English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Th is inquiry outlines Karl Buhle's three kinds of deixis, focusing particularly on his most advanced use – deixis am phantasma (deictics to refer to absent referents). This use is of primary import to the semiosis of index, given the centrality of the object and the interpretant in changing the function of the indexical sign in ontogeny. Employing deictic signs to refer to absent objects (some of which are mental) constitutes a catalyst from more social, conventional, uses to more internal, imaginative, ones. Buhler's analogy of mental objects as a "mimesis" serves as the genesis for the claim that static and more dynamic memories, fuelled by affect, drive deictics to refer to more dynamic objects and more dynamic interpretants, into more constructed realities. Peirce's two types of objects and three types of interpretants complete Buhler's deictic framework; they determine advances in deictic semiosis undeveloped by Buhler, and offer rationale for how it is that deictic use extends the semiosis of index.

Cognitive and linguistic underpinnings of <i>deixis am phantasma</i>: Bühler's and Peirce's semiotic