The Semiotic Paradigm in Psychology. A Mature Weltanschauung for the Definition of Semiotic Mind

Abstract

The author discusses the relevance of the semiotic perspective for the psychological studies in order to deal with some critical issues. In the view of the author, the presumed weakness of psychology, its difficult to be acknowledged among hard sciences, and the lack of worldwide acceptance of its constructs cannot be solved by an evolutionary perspective that risk to cut off many relevant features of living beings and human beings as well. The core of the issue remains untouched. Assuming a wide semiotic paradigm, the mind can be considered a situated, recursive and contextual process of sensemaking engaged in articulating a flow of signs. The process of semiotic mediation is a crucial point at stake: the use of signs is not only to refer/point something or to communicate a message in coded forms, but it is to create models of world in order to think, to act and to share experiences. By a wide range of semiotic processes (iconic, indexical, symbolic), each living specie create its own world. Continuities and discontinuities with humang beings are presented and discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Barbieri, M. (2008). Biosemiotics: a new understanding of life. Naturwissenschaften, 95(7), 577–599.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Barros, M., Fossa, P., De Luca Picione, R., & Molina, M. E. (2020). Private Speech and Imagination: The liminal experience between myself and others. Human Arenas.

  3. Blankenburg, W., & Mishara, A. L. (2001). First steps toward a psychopathology of” common sense”. Philosophy, psychiatry, & psychology, 8(4), 303–315.

  4. Borghi, A. M., & Binkofski, F. (2014). Words as social tools: An embodied view on abstract concepts. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural Psychology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. De Luca Picione, R. (2015a). La Mente come Forma. La Mente come Testo. Un’indagine semiotico-psicologica dei processi di significazione. [Mind as Form. Mind as Text. A semiotic-psychological investigation of the processes of signification]. Milano: Mimesis Edizioni.

    Google Scholar 

  7. De Luca Picione, R. (2015b). The Idiographic Approach in Psychological Research. The Challenge of Overcoming Old Distinctions without Risking to Homogenize. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49(3), 360–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-015-9307-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. De Luca Picione, R. (2017). La funzione dei confini e della liminalità nei processi narrativi. Una di-scussione semiotico-dinamica. International Journal of Psychoanalysis and Education, 9(2), 37–57.

    Google Scholar 

  9. De L. Picione, R. (2020a – in press). Models of semiotic borders in psychology and their implications: from rigidity of separation to topological dynamics of connectivity. Theory & Psychology.

  10. De Luca Picione, R. (2020b – in press). La proposta dell’Idiographic Science. Discussione degli assunti storici, epistemologici e metodologici di un rinnovato approccio idiografico in psicologia. Ricerche in psicologia.

  11. De Luca Picione, R., Freda, M. F. (2016a). Borders and Modal Articulations. Semiotic Constructs of Sensemaking Processes Enabling a Fecund Dialogue Between Cultural Psychology and Clinical Psychology. Journal of Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50, 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-015-9318-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. De Luca Picione, R., Freda, M. F. (2016b). The processes of meaning making, starting from the morphogenetic theories of Rene´ Thom. Culture and Psychology, 22(1), 139–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X15576171.

  13. De Luca Picione, R. & Freda, M. F. (2016c). Possible use in psychology of threshold concept in order to study sensemaking processes. Culture & Psychology, 22(3), 362–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. De Luca Picione, R. & Freda, M. F. (2014). Catalysis and Morphogenesis: The Contextual Semiotic Configuration of Form, Function, and Fields of Experience. In Cabell, K. R., and Valsiner, J. (Eds.) (2014). The catalyzing mind. Beyond models of causality. Annals of Theoretical Psychology. Vol.11. pagg. 149–163. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8821-7_8.

  15. De Luca Picione, R. & Valsiner, J. (2017). Psychological functions of semiotic borders in sense-making: Liminality of narrative processes. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 13(3), 532–547. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v13i3.1136.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. De Luca Picione, R., Luisa Martino, M., & Freda, M. F. (2017). Understanding cancer patients’ narratives: Meaning-making process, temporality, and modal articulation. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 30(4), 339–359.

  17. De Luca Picione, R., Martino, M. L., Freda, M. F (2018). Modal articulation: The psychological and semiotic functions of modalities in the sensemaking process. Theory and Psychology, 28(1), 84–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354317743580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. De Luca Picione, R., Martino, M. L., Troisi, G. (2019). The Semiotic Construction of the Sense of Agency. The Modal Articulation in Narrative Processes. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 53(3), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-019-9475-9.

  19. De Martino, E. (1956). Crisi della presenza e reintegrazione religiosa. Aut aut, 31, 17–38.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dicé, F., Auricchio, M., Boursier, V., De Luca Picione, R., Santamaria, F., Salerno, M., Valerio, P., & Freda, M. F. (2018). Lo Scaffolding psicologico per la presa in carico delle condizioni Intersex/DSD. I Setting di Ascolto Congiunto. Psicologia della Salute, 1, 129–145. https://doi.org/10.3280/PDS2018-001008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dicé, F., Santaniello, A., Gerardi, F., Paoletti, A., Valerio, P., Freda, M. F., & Menna, L. F. (2018). Gli interventi assistiti dagli animali come processi di promozione della salute. Una review sistematica. Psicologia della Salute, 3, 5–23. https://doi.org/10.3280/PDS2018-003001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Eco, U. (1976). A theory of semiotics. Trans. W. Weaver. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Eco, U. (1986). Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language (Vol. 398). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Esposito, G., Freda, M. F., & De Luca Picione, R. (2016). Reflexivity or “Reflexivities” in Higher Education: conceptualizing unique reflexive process. In: Freda, M.F., Gonzàlez-Monteagudo, J., Esposito, G. (2016) (Eds). Working with Underachieving Students in Higher Education: Fostering Inclusion through Narration and Reflexivity. pp. 32–42. Abingdon: Oxon; New York: NY; Routledge.

  25. Favareau, D. (2010). An evolutionary history of biosemiotics. In D. F. Favareau (Ed.), Essential readings in biosemiotics (pp. 1–77). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Freedberg, D., & Gallese, V. (2007). Motion, emotion and empathy in esthetic experience. Trends in cognitive sciences, 11(5), 197–203.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Freud, S. (1911). Psychoanalytic notes on an autobiographical account of a case of paranoia (dementia paranoides). In The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume XII (1911–1913). (pp. 1–82).

  28. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.

  29. Hoffmeyer, J. (2014). Semiotic scaffolding: A biosemiotic link between sema and soma. In K. Cabell & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Catalyzing Mind. Beyond Models of Causality (pp. 95–110). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hoffmeyer, J. (2015). Semiotic scaffolding: a unitary principle gluing life and culture together. Green Letters, 19(3), 243–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Jaroš, F., & Maran, T. (2019). Humans on Top, Humans among the Other Animals: Narratives of Anthropological Difference. Biosemiotics, 12, 381–403.

  32. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.

  33. Kull, K. (2009). Vegetative, animal, and cultural semiosis: the semiotic threshold zones. Cognitive Semiotics, 4(Supplement), 8–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kull, K. (2014). Catalysis and scaffolding in semiosis. In K. Cabell & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The catalyzing mind. Beyond models of causality (pp. 111–121). New York: Springer.

  35. Kull, K. (2015). A semiotic theory of life: Lotman’s principles of the universe of the mind. Green Letters, 19(3), 255–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Marsico, G. (2016). The borderland. Culture & Psychology, 22(2), 206–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Morin, E. (1992). From the concept of system to the paradigm of complexity. Journal of social and evolutionary systems, 15(4), 371–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Morris, C. (1946). Signs, language and behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

  40. Neuman, Y. (2003). Process and boundaries of the mind. New York: Kluwer Acadmic/Plenum.

  41. Neuman, Y. (2008). Reviving the living: Meaning making in living systems. Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Neuman, Y. (2014). Introduction to computational cultural psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Peirce, C. S. (1935). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Prigogine, I. (1980). From being to becoming: Time and complexity in the physical sciences. San Francisco: Freedman & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Rizzolatti, G., & Fogassi, L. (2007). Mirror neurons and social cognition. In R. I. M. Dunbar & L. Barrett (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of evolufionary psychology (pp. 179–195). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Salvatore, S. (2014). The mountain of cultural psychology and the mouse of empirical studies. Methodological considerations for birth control. Culture & Psychology, 20(4), 477–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Salvatore, S. (2016a). The project of a theory-driven science. In Psychology in black and white. Charlotte (NC): Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Salvatore, S. (2016b). La Psicologia come scienza dell’explanandum. International Journal of Psychoanalysis and Education, 8(1), 7–22.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Salvatore, S. (2018). The systemic challenges facing the contemporary world. What semiotic-based psychoanalytic psychology can do and why. International Journal of Psychoanalysis and Education, 10(2), 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Salvatore, S., & Valsiner, J. (2010). Between the general and the unique: overcoming the nomothetic versus idiographic opposition. Theory & Psychology, 20(6), 817–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Salvatore, S., & Venuleo, C. (2008). Understanding the role of emotion in sense-making. A semiotic psychoanalytic oriented perspective. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 42(1), 32–46.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Salvatore, S., & Venuleo, C. (2017). Liminal transitions in a semiotic key: The mutual in-feeding between present and past. Theory & Psychology, 27(2), 215–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Schrödinger, E. (1944). What Is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell. Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 1955.

  54. Sebeok, T. A. (1986). I think I Am a Verb. More Contributions to the Doctrine of Signs. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Sebeok, T. A. (1990). The sign science and the life science. Semiotics, 243–252.

  56. Sebeok, T. A. (1991). A sign is just a sign. Bloomington: Indiana Univ Pr.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Sebeok, T. (2001). Signs: An Introduction to Semiotics. Second Edition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Sebeok, T. A., & Danesi, M. (2000). The forms of meaning: Modeling systems theory and semiotic analysis (Vol. 1). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Sercarz, E. E., Celada, F., Mitchison, N., & Tada, T. (Eds.). (1988). The Semiotics of Cellular Communication in the Immune System. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Smedslund, J. (1987). The epistemic status of inter-item correlations in Eysenck’s Personality Questionnaire. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 28, 42–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Smedslund, J. (1988). What is measured by a psychological measure? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 29, 148–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Smedslund, J. (1995). Psychologic: Common sense and the pseudoempirical. In A. Smith, R. Harré & L. V. Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking psychology (pp. 196–206). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Suárez Delucchi, N., & Fossa Arcila, P. (2020). Vygotsky’s inner language and its relation to the unconscious system of Freud. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 101(2), 257–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Tateo, L. (2016). Toward a cogenetic cultural psychology. Culture & Psychology, 22(3), 433–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Tateo, L. (2018). Affective semiosis and affective logic. New Ideas in Psychology, 48, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Tateo, L., & Marsico, G. (2013). The self as tension of wholeness and emptiness. Interaccoes, 9(24), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2005). Conceptual foundations of evolutionary psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (pp. 5–67). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Toomela, A. (2016). What are higher psychological functions? Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50(1), 91–121.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Turner, V. (1967). Betwixt and Between: The Liminal Period in Rites de Passage”. In The Forest of Symbols. New York: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Turner, V. (1979). Frame, flow and reflection: Ritual and drama as public liminality. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 465–499.

  71. Valsiner, J. (2007). Culture in minds and societies: Foundations of cultural psychology. New Delhi: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Valsiner, J. (2014). An invitation to cultural psychology. Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Valsiner, J., De, L., & Picione, R. (2017). La regolazione dinamica dei processi affettivi attraverso la mediazione semiotica. Rivista Internazionale di Filosofia e Psicologia.,8(1), 80–109. https://doi.org/10.4453/rifp.2017.0006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. von Uexkull, J. (1926). Theoretical Biology. Trans. By D.L. Mackinnon. London: Kegan Paul.

  75. Zagaria, A., Ando, A., & Zennaro, A. (2020). Psychology: a Giant with Feet of Clay. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09524-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raffaele De Luca Picione.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

De Luca Picione, R. The Semiotic Paradigm in Psychology. A Mature Weltanschauung for the Definition of Semiotic Mind. Integr. psych. behav. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09555-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Semiotic mind
  • Living being and context
  • Psychological dynamics of sensemaking