Join today and start reading your favorite books for Free!
Rate this book!
Write a review?
Contains one of the best jokes I know. To paraphrase:Two worn-out dogs with mangy coats run into a third dog on the streets of Moscow. This third dog has a gorgeous, shiny coat, and appears well-fed. The two dogs walk up to the third and ask, "How the hell did you get so much food? We're starving out here!" The third dog goes, "Well, there's this doctor Pavlov who runs this psychology institute. I walk in and he puts me in a warm room and rings a bell. All I have to do then is drool a little, an...
Definitely targeted an an audience already familiar with linguistics theory - be prepared to use your dictionary and favorite translation program.Deep, systematic theory of semiotics that breaks down into theories of code production and theories of sign production.I used it in a graduate class as an intro to semiotics and it was way too specialist and detailed for the purposes for which we needed it. I think, after discussion, that my students still got a lot out of it as it enabled us to talk a...
Nobody tell Escalante I gave this 3 stars.
Impenetrable. But that's probably me and not him--he's brilliant, but I'm new to this and this is not a primer. I read it because I had to, at about 10 pages per hour, and they were very long hours. It's a pet peeve of mine when someone is in essence lecturing on a topic and they slip in and out of foreign languages for paragraphs at a time, then go on to build their own arguements on the untranslated text. Of course if you're reading this of your own voilition, maybe you've already read everyth...
Extremely technical and demanding, not to mention a bit dry, this book is worth the effort if you are interested in philosophy of language and understanding ideas. I read it in a class on semiotics so I imagine it would be even harder flying solo. I have heard "misreadings" is more indicative of Eco's personality and writing than this book is.
This book makes me feel sooo stupid.
Before there was linguistics, there was semiotics.
I feel like Eco's book occupies a sort of awkward position for a lot of semioticians. On one hand, it's overly descriptive for a lot of purposes, and this becomes evident when you look at critical theorists who utilise semiotics, i.e Barthes, Althusser, that there really is no particular need to delve into as much detail as does Eco, and so therefore it seems more useful to isolate certain portions of Eco's text for reference (i.e for an ideological critique, his sections on ideology). But on th...
I would strongly recommend this book to anyone who is a fan of language philosophy as the perfect counter point in which to observe what language does do rather than to meditate on how it does it. The other thing that is so refreshing about Eco is just how readable he is at the same time as conveying a great many very difficult concepts: Eco has no need to disguise ideas in murky rhetoric because he is a genuine intellectual who understands a great many complex phenomena.There are of course many...
Do you need to know the intricacies of every counter- point Eco thinks if in terms of his theories? Hold this book two inches from your face because it demands you abandon the world. The last line is the only useful tidbit
I picked up Umberto Eco's Theory of Semiotics as an introduction to formal semiotics because I found the discussions of semiotic topics in The Name of the Rose interesting and pretty well-presented, so I thought Eco would be a good source for more information on the subject. He does in fact hit on a lot of the same points he would later put into the mouth of William of Baskerville, though in much greater depth and (of course) in the jargon of modern linguistics rather than mediaeval scholasticis...
There arent many books this complete on the subject, and this is the more scientifically applicable approaches. If someone has an ideological bent, however, one should consider Saussure's lectures first. My main complaint is that this book could have been better organized into more modular chunks beyond "Theory of Codes" "Theory of Signs" and "Production of Signs". It's hard to swallow all of this at once, and some of the subsections feel kind of nonsequitor-esque initially. There's not as much
Eco has some very fun lines in this book and he reminded me that language is more like a land with boundaries that are constantly moving rather than a static tool, and that to speak is to participate in fighting for those boundaries, however little power we as individuals have. Anyway, it's so dense, though, that most of it went over my head, so I probably wouldn't recommend it to anybody but people who care deeply about learning about semiotics. But still, this made me want to read Name of the
A complex and difficult read but thought provoking and worthwhile.
I suppose I'm rating Eco more than I am the book. Was ok.
This was a difficult read, I didn't finish it all the way and had to return it to the library. Many of the terms were not defined and had to be learned from repeated context. It is not an introductory book on the subject, but an argument developed in detail within the field. It was thought provoking, but I can't really recommend it as a good book to read while nursing - ACK!?! what on earth was I thinking!?!I blogged about how this book relates to art:http://www.artandtheeveryday.net/Arta...
I won't say this is going to make a great movie.... And by all means avoid giving it as an anniversary gift to all but the most cerebral social misfits. But for those of who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing we like.
It wasn't a hard reading, but of course you have to know about semiotics already. I found the notes and the introduction very helpful on how to read the book. I enjoy only the very firsts chaptera then it got a little boring and very technical but again, this is not a novel.
Reading this book is a professional obligation. It is tormenting me. I am simply not convinced by this theory. I have read pages and pages and do not understand what this field is about. I think it is acacemic bullshit. I should get round to reading one of his novels.
On symbols and meanings, the authoritative text. Would recommend any/all books by U. Eco
I'm going to go back and read Hjemslev before trying this again...
This is my current challenge.
Pretty difficult book if you're starting in linguistic.
Very good book but a difficult read.
What a bore...
Excruciatingly hard to understand [dimmy]
yeah, uhm, Eco's irony is always so crassly insistent______but EHY, good.
A must for anyone studying Semiotics or Linguistics. Not a novel !
I picked up a cheap used copy, read the first few pages, and found them dense. I like the idea of semiotics, reading the signs around us, but this may prove too technical for me.
This book's located in my "horror" shelf. I hated it.