirce rarely addresses the inter-pronomi-nal relationships. Whilst the American founder of semiotics would designate lan-guage as a whole to Th irdness, only within the larger framework of which deictics can work, the German philosopher Cassirer observes that “what characterizes the very fi rst spatial terms that we fi nd in language is their embracing of a defi nite ‘de-ictic ’ function”. For Cassirer the signifi cance of pronominals, especially the I-Th ou relationship, lies in its impact on the development of spatial concept that lays the foundation of symbolic forms. It may look strange why the “designatives ” of I, Th ou, He, in Peirce’s own terms, so obvious in their categorial and empirical dif-ferentiation, should fail to be reduceable to the triad of Firstness, Secondness, and Th irdness. It is interesting, however, that in his 1906 correspondence w...

Abstract. The metaphor of parasites or parasitism has dominated literary critical discourse since... more Abstract. The metaphor of parasites or parasitism has dominated literary critical discourse since the 1970s, prominent examples being Michel Serres in France and J. Hillis Miller in America. In their writings the relationship between text and paratext, literature and criticism, is often likened to that between host and parasite, and can be therefore deconstructed. Their writings, along with those by Derrida, Barthes, and Thom, seem to be suggesting the possibility of a semiotics of parasitism. Unfortunately, none of these writers has drawn enough on the biological foundation of parasitism. Curiously, even in biology, parasitism is already a metaphor through which the signified of an ecological phenomenon involving two organisms is expressed by the signifier of “[eating] food at another’s [side] table”. This paper will make some preliminary remarks on semiotics of parasitism, based on Jakob von Uexküll’s notion of Umwelt, and Maturana/Varela’s notion of structural coupling. It will l...

Mr. Chairman, Colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen: It gives me great honour to be invited to speak a... more Mr. Chairman, Colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen: It gives me great honour to be invited to speak at this Symposium of the 51 st Annual Meeting of the JCLA. I would like to take this occasion to thank my Japanese colleagues, in particular, Professor Haga Toru, Organizer of the 13 th ICLA congress, and Professor Takayo Kano, Secretary General of the JCLA, for their kind invitation. I have come to Tokyo with the warm greetings and best regards of my colleagues in Taiwan, and on behalf of our national Association, I wish you every success in your scholarly endeavo urs. With the ICLA Tokyo congress in prospect, we are gratified to observe that this Symposium is most relevantly entitled "Inter-Asian Comparative Literature: Problems and Perspectives." Such a title clearly identifies our shared field of study, but it also raises issues which invite critical inquiry. Rather than being self-evident, our field of study is made available to us as a set of problems defined by the perspective we choose to adopt. Thus I would red the title in a reverse order: One ' s perspective helps discover problems which, in turn, give shape to his object of study. I am not unaware that by taking this position I might be accused for ceding the "field " to "perspective," for investing the viewer with primacy rather than the view itself. But this is not the occasion to reiterate and to defend my theoretical stance; what I am concerned with here is the concept of perspective. For reasons yet unknown, the word "perspective," itself not a literary terms (except in narratology), has somehow caught on, and caught us awares. But to my knowledge, no comparatist except Claudio Guillen (1971) has ever reflected on the word and its various implications. I shall briefly examine the concept, its dialectic relationship with another concept, namely, tertium comparationis, without which comparative literature would be impossible. My argument consists in the following points. First, "perspective " is such a heavily abused term-and rightly so-in our discipline that it has become semantically void, let alone optically opaque. It is time now to make the concept a little clearer, i.e., to put "perspective," hopefully, in perspective.

Sign Systems Studies, 2003

In the post-structuralist climate of 'Against Theory' and' Against Method', it seems more trendy ... more In the post-structuralist climate of 'Against Theory' and' Against Method', it seems more trendy and secure to deal with' theoretical anarchism' than those dated' law-and-order alternatives '. 1 This is what the late Paul de Man has to say about the incompatibility between truth and method: A question arises only if a tension develops between methods of understanding and the knowledge which those methods allow one to reach. If there is indeed something about literature, as such, which allows for a discrepancy between truth and method, between Wahrheit and Methode, then scholarship and theory are no longer compatible... For a method that cannot be made to suit the' truth' of its object can only teach delusion. 2 (Paul de Man, The Resistance to Theory, p. 4) Here de Man echoes no doubt a strong critique of the ravishment of Geisteswissenschaften by the 'scientific method' since the nineteenth century, 3 in addition to his own reflection on the inherent aporia of literary language. However, given the essential prejudicial nature of human knowledge, it remains moot whether there can be any discrepancy between truth and method, whether there is Truth beyond a method, and indeed whether any method can be made otherwise than to suit its own truth. Let the argument stand unresolved and let me for the moment turn to Hu Shih (1891-1962). Why Hu Shih (yet once more!)? 4 The only sensible question today ought to be 'How not to talk about Hu Shih?' rather than' How to talk about him?' Everything that can be said has already been said. A little consciousness is surely a dangerous thing-talking about Hu Shih is tantamount to putting into one's mouth the same rhetoric of history /modernity 5 which had once implicated the revolutionary Hu Shih himself. That is, one is forever caught up in a Romantic irony, driven and derided by the desire to be unprecedented, as well as the fear of deja lu, of having already been forestalled. But when one is called upon to address a distinguished gathering on the suicidal topic of 'Research Methods in the May Fourth Era', whom else to begin with but Hu Shih who has insisted, consistently, on the use of an ill-defined scientific method? 6 Hu characterises his novum organum as experiential (which should be distinguished from empirical in the Deweyan context), inductive, verificatory, and evo lutionary. This' lucid' and' discriminating' new method has been variously labelled as pragmatism, instrumentalism, experimentalism, empiricism, positivism and utilitarianism. The confusion of terms results sometimes from Hu's own translation, e.g. 'empiricism' as shiyan pai 7 but 'pragmatism' as shiyan zhuyi; 8 sometimes from critics' difficulty in restoring from the Chinese the exact English terms Hu uses or has in mind on various occasions. A notable example is lishi taidu (the historical attitude) which only when Hu bothers to provide the source can one realise refers to 'the genetic method'. Since none of the aforementioned terms is of native Chinese origin, perhaps one should tackle the issue via Hu Shih's favourable attitude towards imported concepts. In July 1919, he remarks: 'I am all for the enterprise of importing doctrines and intellectual trends' (HSWC, II, 274). He specifically outlines the methodology of importation as involving the knowledge of (1) the milieu in which the doctrine originated, (2) the life and intellectual heritage of the person responsible for this doctrine, and (3) the effects (consequences) of the doctrine. The fulfillment of these three conditions constitutes the historical attitude (ibid., 378), in Hu's words, 'the genetic method' (HSWC, 1,296), which curiously is a 'product of the pragmatist's application of evolutionism to philosophy' (ibid.). In his introduction to American pragmatism (HSWC, I, 291-341), Hu focusses on the consequences and relevancy of concepts in both Charles S. Peirce and William James, and highlights the experimental and creative nature of experience in John Dewey. With Hu Shih, Dewey's methodology of pragmatism consists of the historical (genetic?) method and the experimental method. The latter always starts working from concrete facts and situations, and is based on the assumption that all theories are hypothetical in nature and as such can only be verified through practice (HSWC, I, 381). This experimental method is based on 'experimental thinking' or 'scientific reasoning', a 'conjoint process of analysis and synthesis '. 9 It is an enquiry procedure which is progressive, purposive, and essentially practical in orientation. 10 Since praxis is the ultimate arbiter of theoria, one may question the very usefulness of doing theory at all. This familiar topic has recently involved a dozen American critics from opposing camps11 although, after two generations which have witnessed at least two major paradigm shifts, viz. analytical philosophy and perhaps deconstruction, none of the new pragmatists-most of whom being literary critics rather than philosophers by profession-would subscribe to the scientific (in Richard Rorty's word, 'scientistic' 12) method coupled with evolutionism. Dewey himself has

The well-known distinction of primary modeling system versus secondary modeling system suggested ... more The well-known distinction of primary modeling system versus secondary modeling system suggested by Lotman and others (Lotman 1977) is a lasting legacy of the Ta rtu School's that has been adhered to, modified, and refuted by semioticians of culture and nature (Sebeok 1991, 1994, Sebeok and Danesi 2000). Adherence aside, modifications and refutations have focused on the issue whether or not language is a primary modeling system (hereinafter PMS) and, if not, what alternative can be made available to replace it. For both biosemiosis and anthroposemiosis, language can only be a secondary modeling system (hereinafter SMS) on top of the biological experience of Unwelt. As Sebeok and Danesi have recently observed: [L]anguage is, by definition, a secondary cohesive modeling system providing humans with the resources for extending primary forms ad infinitum. From a biosemiotic perspective, the language code can be defined as the cohesive system providing the modeling resources for conv...

Chinese Semiotic Studies, 2014

This essay traces the reception of Tartu semiotics in the Chinesespeaking world, including Mainla... more This essay traces the reception of Tartu semiotics in the Chinesespeaking world, including Mainland China and Taiwan. Our preliminary survey covers materials of three main categories: (1) research projects, (2) postgraduate degree theses, and (3) publications in Chinese and other languages. A number of common features in cross-cultural reception are identified, such as the temporal gap in theory travelling, the role of a third language mediating source and target languages, the phenomenon of negative influence, and the political interference with the introduction and reception of foreign cultural products. Because of its predominant interest in the dynamics of culture as sign system and inter-systemic dialogue, Tartu Semiotics is becoming increasingly attractive to the growing Chinese semiotic community.

Comparative Literature Studies, 2006

homepage.ntu.edu.tw

Page 1. Preliminary draft: not for citation or quotation without express permission of the author... more Page 1. Preliminary draft: not for citation or quotation without express permission of the author A LOVER'S DISCOURSE VERSUS STORY: SU MAN-SHU'S THE BROKEN HAIRPIN Chang Han-liang National Taiwan University ...

Juri Lotman's well-known distinction of primary modeling system versus secondary modeling system ... more Juri Lotman's well-known distinction of primary modeling system versus secondary modeling system is a lasting legacy of his that has been adhered to, modified, and refuted by semioticians of culture and nature. Adherence aside, modifications and refutations have focused on the issue whether or not language is a primary modeling system, and, if not, what alternatives can be made available to replace it. As Sebeok would concur, for both biosemiosis and anthroposemiosis, language can only be a secondary modeling system on top of the biological experience of Umwelt or human sensory system. This paper proposes to explore the possibility of a "preverbal" modeling system suggested by Lotman's spatial concept of semiosphere, and discuss its implications in cross-cultural dialogue.

1 Anna Aragno 2 Marcello Barbieri 3 Gérard Battail 4 Leonardo Bich 5 Marcos Buckeridge 6 Han-lian... more 1 Anna Aragno 2 Marcello Barbieri 3 Gérard Battail 4 Leonardo Bich 5 Marcos Buckeridge 6 Han-liang Chang 7 Joachim De Beule 8 Peter Dittrich 9 Wanderley dos Santos 10 Isabel Ferreira 11 Elena Fimmel 12 Simone Giannerini 13 Mario Giampietro 14 Louis Goldberg 15 Diego Gonzalez 16 Dennis Görlich 17 Markus Gumbel 18 Jannie Hofmeyr 19 Jean-Luc Jestin 20 Stefan Kühn 21 João Carlos Major 22 David Monacchi 23 Sonja Prohaska 24 Hervé Seligmann 25 Candice Shelby 26 Peter Stadler 27 Liz Stillwaggon Swan 28 Lutz Strüngmann 29 Morten Tønnessen 30 Peter Wills 31 Andrew Winters