• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Semioethics and Literary Writing: Between Peirce and Bakhtin

    2017-03-11 05:55:24SusanPetrilli
    Language and Semiotic Studies 2017年1期

    Susan Petrilli

    The University of Bari Aldo Moro, Italy

    Semioethics and Literary Writing: Between Peirce and Bakhtin

    Susan Petrilli

    The University of Bari Aldo Moro, Italy

    In the early phase of its development, semiotics was understood as “semeiotics” and studied symptoms. Today we propose to recover this ancient dimension of semiotics focussed on health, care and the quality of life, and reorganise it insemioethicalterms. In fact, as interference increases in communication between the historico-social sphere and the biological, between culture and nature, between the semiosphere and the biosphere, the need for a “semioethical turn” in the study of signs with an understanding of the relation of signs to values has become ever more urgent.

    Literary writing is particularly interesting from this perspective thanks to its extraordinary capacity to stage values that animate life to the best in terms of the properly human. These values are characterized by high degrees of opening to the other, by responsiveness/answerability toward the other, by a propensity for listening to the other, for giving time to the other.

    Construed on relations of distancing and at once of affinity among signs, metaphor—or more broadly imagery, figurative language—is emblematic of literary writing, though not limited to it. As amply demonstrated by Victoria Welby, far from serving as a mere decorative supplement, the figurative dimension of expression is structural to signifying processes, to the acquisition itself of knowledge and understanding. Welby’s work may be read as prefiguring recent trends in language studies as represented by cognitive linguistics today.

    Mikhail Bakhtin has also made an important contribution in this sense. He has developed the study of signs in terms of moral philosophy and, in fact, his approach to semiotics is easily oriented in the sense of semioethics. In such a framework he evidences the close relationship between sign studies and literary writing. For a full understanding of the sense of Bakhtin’s approach to studies on verbal language, it is important to highlight his insistence on the inexorable interconnection—which he describes as direct and dialectical—between literary language and life.

    Bakhtin deals with questions of literary writing from the perspective of literature itself. His excursions outside the field of literature do not imply recourse to an external viewpointwith claims to offering a description that is totalizing and systemic. On the contrary, Bakhtin remains inside literature and never leaves it; literature is his observation post, the perspective from which he conducts his critique, which is anti-systemic and detotalizing. Bakhtin reveals the internal threads that connect literature to the extra-literary, thematizing the condition of structural intertextuality in the connection between literary texts and extra-literary texts. In Bakhtin’s view, the literary text subsists and develops in its specificity as a literary text thanks to its implication with the external universe. Such implication is also understood in an ethical sense.

    Charles Peirce’s semiotics as well has a focus on the relation between cognition, the interpersonal relation, communication and moral value. He evidences the development of signifying pathways (the open-ended chain of interpretants) which he describes as potentially infinite, the role of the imagination and musement in abductive inferential processes, of similarity (in particular the agapastic) in metaphor, and of metaphor in abduction with its capacity for invention and innovation. All this makes Peirce’sCollected Papersanother precious source for reflection, together with Bakhtin’s texts, on the relation between semioethics and literary writing.

    answerability/responsiveness, cognition, creativity, intertextuality, listening

    1. Semiotics and Semioethics

    In the early phase of its development semiotics was understood as “semeiotics” and studied symptoms. Today we propose to recover this ancient dimension of semiotics focussed on health, care and the quality of life, and reorganise it insemioethicalterms. In fact, as interference grows in communication between the historico-social sphere and the biological, between culture and nature, between the semiosphere and the biosphere, the need for a “semioethical turn” in the study of signs with an understanding of the relation of signs to values has become ever more urgent.

    Symptoms were the first signs to be studied scientifically. As such they constitute a historically important category for the beginnings of the science of signs, semiotics. From this point of view, let us evoke the work of the “father of medecine”, Hippocrates of Kos (c. 460 BC-c. 370 BC), and of the physician and philosopher (as he defined himself), Galen of Pergamon (129 AD-c. 200 or 2016 AD). “Semiotics” today indicates the general science of signs according to a tradition that extends from John Locke (1632-1704) to Charles S. Peirce (1839-1914) to Charles Morris (1902-1979) and Thomas A. Sebeok (1920-2001), and also includes the Eastern European traditions. Instead, “semeiotics”(or “symptomatology”) indicates that branch of medecine that deals with symptoms. Semeiotics was the first among the “sectorial semiotics” or “special semiotics” to be developed. We could even make the claim that semiotics today originates from medical semeiotics (cf. Sebeok, 2001).

    The Hippocratic conception of the physician, as evidenced by the “Hippocratic oath”,foresees a close connection between medicine and ethics (see Petrilli, 2016b, pp. 1-4). This is not simply a question of professional ethics. In other words, reference is not only to the physician in his role as a physician, but rather involves him as a person, his behaviour in everyday life (see Hippocrates,DecorumVII, andPreceptsVI), his devotion to others to the point of offering his assistance, even free, not only to those who belong to his community, but also to the foreigner. “Sometimes you will even offer your assistance for free, and if the occasion presents itself you will assist the foreigner in financial strife as well, you will give him all your support. For where there is love of man, there is also love of the art” (PreceptsVII).

    Thomas A. Sebeok (1921-2001) connected the sign science to medical semeiotics and juxtapposed the “minor tradition” in the science of signs represented by Saussurean semiology to the “major tradition”, thus described with reference to both its temporal and thematic extension. The latter as represented by Locke, Peirce, and Morris, as anticipated, can be traced back to scientific studies on the sign and symptom in ancient medical semeiotics with Hippocrates and Galen, precisely.

    On the basis of the assumption, the axiom that where there is life there are signs, Sebeok successfully introduced a whole new vision according to which the sphere of semiotics converges with the sphere of the life sciences. As a result of Sebeok’s reflections—amply inspired by Charles Peirce and Charles Morris as well as by Roman Jakobson—both our conception of the semiotic sphere and that of the history of semiotics have changed radically.

    Semiotics today owes its current configuration as “global semiotics” to Sebeok (2001; see Petrilli, 2012a, pp. 71-120; 2014b, pp. 251-258). By virtue of this “global” or “holistic”approach, we have pointed out that semiotic research on the “l(fā)ife of signs” is directly connected to the “signs of life”. From a global semiotic perspective, semiosis (that is, the relation or process or situation by which something is a sign) and life converge. In fact, semiosis is described by Sebeok as the criterial attribute of life. Consequently, global semiotics presents a critique of semiotic theories and practices of the anthropocentric and glottocentric orders.

    The connection betweensemioticsandsemeiotics(the study of that particular type of sign constituted by symptoms and which in its archeology counts Hippocrates and Galen among its most representative names), we believe, cannot be limited to a question of the mere historiographical order. This connection is not simply about tracing roots and recovering the memory of a discipline.

    Once medical semeiotics is considered as one of the most ancient branches of semiotics, indeed its starting point, the connection to reflection on signs in general implies a great responsibility for the semiotician. This connection invests the sign science with a commitment that goes well beyond the limits of “theoretical reason” to concern “practical reason”: in fact this connection also involves a commitment of the ethical order to concernthe health and the quality of life.

    The quality of life is a specifically human problem. And it is an ethical problem.Responsibility for life is specifically human, specific to humankind: and responsibility is responsibility for life over the entire planet. In fact insofar as he is the onlysemiotic animal, in this sense a unique animal—capable not only oflivingon signs, but ofreflectingon signs—the human being answers for signs and life (signs and life converge) concerning all living beings, and does so with his or her very own life, as science today evidences ever more clearly.

    The term “symptom” has been transferred from strictly medical and somatic circles to the psychological—think above all of Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis—and to the social sphere. InGrundrisse der Kritik der politischen ?konomie(1953 [1857-1858]), the section dedicated to machines, Karl Marx studies the automatic machine as a symptom of the metamorphosis of work in its capitalist configuration. Machines today,“intelligent machines capable of semiotics” and not only of semiosis, can be considered as the symptom of a transformation that is underway in the man-machine relationship (see Petrilli, 2014a, pp. 248-253; see also Petrilli & Ponzio, 2005, pp. 3-6, 540-550, 563).

    The Polish philosopher and semiotician, Adam Schaff (1913-2006) describes unemployment in today’s world as structural, caused by automation as it characterizes the“second industrial revolution” (when the automatic machine replaces human intelligence). Schaff reads this development, “structural” and not “contingent” unemployment, as a symptom of the end of capitalism.

    With Freud himself even the most intentionally communicative of signs, the verbal sign, presents itself as a symptom. We could say that semioethics identifies symptoms in “semiosis of information” and in “semiosis of communication”, and not only in what constitutes “semiosis of symptomatization” understood in the strict sense (see Petrilli & Ponzio, 2002, 2007).

    Therefore, we could make the claim thatsemioethics is interested in symptoms relating to life over the planet, to life today in its current historical-social phase of development, in globalization(Petrilli & Ponzio, 2002, 2003, 2010; Petrilli, 2010, pp. 3-47; 2015b, pp. 319-313). In this context interrelation of every single portion of life over the planet with every other is such that implication between the parts and the totality has reached the highest degree ever.

    2. Semioethics and Significs. Victoria Welby

    With the term “significs”, Victoria Welby (1837-1912) signalled the direction in which she believed the study of sign and meaning should be more strongly developed (see Petrilli, 2015a), in our terminology, in the direction of “semioethics”. With her analyses of meaning intosense,meaning, andsignificance, Welby at the end of the 19th century had already developed her own research on sign and meaning in this direction, ultimately, that is, with a view to the relation in human signifying behaviour between signs and values.

    This perspective characterizes all of Welby’s research contributing to a larger vision than that offered by semiotics, given her focus on significance. In fact, the term“significance” designates the disposition for valuation, the value attributed to something, its relevance, worth, import, the value of meaning itself, the condition of being significant: all this is determined with the human being’s involvement in the life of signs, both at the theoretical level and the pragmatic-operative level. In a letter to Peirce dated 18 November 1903, Welby maintains thatSignificsis a “practical extension” of semiotics, reporting that the Italian philosopher and mathematician Giovanni Vailati (1863-1909) was also interested in logic in the same sense.

    In her book of 1903,What Is Meaning?Welby explains that

    Significs concerns the practical mind, e.g. in business or political life, more closely and inevitably than it does the speculative mind. For the thinker may go on through all life turning over his own or others’ thoughts and working them logically out. But the man of action must translate thought into deed as fast as ideas come to him; and he may ruin the cause he would serve by missing the significance of things. (Welby, 1983 [1903], p. 8)

    Therefore significs may be considered as a critique of practical reason united to the critique of pure reason, in the sense that it aims to give indications for responsible human behaviour. Translation of thought into praxis must be the fruit of interpretation of the sign, reinforced by awareness of the sense that sign has specifically for its interpreter. The question “what does it mean?”—not only for the specialist, but also for the everyday man, he too a potential significian—tells of the need to account for the sign’s meaning, worth and value for each one of us, translating thought into action in the light of such awareness. As the study of significance, significs invites us to develop a participative approach to our methodics of everyday life and of research. This approach must be both “scientific”and “ethical”, that is, responsible and reasoned, always ready to reconsider and to call to question, as such completely free of any form of dogmatism.

    This is why we can claim that “significs” is “semioethics”, not in the sense that it concerns ethics as a sphere in itself, or human behaviour from the point of view of morals, but in the sense that ethics itself—the other—constitutes the point of view of significs. In other words, meaning as the potential for significance and infinite interpretation, and for conscious representation, constitutes the condition as much as the measure of the semantic-pragmatic validity of all fact, experience, thought and human behaviour.

    The connection between signification and value is a constant in Welby’s writings. She believes it subtends the human capacity to establish relations among things, with ourselves and with others, and to translate interpretations uninterruptedly into other spheres of knowledge and practical action. This induces us to read the proposal of a new form of humanism in significs, which is inscribed in the analysis itself of the production of values in signifying processes.

    To comprehend reality, to comprehend it in terms ofparticipationandinvolvement, the concept will not suffice. On the basis of assimilative, aggregational likeness, the concept unites what appears to be identical, thereby cancelling all otherness, difference,singularity. Understanding requires themetaphor. The metaphor operates on the basis of likeness, similarity of the associative, elective, sympathetic type. Charles S. Peirce (1839-1914)—who considered the metaphor as an expression of the type of sign he denominated“icon”—would say that the metaphor operates on the basis of “agapastic” association (from“agape”); metaphor is generated on the basis of attraction between the terms it associates, while leaving them in their mutual otherness, difference, singularity.

    Construed on relations of distancing and at once of affinity among signs, metaphor—or more broadly imagery, figurative language—is emblematic of literary writing, though not limited to it. As amply demonstrated by Victoria Welby, far from serving as a mere decorative supplement, the figurative dimension of expression is structural to signifying processes, to the acquisition itself of knowledge and understanding. Welby’s work may be read as prefiguring recent trends in language studies as represented by cognitive linguistics today.

    3. Semioethics and Literary Writing. The Bakhtinian Conception of Literature

    Metaphor is structural to literary writing together with other “figures of discourse”, amongst which is allegory. Through inventiveness, parody, irony, experimentation in the construction of the fantastic, literary writing opens to otherness, to depiction of a vision that is other with respect to the dominant vision of reality in the world, and of the world, the “world-as-it-is”. Literary writing addresses the question of depicting, of portraying the discourse of the other, and consequently the question of listening to the other, and of dialogue. Artistic value cannot be reached by a vision of the world, by viewpoints or values centred on the self, the monological and totalizing self. Instead, artistic value requires the other, perspectives and values relating to the other, detotalized with respect to the self and its identity logic. From this point of view, literary writing is particularly interesting thanks to its extraordinary capacity to stage values that animate life to the best in terms of the properly human. These values in fact are characterized by high degrees of opening to the other, by responsiveness/answerability toward the other, by a propensity for listening to the other, for giving time to the other.

    Beginning from his writings of the early 1920s, “Towards a Philosophy of the Act”(see Bakhtin, 1993) and “Aesthetics of Verbal Art” (see Bakhtin, 1986), based on a philosophical standpoint Mikhail M. Bakhtin (1895-1975) takes the perspective of literary writing and never leaves it. He deals with questions of literary writing from the perspective of literature itself. Indeed, literary writing is the observation post from which he conducts hisanti-systemic and detotalizingcritique of the relationship between artistic discourse (whether verbal or nonverbal) and life. His excursions outside the field of literature do not imply recourse to an external viewpoint with claims to offering a totalizing and systemic description of his object of analysis, the literary text, literary writing. On the contrary, Bakhtin remains inside literature and never leaves it. In this sense literature is the perspective from which he conducts his critique, which is anti-systemic and detotalizing. Bakhtin reveals the internal threads that connect literature to the extra-literary, literary texts to life, thereby underlining the structural intertextuality of literary texts. He thematizes structural intertextuality as a characteristic of the literary text thanks to the condition of interconnectivity with the extra-literary text. In Bakhtin’s view, the literary text subsists and develops in its specificity as a literary text thanks to its implication with the external universe, in the condition ofinvolvementwith the external universe. Such implication, such involvement, is understood in theethical senseas well. His contribution on this issue is noteworthy as he develops the study of signs in terms of moral philosophy. And given his focus on the close relationship between sign studies and literary writing, thus between signs, literature and life his approach to semiotics is easily oriented in the sense of semioethics. Indeed, for an understanding of the overarching sense of Bakhtin’s approach to studies on verbal language, his insistence on the inexorable interconnection—which he describes as direct and dialectical—between literary language and life is of tantamount importance.

    Even though his main field of research is theory of literature and literary criticism, Bakhtin proceeds so as to break internal boundaries among disciplines that relate not only to literature, verbal art, but to art in general. With all his research he shows how an adequate understanding of the literary text and of the artistic in general calls for a shift outside literature and outside art according to different perspectives, a process ofextralocalization. The concept of exotopy, extralocalization (vnenachodimost’), “finding oneself outside”, “extrafindability”, plays a central role in Bakhtin’s conception of literature, from his early writings and along all the different pathways in his research (see Bakhtin, 1920-24, in Bakhtin, 1986). “Exotopy” (or “extralocalization”) in space, time, value and sense implies an alterity that does not serve the constitution of the totality, of identity, that does not complement the realization of individual consciousness, that is not functional to the sphere of the Same. Artistic activity gives expression to a special relation to the other. In artistic activity the otherness relation has a special “l(fā)ocation”,“extralocalized” and “detotalized”, in which there resounds a multiplicity of different voices that make no claims to recomposition within a monological totality. Aesthetic activity only properly begins when the author takes a position outside the event s/he is describing. Extralocalization is a necessary condition and starting point for the literary word, for artistic creation in general, as much as is participative involvement in life, in its contents and values.

    Life enters art and art responds to life in a dialogical relationship of mutual implication: it ensues that to understand the text, any text whatsoever, it will be necessary to raise the gaze and extend it across boundaries. An understanding of the literary text implies an understanding of verbal and nonverbal signs, both at a theoretical level—that of general semiotics—and of its specification in relation to the different cultural forms, popular traditions, feasts, rites, myths, cults; the literary text implies an understanding of ideologies; of the pyschological and psychoanalytical relationship between conscious and unconscious; of the problem of social stratification and of the relation among socialclasses; of the relation between history and structure; and between the genetic approach and morphological approach, etc.

    Such a method inevitably involves all the human sciences. However, Bakhtin never abandons his special interest, that is, the problem of thedialogical consistency of the wordwhich manifests itself in all its potential expressiveness, in all its semiotic consistency in the word of literary writing above all. What Bakhtin denominates the “secondary genres” of literary writing, the “complex genres”, depict “primary genres”, the “simple genres” of the direct word, the nonliterary word, where in fact depiction implies the capacity for objectification, distancing, exotopy. Through depiction (potrayal, picturing) which presupposes a shift from the logic of identity to the logic of alterity, that is, from the centre of value as represented by theIto the centre of value of the other, the word no longer converges with itself. The genres of literature evidence the polycentric nature of language, the dialogism of the word, consequently its creative and critical potential.

    Insofar as it is founded on the category of I, on identification with the subject of discourse, insofar as it is oriented according to a given thesis, a unitary project, a conclusion, cognitive discourse cannot reach the high levels of opening and otherness (in spite of its innovative and revolutionary capacities) as instead can be traced in artistic discourse.

    Cognitive processes, no doubt, also call for the category of otherness, as Bakhtin did not fail to underline at different points in his research. InRabelais and His World(1965), he evidences how in the Humanist and Renaissance era official culture opened to nonofficial culture, to popular, carnivalized culture, to culture connected with the grotesque body, and how this was essential for the birth of modern scientific knowledge, and he continued to work on this perspective through to his more recent writings (see in particular “Notes Made in 1970-71”, in Bakhtin, 1979). For what concerns the condition of opening to the other, artistic experimentation surpasses the scientific, affording an understanding of humanity (as Bakhtin says in his reflections on Dostoevsky’s “polyphonic novel”), of human experience, of our relation to others, inclusive of our relation to nature, that is altogether inaccessible from a monological perspective. From this point of view, Bakhtin makes an important distinction between Dostoevsky’s polyphony and what he baptizes as “Dostoevskyism” and its monological vision of the existent.

    The problem of value is a constant theme, a constant topic of analysis throughout Bakhtin’s research, from his early writings of the 1920s to those of the 1970s. Moreover, given that his perspective isinterdisciplinarywith a special focus onsense and value for the human person, that is, for theproperly human, his interest in the question of value is not limited to a specific field in a given human science (e.g., linguistics or theory of art and literature).

    As anticipated above, Bakhtin’s method as applied throughout all his research consists in relating fields and objects of study that may even be distant from each other, through a process of shifting and opening, rather than of englobement and closure. Such a method is dialectical in a strong sense, considering also that it recovers the connection—vitallyimportant for dialectics—with dialogism. What in this paper we have indicated as a“detotalizing method” is effectively a “dialogical-dialectical method”.

    Bakhtin placed the prefix “meta” in front of the word “l(fā)inguistics” (see, e.g., hisDostoevsky, 1963) to describe his particular approach to (verbal) language; but, in reality, it would be more appropriate to extend the prefix “meta” to all disciplinary fields involved in his research. And, in fact, he described his research as philosophical research, as critical research focussed fundamentally on conditions of possibility. For what concerns the problematic of values and the signs in which values are necessarily formulated and expressed (which is at the origin of Bakhtin’s interest in the general science of signs or semiotics), this means to take a theoretical attitude, but a theoretical attitude that is orientative of praxis as well. Bakhtin critiques the reification, the absolutization of signs and values and investigates, instead, the dialectical-dialogical processes of their production and circulation.

    A central topic of analysis inRabelais and His Worldis the “carnivalesque word”. Bakhtin evidences the corporeal dimension of the word. But the term “corporeal” can lead to misunderstanding and mystification given that it tends to evoke the body of the individual subject. Considering Bakhtin’s aim to show how the word, the body, the conscious are all interconnected among themselves and to the outside, “intercorporeal”is the better term. The word, the body, the conscious are all shaped in the relation with the other, with other bodies: from this point of view the expression “intercorporeality”is an interpretant of the concept of “dialogism”. The category of the “carnivalesque”alongside “dialogism” is pivotal in Bakhtin’s analyses of the “polyphonic novel” and of the relationship between Medieval popular comical culture and renaissance literature.

    In his monograph on Rabelais as, in truth, throughout all his writings, Bakhtin valorizes the condition of time for the other, the time of alterity, whether one’s own or the other’s, as the real social wealth. By contrast to reductive and suffocating analyses of Marxism, in his own approach Bakhtin echoes that Karl Marx who maintains that the human can only ever be fully accomplished with the end of the “reign of necessity”. Consequently, a social system that aspires to be an alternative to capitalism is a system that privilegesavailable time, that is, time for the other as a central value, as the real wealth of society, andnot work time(see Marx, 1974 [1857]). In Bakhtin’s language, this is the time of “unofficial festivity”, of carnival strictly connected to the “great time” of the literary word, the dialogical wordpar excellence, to what he calls the “great experience”of life which he believes can only arise from the condition of “dialogism”. Hence, in Bakhtin’s vision, dialogue is the incarnate, intercorporeal expression of participative involvement of one’s own body (delusorily considered as an individual body, separate and autonomous with respect to other bodies) with the body of the other. These problematics too are thematized by Bakhtin in his monograph on Dostoevsky (1963) in addition to his treatment of them in his monograph on Rabelais, and in fact they carry out a central role in the architectonics of his thought system overall.

    InRabelaid and His Worldthe condition of intercorporeity is well potrayed withBakhtin’s vision of the “grotesque body” in popular culture, in the vulgar language of the public square and in the masks of carnival. In the grotesque body, one’s own body and the body of the other, the human and the nonhuman, the animal and the vegetable, the cultural and the natural are indissolubly interconnected.

    Listening, the welcome, hospitality are necessary conditions for the quality of life and its improvement in the current situation of globalized communication (even more, for persistance of life over the planet, considering the extraordinary potential for destruction thanks to progress in technology in the present day and age). The quality of life is directly proportional to the quality of our relationships to the other, to our standards of living together with others, our neighbours whom these days more than ever before can be close in a geographical sense, but also distant and ever closer.

    Today’s global communication world is dominated by the ideology of productivity, competitiveness, velocity and efficiency. This is in net contrast with the carnivalesque conception of the world. The world of global communication is the world of individualism and egocentrism, of the logic of competition among individuals, pushed to extreme degrees, of egotistic self-interest. Production, efficiency, individualism, competition represent dominant values in today’s world. All the same, however, we cannot ignore the structural presence of the grotesque body, the condition of intercorporeity, of involvement of one’s own body with the body of others. The human vocation for the “carnivalesque”and for the “intercorporeal”, for dialogism and heteroglossia, resists still today, and literary writing testifies to this. And where this vocation is suffocated in the social, the symptoms of a disease well tagged as “social alienation” are immediately visible, manifesting themselves in widespread forms of depression and anxiety to the point even of suicide.

    Bakhtin distinguishes between the “small experience”, on the one hand, experience centred on the logic of identity, conditioned by a short-sighted and egocentric vision of the I, by limited and closed experience, a logic that is asphytic for the I itself, for the body, the world in its entirety, that is indifferent towards the other; and the “great experience”, on the other hand, experience centred on the logic of alterity, on the unfinalizable and transgredient experience of the “great time”, of the relation to the other, on the “great memory”, a disinterested memory, oriented by the search for the other, and by a disposition for unlimited responsibility/responsivity towards the other.

    If educationis notonly scholarization for the sake of building a society made of specialists, technicians, people with special skills and competencies who exchange their experiences and are appreciated and valued in relation to their capacity to be functional and productive; if, instead, educationisalso education to listening, to availability to the other, to encounter among words, languages, cultures, signs, then a place of first importance should be attributed to the literary word. In fact, thanks to its capacity for reflection on the genres of ordinary discourse, the primary genres, to its capacity for depiction and critical distancing with respect to primary genres functional to different contexts and social roles as foreseen by contemporaneity, by the dominant social systemand ideology that regulates it, the literary word is an important medium for education oriented by semiotics conceived as semioethics.

    4. Semioethics and Peircean Semiotics

    Charles Peirce’s semiotics too has a focus on the relation between cognition, the interpersonal relation, communication and moral value. Pivotal in his research are such problematics as the development of signifying pathways (the open-ended chain of interpretants) which he describes as potentially infinite, the role of the imagination and musement in abductive inferential processes, of similarity (in particular of the agapastic order) in metaphor, and of metaphor in abduction with its capacity for invention and innovation. All this makes Peirce’sCollected Papersanother precious source of reflection, similarly to Bakhtin’s writings, for a better understanding of the relation between semioethics and literary writing.

    Peirce too, coherently with his pragmatism, develops an approach to cognitive semiotics that is closely related to the study of the social behaviour of man and the totality of his interests. It ensues that, according to Peirce, the problem of knowledge necessarily involves considerations of the valuative order.

    In addition to his writings as presented in hisCollected Paperswhich testify to this connection, the title of another posthumous collection of essays by Peirce, edited by M.R. Cohen, is worth recalling:Chance, Love and Logic, published in 1923. During the final phase of his production (which extends from approximately 1887 to 1914), Peirce turns his attention specifically to the normative sciences, that is, beyond logic, to aesthetics and ethics. Most interesting to observe is that he addresses the question of ultimate ends, thesummum bonumidentifying it neither in individual pleasure (hedonism), nor in “the good of society” (English utilitarianism), but in “reasonableness” (CP5.4), a principle which he describes as regulating evolutionary development in the universe.

    In other words, according to Peirce, the ultimate value, thesummum bonumis reason and the development of reason in the direction of reasonableness: reason as an open dialectical process, as inquiry without prejudice, as dialectical-dialogical process to echo Bakhtin, as process that is never complete nor finalized, as becoming and development regulated by the logic of otherness, and by the principle of continuity, synechism in Peirce’s terminology (CP1.72).

    But the semioethic orientation in the semiotics of Peirce is already present in his model of sign. Thematizing interpretation as a phenomenon that arises from a dialogical relationship among “interpretants”, Peirce assumes otherness as a condition for the sign’s meaning, for its identity. This approach influences how Peirce thematizes subjectivity, his concept of the I which too is a sign, or better sign activity, sign process. With his theory of the thought-sign Peirce evidences the dialogical structure of the I. In fact, he describes the I as developing in terms of a dialogue between a thought that acts as a sign and another thought that acts as an interpretant.

    Peirce’s “semiotics of interpretation” theorizes a relation of noncorrespondencebetween sign and interpretant, regulated by the logic of otherness. According to such logic the interpretant-sign never corresponds exactly to the preceding sign, the interpreted-sign, but says something more (CP2.228), developing it and enriching it with new meanings. The interpreter/interpretant responds to something assuming it as a sign, an interpretedsign, and in the process becomes in turn a sign, an interpreted-sign, that calls forth another interpretive response, another interpretant-sign, and so it goes on in what emerges as a potentially infinite chain of deferrals from one sign to the next. In such a framework, the function of the interpretant sign is not that of mere identification, but rather, as Bakhtin would say, of “responsive understanding”, “answering comprehension”. Such interactivity implies the evolving of a concrete dialogical relationship among signs, signs and relations in becoming, founded in mutual otherness.

    Meanings develop dynamically in open-ended interpretive processes in which the higher the degree of alterity of the interpretant sign with respect to the interpreted sign, the higher the degree of dialogism in their relationship and the more interpretation develops as a response, that is, as dialogical responsive understanding, creative reformulation, inventiveness, rather than mere repetition, literal translation, synonymic substitution, identification.

    In Peirce’s specific terminology, as much as it may contain traces of symbolicity and indexicality, the iconic relation proceeds by affinity and attraction, it is regulated by the logic of dialogism and alterity, and is characterized by its capacity for innovation and creativity. Iconicity and dialogism are closely connected: in fact, the highest degrees of dialogism are reached by the iconic sign. Given that it is neither the expression of a convention nor the mechanical effect of a cause, iconicity is associated to the concepts of “responsive understanding”, “active participation”, “dialogical valuation”, “point of view”, “semiotic materiality”, “resistance”, “irreducibility” to the logic of identity and its boundaries, to “alterity” in the sense of “absolute alterity” by contrast to “relative alterity”.

    All inferences can generally be considered in terms of the transition from a sign to its interpretant, which (as we have seen) are connecteddialogically. But it is above all inabductionorretroduction—where inference proceeds backwards, from the consequent to the antecedent availing itself of interpretants of the iconical type—that the terms of the argument are always connected dialogically, at high degrees of alterity, whatever the level of innovation, novelty and creativity. For Peirce, therefore, the connection between semiotics and logic, that is, between the typology of signs and the typology of arguments or inference is also the connection betweensemioticsanddia-logic.

    Beyond the differences between their respective approaches, Peirce (in their intense epistolary exchanges, see Hardwick, 1977) identified a series of correspondences between Victoria Welby’s meaning triad, “sense”, “meaning”, and “significance”, and his own tripartition of the interpretant into “immediate interpretant”, “dynamical interpretant”, and“final interpretant”.

    Peirce’s “immediate interpretant” concerns meaning as it unfolds in the ordinary,habitual use of sign by the interpreter. It involves immediate response to the sign, designated by Welby as “sense”. The “dynamical interpretant” concerns meaning in a specific context. Insofar as it focuses on intention it corresponds to Welby’s “meaning”, the second level in her triad. Even more interesting is the connection established by Peirce between his “final interpretant” and Welby’s “significance”. The “final interpretant”concerns the sign at the extreme limits of its interpretive possibilities, therefore all possible responses in the open chain of deferrals from one sign to another. Analogously to Welby’s “significance”, Peirce’s “final interpretant” concerns the creative potential of the sign. Moreover, this particular correspondence also evidences how, for Peirce, signifying potential is essentially a question of valuative orientation and pragmatic relevance generated in the intricate interrelation among signs, values and behaviour.

    5. Concluding

    On the basis of different perspectives and interests, Bakhtin, Peirce and Welby have each contributed to the special bend in semiotics tagged as “semioethics”.

    This special bend in semiotics, as we are describing it, has been conceived as a result of Thomas Sebeok’s global semiotics above all.

    Sebeok has evidenced the relation of convergence betweensemiosisandlifeand he has identified the species-specific character of human semiosis in the capacity formetasemiosisorsemiotics: with John Deely, Augusto Ponzio and myself have posited that the human being is a “semiotic animal” (Deely, Petrilli, & Ponzio, 2005).

    Insofar as we are semiotic animals capable of signs on signs, that is, of reflecting on signs and of developing a global vision of semiosis, that is, of life, human beings are unique. This is the starting point forsemioethics, for our understanding of the condition of being responsible for and responsive to all of semiosis (deriving from the human capacity for reflection, for metasemiosis), hence to all of life over the planet. As an animal endowed with “semiotics” or “metasemiosis”, and not only as an expert in “semiotics”, here understood as the discipline, the task of the human being is to contribute to the quality of life, to the health of semiosis.

    As a “doctrine of signs” (Sebeok), recovering the function ofsemeiotics(one of its most ancient branches) semiotics can contribute to studying today’s symptoms ofsocial malaise, of unease under whatever aspect, and wherever these symptoms appear. And in the presentday communication-production world, in globalization, semiotics theorized and practiced asglobal semiotics, precisely, is in a position to face the task.

    Literature and literary writing can make an important contribution to the realization of a new form of humanism, one that is all but anthropocentric as it has generally been so far. Our allusion here is not to the humanism of identity, but to thehumanism of otherness, as perspected for example by Emmanuel Levinas (1906-1995) (see Levinas, 1972).

    Bakhtin above all has contributed to evidencing a constitutive propensity for otherness in literary writing, a propensity for extralocalization, for a vision that is notcentred on identity, closed identity, a propensity for evasion from the perspectival limits of contemporaneity. The gaze of literary writing is far broader and may be characterized in terms of the “great time”—Bakhtin in fact speaks of the “great time of literature”. And this is why he selects the literary word, its extralocalized and detotalized gaze, as his standpoint and perspective for his philosophy of language, or metalinguistics.

    Bakhtin explains his position by exemplifying the difference between Dostoevsky the journalist and Dostoevsky the writer: in the first case, Dostoevsky the journalist remains anchored to the problems and situations of his time, to the historical context and society he inhabits; in the second case, Dostoevsky the writer, the lives narrated, though part of the sphere of the personal and of daily life, take place “in the presence of the earth and the sky”, opening up and developing as they participate in the “universal divine life”(expression retrieved by Bakhtin from the poem “Spring” by Tju?ev, 1938).

    We believe that to place literature in the perspective of “global semiotics” oriented in the sense of semioethics is to contribute to the bend conferred upon semiotics by Sebeok. With his “biosemiotics” (see Cobely, Deely, Kull, & Petrilli, 2011; Petrilli, 2012a), he called to issue specialism and separatism among the sciences, division between the human sciences and the natural sciences, as much as the idea of creating bridges between them (he in fact preferred the image of thewebto thebridge). Moreover, we also know that by upholding this position, we are simply giving expression to, articulating a propensity that was already present in Sebeok’s “global semiotics”. In fact, as he developed his global semiotic vision of life and its different expressions, of communication throughout the signifying universe, Sebeok never neglected the opportunity of referring to the texts of literary writing.

    Bachtin e il suo Circolo (2014).Opere 1919-1929(Russian/Italian bilingual text edited, commented with introduction by Augusto Ponzio, It. trans. with the assistance of Luciano Ponzio). Milan:Bompiani. [= “Il Pensiero Occidentale”, directed by Giovanni Reale] (ContainsFrejdizm/Freudismo(1927), P. N. Medvedev,Formal’nyi metod v literaturovedeni/Il metodo formale e la scienza delle letteratura(1928),Problemy tvor?estva Dostoevskogo/Problemi dell’opera di Dostoevskij(1929), V. N. Volo?inov,Marksizm i filosofija jazyka/Marxismo e filosofia del linguaggio(1929), and essays by M. M. Bakhtin from the 1920s and by V. N.Volo?inov from 1926-1930]

    Bakhtin, M. N. (1981).The dialogic imagination(Ed., M. Holquist, Eng. trans., C. Emerson & M. Holquist). Austin: Texas University Press.

    Bakhtin, M. N. (1984a).Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics(Ed. & Trans. by C. Emerson, Intro. by W. C. Booth). Manchester: Manchester University Press. (Original work published 1963)

    Bakhtin, M. N. (1984b).Rabelais and his world(H. Iswolsky, Trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. (Original work published 1965)

    Bakhtin, M. N. (1986).Speech genres and other late essays(Trans., V. McGee, Ed., C. Emerson & M. Holquist). Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Bakhtin, M. N. (1990).Art and answerability. Early philosophical essays(Ed., M. Holquist). Austin: Texas University Press.

    Cobley, P. (Ed.). (2010). Intro. InThe Routledge companion to semiotics(pp. 3-12). London:Routledge.

    Cobley, P., Deely, J., Kull, K., & Petrilli, S. (Eds.). (2011).Semiotics continues to astonish: Thomas A. Sebeok and the doctrine of signs. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

    Deely, J., Petrilli, S., & Ponzio, A. (2005).The semiotic animal. Ottawa, Toronto, and New York:Legas.

    Eco, U., & Sebeok, T. A. (1983).The sign of three: Dupin, Holmes, Peirce. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Hardwick, C. (Ed. with the assistance of J. Cook). (1977).Semiotic and significs. The correspondence between Charles S. Peirce and Victoria Lady Welby(Pref., pp. ix-xiv, Intro., pp. xv-xxxiv, by C. S. Hardwick). Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press.

    Hippocrates of Cos (1965).Opere(M. Veggetti, Ed.). Turin: Utet.

    Levinas, E. (1972).Humanisme de l’autre homme. Montpellier, France: Fata Morgana. (It. trans. by A. Moscato,Umanesimo dell’altro uomo, Genoa, il Melangolo, 1985)

    Marx, K. (1953 [1857-58]).Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen ?konomie, Dietz, Berlin;Lineamenti fondamentali della critica dell’economia politica, 2 vols., It. trans. E. Grillo, Florence, La Nuova Italia, 1968-70.

    Peirce, C. S. (1931-1958).The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce(Vols. I-VI, ed. by C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss, 1931-1935; Vols. VII-VIII, ed. by A. W. Burks, 1958). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Petrilli, S. (2010).Sign crossroads in global perspective. Semioethics and responsibility(Preface, vii-ix, Intro., xi-xiii, by John Deely). New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers.

    Petrilli, S. (2012a).Expression and interpretation in language(Pref. by V. Colapietro). New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers.

    Petrilli, S. (2012b).Un mondo di segni. L’avere senso e il significare qualcosa. Bari: Giuseppe Laterza.

    Petrilli, S. (2012c).Altrove e altrimenti. Filosofia del linguaggio, critica letteraria e teoria della traduzione in, con e a partire da Bachtin. Milan: Mimesis.

    Petrilli, S. (2013).The self as a sign, the world, and the other. Living semiotics(Foreword by Augusto Ponzio). New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers.

    Petrilli, S. (2014a).Sign studies and semioethics. Communication, translation and values. Boston and Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

    Petrilli, S. (2014b).Riflessioni sulla teoria del linguaggio e dei segni. Milan: Mimesis.

    Petrilli, S. (Ed.). (2014c).Semioetica e comunicazione globale. “Athanor XIV, 17”. Milan: Mimesis.

    Petrilli, S. (2015a).Victoria Welby and the science of signs. Significs, semiotics, philosophy of language. New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers.

    Petrilli, S. (2015b).Nella vita dei segni. Percorsi della semiotica. Milan: Mimesis.

    Petrilli, S. (2015c). Identity today and the critical task of semioethics. In P. Peter (Ed.),International handbook for semiotics(pp. 841-890). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Petrilli, S. (2016a).The global world and its manifold faces. Otherness as the basis of communication. Berne, New York, and Oxford: Peter Lang.

    Petrilli, S. (2016b). Semiotics and education, semioethic perspectives.Semiotica. Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies, (213), 1-33.

    Petrilli, S., & Ponzio, A. (2002). Sign vehicles for semiotic travels: Two new handbooks.Semiotica.Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies, (141), 203-350.

    Petrilli, S., & Ponzio, A. (2003).Semioetica. Rome: Meltemi.

    Petrilli, S., & Ponzio, A. (2005).Semiotics unbounded. Interpretive routes in the open network of signs. Toronto: Toronto University Press. [Available in Chinese translation]

    Petrilli, S., & Ponzio, A. (2006).Views in literary semiotics. Ottawa: Legas.

    Petrilli, S., & Ponzio, A. (2007).Semiotics today. From global semiotics to semioethics. Ottawa:Legas.

    Petrilli, S., & Ponzio, A. (2010). Semioethics. In P. Cobley (Ed.),The Routledge companion to semiotics(pp. 3-12). London: Routledge. [Available in Chinese translation]

    Ponzio, A. (2011a).In altre parole. Milan: Mimesis.

    Ponzio, A. (2011b).Interpretazione e scrittura. Scienza dei segni ed eccedenza letteraria. Lecce:Pensa Multimedia.

    Ponzio, A. (2012a).Línguistica Chomskyana e ideología social. Univesidad Federal do Paraná (Brazil), Curitibam Editora Ufpr.

    Ponzio, A. (2012b).Dialogando sobre diálogo na perspectiva bakhtiniana, San Carlos (Brasile), Pedro e Jo?o Editores.

    Ponzio, A. (2013).Fuori luogo. L’esorbitante nella riproduzione dell’identico. Milan: Mimesis.

    Ponzio, A. (2015a).Il linguaggio e le lingue. Per una linguistica generale che voglia fare parte della scienza generale dei segni, la semiotica. Milan: Mimesis.

    Ponzio, A. (2015b).Tra semiotica e letteratura. Introduzione a Michail Bachtin. Milan: Bompiani.

    Ponzio, A. (2016).La coda dell’occhio. Letture del linguaggio letterario senza confini nazionali. Rome: Aracne.

    Schaff, A. (1999).Structurelle Arbeitslosigkeit—das soziale Grundproblem unserer Epoche[Structural unemployment]. (Unpublished manuscript)

    Schaff, A. (2000). Disoccupazione strutturale: Il problema sociale di base della nostra epoca. In A. Ponzio (Ed.),Millepiani(pp. 33-48). Milan: Mimesis.

    Schaff, A. (2001a).Ksiazka dla mojej zony: Autobiografia problemowa. Warsaw: Wydawn.

    Schaff, A. (2001b).Meditazioni, L. de Stasio (It. trans. from Spanish). Bari: Edizioni dal Sud.

    Sebeok, T. A. (1976).Contributions to the doctrine of signs. Lanham: University Press of America;Contributi alla dottrina dei segni, It. trans. by M. Pesaresi, Milan: Feltrinelli, 1979.

    Sebeok, T. A. (1977a). Ecumenicalism in semiotics. InA perfusion of signs(pp. 180-206). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Sebeok, T. A. (Ed.). (1977b).How animals communicate. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Sebeok, T. A. (1979).The sign & its masters. Austin and London: University of Texas Press;Il segno e i suoi maestri, It. trans. intro. and ed. S. Petrilli, Bari: Adriatica, 1985.

    Sebeok, T. A. (1981).The play of musement. Bloomington: Indiana University Press;Il gioco delfantasticare, It. trans. by M. Pesaresi, Milan: Bompiani, 1984.

    Sebeok, T. A. (1986a).I think I am a verb. More contributions to the doctrine of signs. New York and London: Plenum Press;Penso di essere un verbo, It. trans., intro. & ed. by S. Petrilli, Palermo, Sellerio, 1990.

    Sebeok, T. A. (1986b). A signifying man.New York Times Book Review, 91(13), 14-15.

    Sebeok, T. A. (1986c). The problem of the origin of language in an evolutionary frame.Language Sciences,8, 169-176.

    Sebeok, T. A. (1991a).Semiotics in the United States. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; Sguardo sulla semiotica americana, trad. it., introd. e cura di S. Petrilli, Milan: Bompiani, 1992.

    Sebeok, T. A. (1991b).A sign is just a sign. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press;A sign is just a sign.La semiotica globale, It. trans., intro. & ed. by S. Petrilli, Milan, Spirali, 1998.

    Sebeok, T. A. (1991c).American signatures. Semiotic inquiry and method(intro. & ed. by I. Smith). Norman: The University of Oklahoma Press.

    Sebeok, T. A. (1994).Signs. An introduction to semiotics. Toronto: Toronto University Press;Segni. Una introduzione alla semiotica, It. trans., intro. & ed. by S. Petrilli, Rome, Carocci, 2003.

    Sebeok, T. A. (1997). Semiotica. InEnciclopedia delle scienze sociali(pp. 717-723), Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana fondata da Giovanni Treccani.

    Sebeok, T. A. (1998).Come comunicano gli animali che non parlano, It. trans., intro. & ed. by S. Petrilli, Bari, Edizioni del Sud, 1998.

    Sebeok, T. A. (2001).Global semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Welby, V. (1983).What is meaning? Studies in the development of significance. Amsterdam:Benjamins. (Reprint of 1903, London edition, introductory essay by Gerrit Mannoury, Preface by Achim Eschbach)

    Welby, V. (1985 [1911]).Significs and language. The articulate form of our expressive and interpretative resources(H. W. Schmitz, Ed. & Intro.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Welby, V. (2009).Signifying and understanding. Reading the works of Victoria Welby and the signific movement(ed. intro. comments by Susan Petrilli, Foreword di Paul Cobley, pp. vii–x). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

    About the author

    Susan Petrilli (susan.petrilli@gmail.com) is Professor of Philosophy and Theory of Languages at the University of Bari Aldo Moro, Italy, and Visiting Research Fellow at The University of Adelaide, Australia. She is the 7th Sebeok Fellow of the Semiotic Society of America. Her principal research interests include Philosophy of Language, Semiotics, General Linguistics, Translation Theory, Communication Studies. With coauthor Augusto Ponzio she has introduced the seminal concept of “semioethics”. She publishes regularly in English and Italian. Her most recent books includeThe Self as a Sign, the World and the Other(2013),Em outro lugar e de outro modo. Filosofia da linguagem, crítica literária e teoria da tradu??o em, em torno e a partir de Bakhtin(2013),

    Sign Studies and Semioethics.Communication, Translation and Values(2014),Riflessioni sulla teoria del linguaggio e dei segni(2014),Victoria Welby and the Science of Signs(2015),Nella vita dei segni. Percorsi della semiotica(2015), (in collab. with A. Ponzio)Semioetica e comunicazione globale(2014) andLineamenti di semiotica e di filosofia del linguaggio.Contributo all’interpretazione e all’ascolto della parola(2016). Her most recent book is titledThe Global World and Its Manifold Faces: Otherness at the Basis of Communication(2016). Some of her books are now available in Chinese translation. With Augusto Ponzio she directs several book series and has just founded the new series“Reflections on Signs and Language” with Peter Lang (2016). She lectures at universities worldwide including in Australia, China, Brazil, USA, Canada, South Africa, and across Europe. Her website is www.susanpetrilli.com.

    欧美成人午夜免费资源| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 三级毛片av免费| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 国产精品野战在线观看| 2021少妇久久久久久久久久久| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 久久精品91蜜桃| 国产色婷婷99| 免费黄色在线免费观看| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 中文欧美无线码| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂 | 嫩草影院精品99| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 干丝袜人妻中文字幕| 午夜精品在线福利| 一级毛片电影观看 | 久久久久精品久久久久真实原创| 国产老妇女一区| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99 | 午夜爱爱视频在线播放| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 亚洲综合色惰| 久久久成人免费电影| 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久,| eeuss影院久久| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| av天堂中文字幕网| av黄色大香蕉| 免费在线观看成人毛片| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| 亚洲国产欧美人成| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 中文欧美无线码| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 欧美+日韩+精品| 欧美+日韩+精品| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 少妇的逼水好多| 一级爰片在线观看| 一级爰片在线观看| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 国产欧美日韩精品一区二区| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 国产综合懂色| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 久久精品国产鲁丝片午夜精品| 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| 乱系列少妇在线播放| 午夜免费激情av| 国产视频首页在线观看| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 国产精品无大码| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 亚洲久久久久久中文字幕| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 在线播放国产精品三级| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 国产综合懂色| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 亚洲精品456在线播放app| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 亚洲久久久久久中文字幕| 免费看av在线观看网站| 久久久国产成人免费| 一本一本综合久久| 三级国产精品片| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 男女那种视频在线观看| 日韩视频在线欧美| 在线播放无遮挡| 色综合色国产| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 尾随美女入室| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放 | 制服诱惑二区| 久久久久视频综合| 欧美性感艳星| 精品少妇内射三级| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 国产乱来视频区| 久久久精品区二区三区| 亚洲国产精品国产精品| 亚洲少妇的诱惑av| 国产xxxxx性猛交| 久久av网站| 精品卡一卡二卡四卡免费| 国产男女内射视频| 亚洲国产精品专区欧美| 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄| 中国三级夫妇交换| 国产精品欧美亚洲77777| 亚洲国产精品一区三区| av卡一久久| 欧美国产精品va在线观看不卡| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 99久久综合免费| 精品久久久精品久久久| 成人无遮挡网站| 久久国内精品自在自线图片| 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 日韩免费高清中文字幕av| 丝袜美足系列| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 国产日韩欧美视频二区| 亚洲国产成人一精品久久久| 夜夜爽夜夜爽视频| 成人亚洲精品一区在线观看| 制服丝袜香蕉在线| 一级片免费观看大全| 国产精品一国产av| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| a 毛片基地| 自线自在国产av| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 午夜影院在线不卡| 亚洲精品一二三| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 亚洲美女黄色视频免费看| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 在线观看国产h片| 久久精品国产综合久久久 | 亚洲国产精品999| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 1024视频免费在线观看| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄| 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 亚洲,一卡二卡三卡| 一区二区三区乱码不卡18| 午夜91福利影院| 韩国av在线不卡| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 欧美成人午夜免费资源| 亚洲图色成人| 国产又爽黄色视频| 男女无遮挡免费网站观看| 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 男女午夜视频在线观看 | 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 美女主播在线视频| av免费在线看不卡| 高清av免费在线| 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂| 国语对白做爰xxxⅹ性视频网站| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 如何舔出高潮| 欧美97在线视频| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱| 天天操日日干夜夜撸| av播播在线观看一区| 亚洲av男天堂| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 国产免费视频播放在线视频| av不卡在线播放| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院 | 一区二区三区精品91| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件| 久久久国产一区二区| 国产免费视频播放在线视频| 下体分泌物呈黄色| 亚洲四区av| 夜夜骑夜夜射夜夜干| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 91成人精品电影| 中国美白少妇内射xxxbb| 日韩熟女老妇一区二区性免费视频| 亚洲一区二区三区欧美精品| 久久久久久伊人网av| 美女福利国产在线| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 韩国av在线不卡| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 尾随美女入室| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 国产精品一国产av| 成人影院久久| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 飞空精品影院首页| 老女人水多毛片| 亚洲国产精品999| 久久99一区二区三区| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 国产片内射在线| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 飞空精品影院首页| kizo精华| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 成人国语在线视频| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 欧美成人午夜免费资源| 久热这里只有精品99| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄| 多毛熟女@视频| 久久热在线av| 国产免费视频播放在线视频| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲 | 精品国产一区二区久久| 国产激情久久老熟女| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 久久婷婷青草| 少妇高潮的动态图| 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区| 久久久久精品久久久久真实原创| 有码 亚洲区| 热re99久久国产66热| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 久久婷婷青草| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 日韩成人伦理影院| 日本与韩国留学比较| 天堂8中文在线网| 青春草国产在线视频| 蜜桃在线观看..| 亚洲精品乱码久久久久久按摩| 亚洲内射少妇av| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 另类精品久久| 精品人妻在线不人妻| 国产免费现黄频在线看| 亚洲精品,欧美精品| 新久久久久国产一级毛片| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区| 只有这里有精品99| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 999精品在线视频| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区| 26uuu在线亚洲综合色| 国产亚洲最大av| 一边摸一边做爽爽视频免费| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 日韩人妻精品一区2区三区| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 久久国内精品自在自线图片| 91成人精品电影| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 日韩大片免费观看网站| av卡一久久| 内地一区二区视频在线| 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| xxx大片免费视频| 亚洲精品国产av成人精品| videos熟女内射| 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 七月丁香在线播放| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 国产亚洲精品第一综合不卡 | 欧美另类一区| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 91成人精品电影| 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 春色校园在线视频观看| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 亚洲在久久综合| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 亚洲国产av影院在线观看| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 精品人妻在线不人妻| 亚洲成色77777| 色吧在线观看| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 亚洲成人一二三区av| 久久狼人影院| 亚洲性久久影院| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 大码成人一级视频| av女优亚洲男人天堂| 国产成人精品一,二区| 在线观看人妻少妇| 视频在线观看一区二区三区| 精品卡一卡二卡四卡免费| 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 少妇的逼水好多| 亚洲av男天堂| 精品久久久久久电影网| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 午夜福利,免费看| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 国产不卡av网站在线观看| 亚洲成色77777| 午夜av观看不卡| 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 久久久精品94久久精品| 免费观看性生交大片5| 五月天丁香电影| 亚洲国产精品国产精品| 少妇的逼水好多| 只有这里有精品99| 成人国产av品久久久| av一本久久久久| 激情视频va一区二区三区| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 日日撸夜夜添| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| 国产国语露脸激情在线看| 久久精品国产综合久久久 | 精品久久久久久电影网| 咕卡用的链子| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 亚洲精品乱码久久久久久按摩| 亚洲色图综合在线观看| 内地一区二区视频在线| 老司机影院毛片| 成人影院久久| 精品亚洲成国产av| av免费观看日本| 51国产日韩欧美| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 国产xxxxx性猛交| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 在线观看www视频免费| 日本-黄色视频高清免费观看| 日日爽夜夜爽网站| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 欧美亚洲日本最大视频资源| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 午夜福利视频精品| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频| 大片电影免费在线观看免费| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 色哟哟·www| 丝袜喷水一区| av免费观看日本| 9热在线视频观看99| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 久久热在线av| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 视频区图区小说| 久久久久精品性色| 免费av不卡在线播放| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡| 亚洲欧美色中文字幕在线| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 51国产日韩欧美| 熟女电影av网| 欧美日韩视频高清一区二区三区二| 丰满饥渴人妻一区二区三| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| 草草在线视频免费看| 2021少妇久久久久久久久久久| 免费少妇av软件| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 18禁观看日本| 永久网站在线| 伦理电影免费视频| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 午夜福利在线观看免费完整高清在| 国产精品欧美亚洲77777| 亚洲av在线观看美女高潮| 午夜福利网站1000一区二区三区| 一级毛片电影观看| 国产69精品久久久久777片| 黄色一级大片看看| 亚洲综合色惰| 曰老女人黄片| 熟女av电影| av福利片在线| 9191精品国产免费久久| 午夜影院在线不卡| 国产精品一国产av| 成人无遮挡网站| 亚洲性久久影院| 26uuu在线亚洲综合色| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 免费av不卡在线播放| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 国产日韩欧美视频二区| 国产一区二区激情短视频 | 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看 | 国产精品一二三区在线看| 五月开心婷婷网| 成人国产av品久久久| 51国产日韩欧美| 国产欧美亚洲国产| 午夜激情久久久久久久| 亚洲精品第二区| 在线天堂中文资源库| 有码 亚洲区| 欧美3d第一页| 色网站视频免费| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花| 少妇的逼好多水| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频 | 久久热在线av| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 精品福利永久在线观看| 制服人妻中文乱码| 国产乱人偷精品视频| 精品福利永久在线观看| 免费大片18禁| 国产亚洲精品第一综合不卡 | 亚洲综合精品二区| a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 久久精品国产自在天天线| kizo精华| 美女主播在线视频| 丝袜脚勾引网站| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 亚洲av在线观看美女高潮| 一级,二级,三级黄色视频| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 亚洲国产日韩一区二区| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 国产一级毛片在线| 成年美女黄网站色视频大全免费| 亚洲国产精品一区三区| 另类亚洲欧美激情| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 九九在线视频观看精品| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| 久久精品国产鲁丝片午夜精品| 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 一二三四中文在线观看免费高清| 天天影视国产精品| 观看av在线不卡| av女优亚洲男人天堂| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 免费av中文字幕在线| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 街头女战士在线观看网站| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 深夜精品福利| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频 | www.熟女人妻精品国产 | 亚洲av福利一区| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 9热在线视频观看99| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 亚洲国产精品一区三区| 免费看不卡的av| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 美国免费a级毛片| 亚洲成av片中文字幕在线观看 | 国产成人一区二区在线| 午夜av观看不卡| www日本在线高清视频| 国产成人精品福利久久| 亚洲天堂av无毛| 亚洲精品日本国产第一区| 深夜精品福利| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 国产男女超爽视频在线观看| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 自线自在国产av| 1024视频免费在线观看| 日韩免费高清中文字幕av| 香蕉丝袜av| 日韩免费高清中文字幕av| 岛国毛片在线播放| 精品一区在线观看国产| 午夜福利视频在线观看免费| 国产一区二区三区av在线| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 黄色一级大片看看| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| tube8黄色片| 观看av在线不卡| 三级国产精品片| 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| a 毛片基地| 欧美xxⅹ黑人| av不卡在线播放| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99| 啦啦啦视频在线资源免费观看| 亚洲中文av在线| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 欧美人与善性xxx| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx在线观看| h视频一区二区三区| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 一个人免费看片子| 777米奇影视久久| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 制服人妻中文乱码| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 久久精品人人爽人人爽视色| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 少妇的逼好多水| 夜夜爽夜夜爽视频| 免费不卡的大黄色大毛片视频在线观看| videos熟女内射| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 国产69精品久久久久777片| 一区二区三区精品91| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 久久国内精品自在自线图片| 精品国产露脸久久av麻豆| 99九九在线精品视频| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 亚洲国产精品999| 少妇的逼好多水| 男人添女人高潮全过程视频| 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| 飞空精品影院首页| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 欧美亚洲日本最大视频资源| 成人手机av| 飞空精品影院首页| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 熟妇人妻不卡中文字幕| 亚洲国产精品专区欧美| 韩国av在线不卡| 久久99精品国语久久久| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 成人黄色视频免费在线看| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 久久99蜜桃精品久久| 黄网站色视频无遮挡免费观看| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 曰老女人黄片| a级毛片在线看网站| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看| 1024视频免费在线观看| a级毛片黄视频| 大码成人一级视频| 久久人人爽人人片av| 只有这里有精品99| 性色av一级| 国产一区二区三区av在线| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| 波多野结衣一区麻豆| 婷婷成人精品国产| 成人国产麻豆网| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 99热网站在线观看| 91成人精品电影| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 国产色婷婷99| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| 制服人妻中文乱码| 在线精品无人区一区二区三| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 精品酒店卫生间| 亚洲综合色网址| 亚洲少妇的诱惑av| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 在线观看人妻少妇| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 亚洲欧美色中文字幕在线| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 秋霞伦理黄片| 久久久久人妻精品一区果冻|