Doğanın Dillerini Çözümlemek: Çevre Göstergebilimi
Özet Görüntüleme: 40 / PDF İndirme: 15
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14567964Anahtar Kelimeler:
Çevre göstergebilimi, biyoloji göstergebilimi, çevrebilimsel göstergebilim, çevre iletişimi, sürdürülebilirlik göstergebilimiÖzet
Çevre göstergebilimi, çevre üzerine söylemlerin çözümlemesine katkıda bulunarak bu söylemlerin çevre üzerine edimleri nasıl sunduğunu ele almaya katkıda bulunabilecek, çevrebilimsel pratiklerin, metinlerin ve nesnelerin çözümlemesini gerçekleştirebilecek, canlı ve çevresi arasındaki etkileşimleri inceleyebilecek düzeyde bir alandır. Çevre göstergebiliminin tanıtılması ve bu konuda yapılacak olan çalışmaların teşvik edilmesi de evrenimizi bekleyen çevre felaketlerinin çok tartışıldığı günümüzde büyük önem taşımaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, yaşam kaynağımız olan doğa ve birey arasındaki bağlantıyı göstergebilim ışığında ortaya koymak ve ülkemizde çevre göstergebilimi çalışmalarının yayılmasının önünü açmaktır. Çalışma, çevre göstergebiliminin araştırma sorularına ve kazanımlarına, çevrebilimsel öğeler konusunda ortaya koyduğu araştırma olanaklarına odaklanmaktadır.
Referanslar
Albayrak, T., Caber, M., Moutinho, L., & Herstein, R. (2011). The influence of skepticism on green purchase behavior. International journal of business and social science, 2(13), ss.189-197.
Antrop, M. (2013). A brief history of landscape research. İçinde P. Howard, I. Thompson, E. Waterton & Mick Atha (Ed.), The Routledge companion to landscape studies. Routledge. (ss. 1-15).
Baer, E. (1992). Editing the text of a disease: Semiotic and ethical aspects of therapeutic genetic engineering. İçinde T.A. Sebeok & J. Umiker-Sebeok (Ed.), Biosemiotics: The semiotic web 1991. de Gruyter Mouton. (ss. 15-25).
Baltzi, T., Kostarella, I., & Skamnakis, A. (2023). The semiotics of sustainability in the Greek media. Trends in media and technology, 4(2), 80-97.
Bolka-Tabary, L. (2012). Le changement climatique à la télévision : de la science à la fiction. Communication & langages, (2), 53-67.
Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature, and method. University of California Press.
Catellani, A. (2011). Environmentalists NGOs and the construction of the culprit: Semiotic analysis. Journal of communication management, 15(4), 280-297.
Catellani, A. (2016). Sémiotique de la communication environnementale. İçinde T. Libaert (Ed.), La Communication environnementale. CNRS Éd. (ss. 77-93).
Cosgrove, D. (2003). Landscape: ecology and semiosis. İçinde H. Palang &G. Fry (Ed.), Landscape imtefaces: Cultıral heritage in chancing landscapes. Springer Netherlands. (ss. 15-2).
Cox, R., & Depoe, S. (2015). Emergence and growth of the “field” of environmental communication. İçinde The Routledge handbook of environment and communication. Routledge. (ss. 33-45).
Craig, G. (2019). Media, sustainability, and everyday life. Springer.
Dansereau, P. (1973). La Terre des hommes et le paysage intérieur. Leméac.
De Freitas Netto, S. V.; Sobral, M. F. F.; Ribeiro, A. R. B. & Soares, G. R. D. L. (2020). Concepts and forms of greenwashing: A systematic review. Environmental sciences Europe, 32(1), 1-12.
Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse: the dozen most serious environmental problems and what we can do about them. Skeptic (Altadena, CA), 11(3), 36-42.
Du Plessis, G. (2021). Invisibility, colors, snow: Arctic biosemiotics and the violence of climate change. Theory, culture & society, 38(7-8), 167-188.
Farina, A. (2021). Ecosemiotic landscape: a novel perspective for the toolbox of environmental humanities. Cambridge University Press.
Farina, A., Santolini, R., Pagliaro, G., Scozzafava, S., & Schipani, I. (2005). Eco-semiotics: A new field of competence for ecology to overcome the frontier between environmental complexity and human culture in the Mediterranean. Israel journal of plant sciences, 53(3-4), 167-175.
Favareau, D. (2009). Essential readings in biosemiotics: Anthology and commentary. Springer.
Fodor, F. (2012). Les jeunes face au changement climatique dans l’imaginaire romanesque. Communication & langages, 172, 83-95. https://doi.org/10.4074/S0336150012002062
Gaston, K. J. (Ed.). (2010). Urban ecology. Oxford University Press.
Greimas, A. & Courtés, J. (1979). Sémiotique. Dictionnaire raisonné de la théorie du langage. Hachette Université.
Hansen, A. (2015). Communication, media, and the social construction of the environment. İçinde The Routledge handbook of environment and communication. Routledge. (ss. 26-29).
Harris, G. (2007). Seeking sustainability in an age of complexity. Cambridge University Press.
Hess-Lüttich, E. W. (2016). Urban discourse–city space, city language, city planning: Eco-semiotic approaches to the discourse analysis of urban renewal. Σημειωτκή-Sign systems studies, 44(1-2), 12-33.
Hoffmeyer, J. (2008). Biosemiotics. İçinde Examination into the signs of life and the life of signs. University of Scranton Press.
Hornborg, A. (2001). Vital signs: An ecosemiotic perspective on the human ecology of Amazonia. Sign systems studies, 29(1), 121-152.
Jeanneret Y. (2019). Recourir à la démarche sémio-communicationnelle dans l’analyse des médias. İçinde B. Lafon (Ed.), Médias et médiatisation. Analyser les médiasimprimés, audiovisuels, numériques. Presses universitaires de Grenoble. (ss. 105-135).
Kull K. (2000). An introduction to phytosemiotics: Semiotic botany and vegetative sign systems. Sign systems studies, 28, 326-350. https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2000.28.18.
Kull K. (2005). Semiosphere and dual ecology: Paradoxes of communication. Sign systems studies, 33(1), 175-189.
Kull, K. (1992). Biosemiotics: Semiotic 1991. İçinde T.A. Sebeok & J. Umiker-Sebeok (Ed.), Evolution and semiotics. De Gruyter Mouton. (ss. 221-233).
Kull, K. (1998). Semiotic ecology: Different natures in the semiosphere. Sign systems studies, 26(1), 344–371.
Kull, K. (1998). Semiotic ecology: Different natures in the semiosphere. Sign systems studies, 26, 344-371.
Kull, K. (1999). Biosemiotics in the twentieth century: A view from biology. Semiotica, 127(1), 385-414.
Kull, K. (2008). Semiotic ecology. İçinde S. E. Jørgensen & B. D. Fath (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Ecology. Elsevier. (ss. 3210-3214).
Kull, K. (2016). The biosemiotic concept of the species. Biosemiotics, 9, 61–71.
Kull, K. (2020). Scientific results in biosemiotics: Then and now. Tartu semiotics library, (20), 98-111.
Lagopoulos, A. P. (1986). Semiotic urban models and modes of production: A socio-semiotic approach. İçinde The city and the sign: An introduction to urban semiotics. Columbia University Press. (ss. 176-201).
Levesque, S. & Caccamo, E. (2017). Sémiotique et écologie: une alliance naturelle. Cygne noir, (5), 1-10.
Lindström, K., Kull, K., & Palang, H. (2014). Semiotic study of landscapes: An overview from semiology to ecosemiotics. Sign systems studies, 39(2/4), 12-36.
Lotman Y. (1999) La Sémiosphère. Presses universitaires de Limoges.
Lotman Y. (2005). On the semiosphere (W. Clark, Çev.). Sign system studies, 33(1), 205-229.
Lotman, J. (1976). Culture and information. Dispositio, 1(3), 213-215.
Magnus, R. & Remm, T. (2018). Urban ecosemiotics of trees: Why the ecological alien species paradigm has not gained ground in cities? Sign systems studies, 46(2/3), 319-342.
Maran T. (2020). Ecosemiotics: the study of signs in changing ecologies. Cambridge University Press.
Maran T. & Kull K. (2014). Ecosemiotics: main principles and current developments. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 96(1), 41-50.
Maran T., Martinelli D. & Turovski A. (Ed.). (2012). Readings in zoosemiotics. Semiotics, communication and cognition (vol. 8).De Gruyter Mouton.
Maran, T. (2010). An ecosemiotic approach to nature writing. PAN : Philosophy, activism, nature, 7, 79-87.
Maran, T. (2017). La sémiotisation de la matière. Une zone hybride entre l’écocritique matérialiste et la biosémiotique. Cygne noir, (5), 37-57.
Maran, T. (2018). Two decades of ecosemiotics in Tartu. Sign systems studies, 46(4), 630-639.
Maran, T. (2023). Semiotics in ecology and environmental studies. Bloomsbury semiotics volume 2: Semiotics in the natural and technical sciences, 2, 57-73.
Nöth, W. (1998). Ecosemiotic. Sign systems studies, 26, 332-343.
Nöth, W. (2012). Signs from the life of organisms, species, languages, and the media. İçinde T. Maran, K. Lindstrom & R. Magnus (Ed.), Semiotics in the wild: Essays in honour of Kalevi Kull on the occasion of his 60th birthday. University of Tartu Press. (ss.123-130).
Nöth, W. & Kull, K. (2001). Introduction: Special issue on semiotics of nature. Sign systems studies, 29(1), 9-11.
Oelschlaeger, M. (2001). Ecosemiotics and the sustainability transition. Sign systems studies, 29(1), 219-236.
Ourahmoune, N., Binninger, A. S., & Robert, I. (2014). Brand narratives, sustainability, and gender: A socio-semiotic approach. Journal of macromarketing, 34(3), 313-331.
Panzaru, O. (2008). Introduction to ecosemiotics. Seria Agronomie, 51(3), 418-422.
Pearce, W. & De Gaetano, C. (2021). Google Images, climate change, and the disappearance of humans. Diseña, 19, 3-3.
Peirce, C. S. (1931). The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, (Vol. 1-6). (C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss, Ed.). Harvard University Press.
Pezzullo, P. C., & Cox, J. R. (2018). Environmental communication and the public sphere. Sage.
Pignier, N. (2020a). Approche éco-sémiotique du convivialisme à l’ère du numérique. İçinde N. Wallenhorst & S. Mellot (Ed.), Vers un numérique convivialiste. Le Bord de l'eau. (ss. 45-61).
Pignier, N., (2017). Le Design et le vivant. Cultures, agricultures et milieux paysagers. Editions Publibook.
Pignier, N., (2019, Haziran 3-4). Entre sens du vivant et vie du Sens (Sözlü bildiri). Construire le sens, Bâtir les sociétés Konferansı, Norbert Zongo Üniversitesi, Burkina Faso.
Pignier, N., (2020b). Le sens, le vivant ou ce qui nous relie à la Terre. Interfaces numériques, 9(1), 1-37.
Rice, L. (2011). Black-boxing sustainability. Journal of sustainable development, 4(4), 32.
Sampawendé, B. G. (2020, September). Approche éco-sémiotique de la perception dans une initiative paysanne : la ”maison de semences” communautaire de Youtenga”. Perceptions (Journées thématiques de l’Ecole doctorale SLPCE Sciences du Langage, Psychologie, Cognition, Education (SLPCE)), Professeur Didier TSALA-EFFA, Limoges.
Sebeok, T. A. & J. Umiker-Sebeok (Ed.). (1992). Biosemiotics: The semiotic web 1991. Mouton de Gruyter.
Siewers, A. K. (2014). Re-imagining nature: Environmental humanities and ecosemiotics. University Press Co-publishing Division.
Szabo, S. & Webster, J. (2021). Perceived greenwashing: the effects of green marketing on environmental and product perceptions. Journal of Business Ethics, (171), 719-739.
Tian, H. & Wang, Y. (2022). Ecosemiotics and biosemiotics: a comparative study. Language and semiotic studies, 8(3), 130-144.
Trumbo, C. & Kim, S. (2015). Agenda-setting with environmental issues. İçinde A. Hansen & Rç Cox (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of environment and communication. Routledge. (ss. 332-344).
Vignola, Gabriel, (2017). Écocritique, écosémiotique et représentation du monde en littérature, Cygne noir, (5), 11-36.
Von Uexküll, J. (2010) [1934]. Milieu animal et milieu humain. Payot & Rivages.
Wheeler, W. (2006). Figures in a landscape: Biosemiotics and the ecological evolution of cultural activity. L’Esprit créateur, 46(2), 100-110.
İndir
Yayınlanmış
Nasıl Atıf Yapılır
Sayı
Bölüm
Lisans
Telif Hakkı (c) 2024 TAMGA-Türkiye Göstergebilim Araştırmaları Dergisi
Bu çalışma Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ile lisanslanmıştır.