查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- 空間文化形式的邏輯解析:評介[ Mark gottdiener and Alexandors Ph. Lagopoulous]《城市與符號》
- Contesting the Sacred and the Profane: A Semiotic Analysis of the Logic of Queer Practice
- 學生程式設計能力影響因素之研究--以崑山技術學院資訊管理系為例
- 習性(Habitus)與偶成性(Kontingenz):P. Bourdieu與N. Luhmann的理論介紹
- 娼妓研究的另類提問
- Analysis of Referral Source, Severity, and Return Among the Elderly in Rural Primary Care
- 經籍訓解上的悖論--論「反訓」的類型與成因
- An Analysis of Referral Initiative, Severity, and the Return of Older Population in a Tertiary Teaching Hospital
- 淺談動態可靠度分析
- 高精度射出機專用控制器技術
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 空間文化形式的邏輯解析:評介[ Mark gottdiener and Alexandors Ph. Lagopoulous]《城市與符號》=A Logical Critique on the Cultural form of Space: Reviewing «The City and the Sign» |
---|---|
作 者 | 王鴻祥; | 書刊名 | 城市與設計學報 |
卷 期 | 4 民87.03 |
頁 次 | 頁253-274 |
分類號 | 545.5 |
關鍵詞 | 符號學; 空間的文化形式; 邏輯; Semiology; The cultural form of space; Logic; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 在採用不同知識表達與一定程度簡化的限制下,本文針對馬克.葛岱勒與亞歷山大.拉哥波羅斯《城市與符號》一書關於空間文化形式的符號學研究批判,嘗試提出一個邏輯解析。主要的方法是將書中所提及的各種研究取向之論點理解為一些邏輯陳述,區分出設基與定理二類。結果發現:一、該書的對立面應為在設基與定理二個層次皆未出現任何交集的開文.林區之研究取向。二、葛氏與拉氏的社會符號學研究可理解為在其設基系統中增加唯物論,做為其批判的主軸。三、此邏輯解析可以凸顯葛氏與拉氏的批判中說了什麼和什麼沒說。四、葛氏與拉氏的批判呈現出,各種不同的符號學研究取向存在一種有悖於古典邏輯的非單質性,此種特質助於我們體認其批判與批判對象的複雜性。最後,本文總結此邏輯解析在方法論上的潛力與限制。 |
英文摘要 | This paper summarized the issues on the cultural form of space in the book entitled “The City and the Sign: An Introduction to Urban Semiotics,” edited by Mark Gottdiener and Alexandros Ph. Lagopoulos. A logical analysis on the various approaches to semiology depicted in this book was introduced, though it might remain some problems about knowledge representation and simplification. In this analysis, the critiques on these approaches were interpreted into a set of logical statements, including axioms and theorems. The findings of this paper were given as follows. (1) Kevin Lynch's approach could be seen as the major antithesis to this book since there were no intersection of their axioms or theorems. (2) The addition of ‘materialism’ into Gottdiener and Lagopoulos' axiom set consisted of the backbone of their approach. (3) What Gottdiener and Lagopoulos have said and have not yet said in this book could become more explicit in this analysis. (4) A nature named ‘non-monotonicity’, absent in the assumptions of classical logic, became evident in Gottdiener and Lagopoulos' critiques. Such a nature was useful to recognize the complexity of their critiques and the various semiology discourses. Finally, the implications and limits of this logical analysis were discussed. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。