• <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.

    国产成人福利小说| 免费看日本二区| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 18禁在线无遮挡免费观看视频 | 国产日本99.免费观看| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 久久国内精品自在自线图片| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 久久人人爽人人片av| 干丝袜人妻中文字幕| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| aaaaa片日本免费| 蜜桃亚洲精品一区二区三区| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 午夜久久久久精精品| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 干丝袜人妻中文字幕| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 啦啦啦观看免费观看视频高清| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 18禁黄网站禁片免费观看直播| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 最近中文字幕高清免费大全6| 六月丁香七月| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 热99re8久久精品国产| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 国产综合懂色| 美女被艹到高潮喷水动态| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 亚洲精品日韩在线中文字幕 | 黑人高潮一二区| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女| 精品久久久久久久末码| 国产人妻一区二区三区在| 亚洲av电影不卡..在线观看| 久久久精品大字幕| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 亚洲av二区三区四区| 悠悠久久av| 午夜福利18| 亚洲18禁久久av| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| 禁无遮挡网站| 麻豆av噜噜一区二区三区| 在线播放国产精品三级| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 国内精品一区二区在线观看| 久久精品91蜜桃| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 草草在线视频免费看| 国产精品三级大全| av在线播放精品| 国产真实乱freesex| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 成人精品一区二区免费| 1024手机看黄色片| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频 | 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 精品久久久久久久久av| 色综合站精品国产| 两个人视频免费观看高清| 毛片女人毛片| 三级毛片av免费| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 联通29元200g的流量卡| 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久,| 最近中文字幕高清免费大全6| 久久九九热精品免费| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| av在线老鸭窝| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 亚洲成人久久性| 在线观看一区二区三区| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 综合色丁香网| av女优亚洲男人天堂| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 亚洲丝袜综合中文字幕| av天堂中文字幕网| 97碰自拍视频| 一a级毛片在线观看| 色哟哟·www| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 国产亚洲欧美98| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 亚洲国产欧美人成| 午夜免费激情av| 美女高潮的动态| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 97超视频在线观看视频| 观看美女的网站| 简卡轻食公司| 国产精品永久免费网站| 国产av麻豆久久久久久久| 国产成人一区二区在线| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久| 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 国产精品一及| 超碰av人人做人人爽久久| 亚洲国产色片| 一级av片app| 精品久久久噜噜| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区 | 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 亚洲综合色惰| 亚洲av一区综合| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看 | 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 欧美一区二区亚洲| 亚洲最大成人手机在线| 最近手机中文字幕大全| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 久久人人精品亚洲av| 九九热线精品视视频播放| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 在线观看66精品国产| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 我要看日韩黄色一级片| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频| 国产91av在线免费观看| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 午夜影院日韩av| 色哟哟·www| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说 | 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 91精品国产九色| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 午夜影院日韩av| av在线天堂中文字幕| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱 | 香蕉av资源在线| 亚洲va在线va天堂va国产| 老司机福利观看| 国产精品亚洲美女久久久| 嫩草影视91久久| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 禁无遮挡网站| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 美女大奶头视频| 免费大片18禁| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| av在线亚洲专区| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 女人十人毛片免费观看3o分钟| 色视频www国产| 欧美日本视频| 午夜福利18| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 中文字幕av成人在线电影| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 久久久久性生活片| 午夜视频国产福利| 两个人的视频大全免费| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 亚洲最大成人手机在线| 老女人水多毛片| 全区人妻精品视频| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 欧美xxxx黑人xx丫x性爽| 精品日产1卡2卡| 内射极品少妇av片p| 国产老妇女一区| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 丝袜美腿在线中文| 极品教师在线视频| 亚洲人成网站在线观看播放| 22中文网久久字幕| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 男女那种视频在线观看| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 香蕉av资源在线| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 永久网站在线| 国产成人福利小说| 午夜激情欧美在线| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 美女 人体艺术 gogo| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 一夜夜www| 亚洲人成网站在线播| h日本视频在线播放| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 禁无遮挡网站| 国产精品电影一区二区三区| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 久久久欧美国产精品| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 国产亚洲欧美98| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| 国产单亲对白刺激| 欧美日本视频| 午夜影院日韩av| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 在线播放国产精品三级| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 少妇的逼好多水| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 国产在线男女| 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 亚洲av一区综合| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 色吧在线观看| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 一级毛片电影观看 | 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| h日本视频在线播放| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 欧美人与善性xxx| 国产蜜桃级精品一区二区三区| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 日韩欧美在线乱码| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 51国产日韩欧美| 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| 亚洲精品国产av成人精品 | 久久久久久久久久黄片| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 色5月婷婷丁香| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 久久九九热精品免费| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 看黄色毛片网站| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 免费av观看视频| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 91狼人影院| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 国产真实乱freesex| 搞女人的毛片| 国产精品,欧美在线| 免费在线观看成人毛片| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 免费看av在线观看网站| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 九九热线精品视视频播放| 99久国产av精品| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 美女xxoo啪啪120秒动态图| 在线播放国产精品三级| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看| 午夜a级毛片| 久99久视频精品免费| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 给我免费播放毛片高清在线观看| 91在线观看av| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 在线免费十八禁| 老熟妇乱子伦视频在线观看| 国产成人福利小说| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 99热这里只有是精品50| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频| 91在线观看av| 国产精品,欧美在线| 国产69精品久久久久777片| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 欧美性感艳星| 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 一a级毛片在线观看| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 日本-黄色视频高清免费观看| 偷拍熟女少妇极品色| 国产综合懂色| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 在现免费观看毛片| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱 | 变态另类丝袜制服| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 91精品国产九色| av.在线天堂| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 大又大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片口| av天堂在线播放| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 在线国产一区二区在线| 久久久成人免费电影| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区 | 免费av观看视频| 在线免费观看的www视频| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 永久网站在线| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av| 午夜视频国产福利| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 简卡轻食公司| .国产精品久久| 十八禁网站免费在线| 极品教师在线视频| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 欧美成人a在线观看| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 丰满的人妻完整版| 一级黄片播放器| 国产极品精品免费视频能看的| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 日韩欧美精品v在线| 久久久色成人| 内射极品少妇av片p| 哪里可以看免费的av片| 高清毛片免费看| 午夜影院日韩av| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 亚洲精品国产成人久久av| 国产在视频线在精品| av在线观看视频网站免费| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| 我要看日韩黄色一级片| 老女人水多毛片| 午夜a级毛片| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 免费观看在线日韩| 美女内射精品一级片tv| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 美女xxoo啪啪120秒动态图| 成人综合一区亚洲| av免费在线看不卡| 日本三级黄在线观看| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| a级毛片a级免费在线| 一本精品99久久精品77| 18禁黄网站禁片免费观看直播| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 日本黄大片高清| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 久久久久久伊人网av| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 悠悠久久av| 亚洲最大成人手机在线| 在线观看66精品国产| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 91在线观看av| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 久久久精品大字幕| 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 国产三级中文精品| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 日本熟妇午夜| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 十八禁国产超污无遮挡网站| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄 | 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 老师上课跳d突然被开到最大视频| av国产免费在线观看| 一级黄片播放器| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡| 国内精品宾馆在线| 熟女电影av网| 亚洲精品久久国产高清桃花| 久久久久久久久久成人| 精品久久久久久久久av| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 亚洲无线在线观看| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 精品久久久久久久久av| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 一级黄色大片毛片| 夜夜爽天天搞| 大香蕉久久网| 日韩欧美免费精品| 91在线观看av| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 国产美女午夜福利| 亚洲图色成人| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件 | 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 美女大奶头视频| 成人二区视频| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 国产69精品久久久久777片| 看免费成人av毛片| 免费大片18禁| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 美女 人体艺术 gogo| 久久精品人妻少妇| 一进一出抽搐动态| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 国产高清激情床上av| 亚洲不卡免费看| 特级一级黄色大片| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 亚洲av免费在线观看| 欧美一区二区亚洲| 国产成人一区二区在线| www.色视频.com| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 99热6这里只有精品| 两个人的视频大全免费| 激情 狠狠 欧美| 嫩草影院入口| 日本一本二区三区精品| 日本黄大片高清| 1024手机看黄色片| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看| 久久九九热精品免费| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 日本一二三区视频观看| 成年女人看的毛片在线观看| 久久6这里有精品| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 亚洲av第一区精品v没综合| 国内精品一区二区在线观看| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 老女人水多毛片| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9| 别揉我奶头 嗯啊视频| 热99在线观看视频| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 99久久成人亚洲精品观看| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 少妇高潮的动态图| 精品久久久久久久末码| 亚洲最大成人中文| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 国产欧美日韩精品一区二区| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 最近的中文字幕免费完整| 亚洲精品日韩在线中文字幕 | 亚洲av熟女| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 国内精品一区二区在线观看| 夜夜爽天天搞| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 欧美性感艳星| 久久久久国产网址| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯| 亚洲av二区三区四区| 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 久久精品影院6| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片| 久久精品国产鲁丝片午夜精品| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 一级av片app| 99久久精品热视频| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| a级毛片免费高清观看在线播放| 99热6这里只有精品| 美女免费视频网站| 国产91av在线免费观看| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 丝袜美腿在线中文| 精品熟女少妇av免费看| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 97人妻精品一区二区三区麻豆| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 美女大奶头视频| 高清毛片免费看| 波多野结衣高清作品| 久久人妻av系列| 九九热线精品视视频播放| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说 | 我的老师免费观看完整版| 韩国av在线不卡| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 久久久国产成人精品二区| eeuss影院久久| 久久久久性生活片| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| 日本一本二区三区精品| 激情 狠狠 欧美| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 亚洲av成人av| 人人妻人人看人人澡| av中文乱码字幕在线| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 国产精品三级大全| av在线亚洲专区| 日本a在线网址| 免费观看在线日韩| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 男人狂女人下面高潮的视频| 久久中文看片网| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 99热这里只有是精品50| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| av福利片在线观看| 一进一出抽搐动态| 黄片wwwwww| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 国产黄色小视频在线观看|