@article{Hénault_2017, place={Belo Horizonte-MG}, title={Quelles pratiques sémiotiques pour quelles médiations ?}, volume={10}, url={https://periodicos.ufmg.br/index.php/textolivre/article/view/16742}, DOI={10.17851/1983-3652.10.1.1-15}, abstractNote={<p align="justify"><span style="font-family: ’Liberation Sans’, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: ’Liberation Sans’, sans-serif;"><strong>RÉ</strong></span></span><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: ’Liberation Sans’, sans-serif;"><strong>SUMÉ</strong></span></span><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: ’Liberation Sans’, sans-serif;">:</span></span>En janvier 1963, Paul Ricœur se montrait fort intéressé par le structuralisme auquel il avait déjà consacré d’importantes lectures (Rome, Entretiens Castelli). En juin 1963, lors d’un débat passionné avec C. Levi-Strauss, dans les locaux de la Revue Esprit, Ricœur conçut un violent rejet de la pensée structurale et ce ressentiment perdura chez lui jusqu’à son dernier ouvrage consacré à l’Histoire, en 2000. Initialement (jusqu’en 1979), cet anathème visait également A. J. Greimas et sa sémiotique. Puis, à la suite d’une série de rencontres universitaires et de débats publics avec Greimas, Ricœur en vint à un total changement de point de vue sur les travaux de Greimas, au point de lui enjoindre, lors de leur dernier débat public (en 1989) de ne pas prendre prétexte de ses recherches concernant la sémiotique des passions pour s’écarter de sa première sémiotique (celle qui de <em>Sémantique structurale</em> au <em>Dictionnaire</em> est désormais connue comme la « sémiotique standard »). Après quoi, Ricœur formula explicitement l’idée que la sémiotique standard avait élaboré une rationalité nouvelle, dont la force explicative était de nature authentiquement « théorique » et donc scientifique. Ce qui le conduisit à admettre que l’explication sémiotique pouvait s’avérer nécessaire, même dans le champ de l’Herméneutique, afin d’atteindre à un niveau de compréhension plus exact.</span></p> <p align="justify">  </p> <p align="justify"><span style="font-family: ’Liberation Sans’, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: ’Liberation Sans’, sans-serif;"><strong>RESUMO</strong></span></span><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: ’Liberation Sans’, sans-serif;">:</span></span>Em janeiro de 1963, Paul Ricœur se mostrava muito interessado no estruturalismo ao qual já tinha consagrado importantes leituras (Rome, Entretiens Castelli). Em junho de 1963, por ocasião de um debate acalorado com C. Levi-Strauss, nas dependências da Revista Esprit, Ricœur desenvolveu uma rejeição violenta ao pensamento estrutural, e esse seu ressentimento perdurará até sua última obra, consagrada à História, em 2002. Inicialmente (até 1979), esse anátema visava igualmente a A. J. Greimas e à sua semiótica. Depois, na sequência de uma série de encontros universitários e de debates públicos com Greimas, Ricœur chegou a uma completa mudança de ponto de vista sobre os trabalhos de Greimas, a ponto de intimá-lo, por ocasião do último debate público entre eles (em 1989), a não usar o pretexto de suas pesquisas relativas à semiótica das paixões para se distanciar da sua primeira semiótica (aquela que da <em>Sémantique structurale </em>ao<em> Dictionnaire</em> passa a ser conhecida como <span style="font-family: ’Liberation Sans’, sans-serif;">"</span>semiótica standard<span style="font-family: ’Liberation Sans’, sans-serif;">"</span>). Depois disso, Ricœur formulou explicitamente a ideia de que a semiótica standard havia elaborado uma racionalidade nova, cuja força explicativa era de natureza autenticamente <span style="font-family: ’Liberation Sans’, sans-serif;">"</span>teórica<span style="font-family: ’Liberation Sans’, sans-serif;">"</span> e, portanto, científica, o que o conduziu a admitir que a explicação semiótica podia se revelar necessária mesmo no campo da Hermenêutica, a fim de atingir um nível de compreensão mais exato.</span></p> <p align="justify">  </p> <p align="justify"><span style="font-family: ’Liberation Sans’, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #000000;"><strong>ABSTRACT</strong></span>: In January 1963, Paul Ricœur was very interested in structuralism to which he had already devoted important readings (Rome, Entretiens Castelli). In June 1963, during a heated debate with C. Levi-Strauss, under the Esprit Journal, Ricœur developed a violent rejection of structural thought, and his resentment will endure until his last work, devoted to History, in 2002. Initially (up to 1979), this anathema was also aimed at A. J. Greimas and his semiotics. Then, following a series of university meetings and public debates with Greimas, Ricœur came to a complete change of view of Greimas’s works, to the point of intimacy, at the last public debate between them (In 1989), not to use the pretext of his research on the semiotics of the passions to distance himself from his first semiotics (that which from the <em>Sémantique structurale</em> to the <em>Dictionnaire</em> comes to be known as "standard semiotics"). After this, Ricœur explicitly formulated the idea that standard semiotics had elaborated a new rationality, the explanatory power of which was authentically "theoretical" and therefore scientific, which led him to admit that the semiotic explanation could be revealed necessary even in the field of Hermeneutics, in order to reach a more exact level of understanding.</span></p>}, number={1}, journal={Texto Livre}, author={Hénault, Anne}, year={2017}, month={jun.}, pages={1–15} }