Testo e memoria tra semiotica e scienze cognitive: una situazione sperimentale intorno al ricordo di un film

The research project presented in this dissertation is about text and memory. The title of the work is "Text and memory between Semiotics and Cognitive Science: an experimental setting about remembering a movie". The object of the research is the relationship between texts or "textuality" - using a more general semiotic term - and memory. The goal is to analyze the link between those semiotic artifacts that a culture defines as autonomous meaningful objects - namely texts - and the cognitive performance of memory that allows to remember them. An active dialogue between Semiotics and Cognitive Science is the theoretical paradigm in which this research is set, the major intend is to establish a productive alignment between the "theory of text" developed in Semiotics and the "theory of memory" outlined in Cognitive Science. In particular the research is an attempt to study how human subjects remember and/or misremember a film, as a specific case study; in semiotics, films are “cinematographic texts”. The research is based on the production of a corpus of data gained through the qualitative method of interviewing. After an initial screening of a fulllength feature film each participant of the experiment has been interviewed twice, according to a pre-established set of questions. The first interview immediately after the screening: the subsequent, follow-up interview three months from screening. The purpose of this design is to elicit two types of recall from the participants. In order to conduce a comparative inquiry, three films have been used in the experimental setting. Each film has been watched by thirteen subjects, that have been interviewed twice. The corpus of data is then made by seventy-eight interviews. The present dissertation displays the results of the investigation of these interviews. It is divided into six main parts. Chapter one presents a theoretical framework about the two main issues: memory and text. The issue of the memory is introduced through many recherches drown up in the field of Cognitive Science and Neuroscience. It is developed, at the same time, a possible relationship with a semiotic approach. The theoretical debate about textuality, characterizing the field of Semiotics, is examined in the same chapter. Chapter two deals with methodology, showing the process of definition of the whole method used for production of the corpus of data. The interview is explored in detail: how it is born, what are the expected results, what are the main underlying hypothesis. In Chapter three the investigation of the answers given by the spectators starts. It is examined the phenomenon of the outstanding details of the process of remembering, trying to define them in a semiotic way. Moreover there is an investigation of the most remembered scenes in the movie. Chapter four considers how the spectators deal with the whole narrative. At the same time it is examined what they think about the global meaning of the film. Chapter five is about affects. It tries to define the role of emotions in the process of comprehension and remembering. Chapter six presents a study of how the spectators account for a single scene of the movie. The complete work offers a broad perspective about the semiotic issue of textuality, using both a semiotic competence and a cognitive one. At the same time it presents a new outlook on the issue of memory, opening several direction of research.

La nutrizione-idratazione artificiale è terapia? All'interfaccia tra scienza, diritto e bioetica, il fine vita in Italia, secondo una prospettiva di comunicazione della scienza post-accademica e Science&Technologies Studies (STS)

The question “artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) is therapy or not?” is one of the key point of end-of-life issues in Italy, since it was (and it is also nowadays) a strategic and crucial point of the Italian Bioethics discussion about the last phases of human life: determining if ANH is therapy implies the possibility of being included in the list of treatments that could be mentioned for refusal within the living will document. But who is entitled to decide and judge if ANH is a therapy or not? Scientists? The Legislator? Judges? Patients? This issue at first sight seems just a matter of science, but at stake there is more than a scientific definition. According to several scholars, we are in the era of post-academic Science, in which Science broaden discussion, production, negotation and decision to other social groups that are not just the scientific communities. In this process, called co-production, on one hand scientific knowledge derives from the interaction between scientists and society at large. On the other hand, science is functional to co-production of social order. The continuous negotation on which science has to be used in social decisions is just the evidence of the mirroring negotation for different way to structure and interpret society. Thus, in the interaction between Science and Law, deciding what kind of Science could be suitable for a specific kind of Law, envisages a well defined idea of society behind this choice. I have analysed both the legislative path (still in progress) in the living will act production in Italy and Eluana Englaro’s judicial case (that somehow collapsed in the living will act negotiation), using official documents (hearings, texts of the official conference, committees comments and ruling texts) and interviewing key actors in the two processes from the science communication point of view (who talks in the name of science? Who defines what is a therapy? And how do they do?), finding support on the theoretical framework of the Science&Technologies Studies (S&TS).