This paper reconsiders semiotic modelling in light of recent scholarship on Charles Peirce, particularly regarding his concept of proposition. Conceived in the vein of Peirce’s phenomenological categories as well as of his taxonomy of signs, semiotic modelling has mostly been thought of as ascending from simple, basic sign types to complex ones. This constitutes the backbone of most currently accepted semiotic modelling theories and entails the further acceptance of an unexamined a priori coherence between complexity of cognition and complexity of signification. Following recent readings of Peirce’s post-1900 semiotic, we engage in a discussion as to what are the limits of this approach. From Stjernfelt’s conception of the dicisign in nature, we derive a perspective that affords understanding the practice of modelling as a reciprocal interplay between (top-down) decomposition of complexity and (bottom-up) recombination into further complexity. This discussion is facilitated by the recent extrapolation of the (initially) constructivist concept of scaffolding in biosemiotics research. Cognition, we argue, begins with a fundamental irritation of trying to make sense of a structure that is more complex than what can directly be derived from experience and, in so doing, urges meaning-seeking (abductive) processes. The yet unknown object is decomposed into more tangible objects and is subsequently reassembled from these more manageable conceptions of the object. In support of our argument, we discuss the notions of semiotic competences and resources in light of such a naturalized account of meaning-making.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Note how recent research in cognitive semiotics and cognitive linguistics often models and observes some developmental progression from firstness to secondness to thirdness, or iconic modelling to indexical modelling to symbolic modelling. For example, see the cognitive/ontogenetic perspectives of Zlatev (2009, 2013), Zlatev and Andrén.(2009). See Campbell (2019), who addresses the relevance of Sebeok and Danesi’s Peircean influenced modelling for education and edusemiotics.
Case in point: the interpretation of Peirce in Derrida´s On Grammatology (1976: 49–50). Derrida was clearly fascinated with the idea of unlimited semiosis, but not receptive to the idea of the dependence of semiosis on the dynamical object and its terminus in habit. For a Peircean critique of this view, which is outside of the scope of the present paper, see Eco (1995). Some of us have previously commented on this issue, e.g. Feil (2017: 232) and Feil and Olteanu (2018: 207).
Olteanu and Stables (2018: 421) explain further: “from its beginning, biosemiotics was defined by Sebeok [e.g. 1991, 2001a]… as a modelling theory and, while useful for cognitive theories as well, it does not impose any particular assumption about cognition. Thus, from this perspective, a theory of learning does not necessarily imply a discussion on cognition. An educational theory and system can conceive learning in terms of signification only”.
Atã, P., & Queiroz, J. (2016). Habit in Semiosis: Two Different Perspectives Based on Hierar- chical Multi-level System Modeling and Niche Construction Theory: Before and Beyond Consciousness. In E. Donna, West, Myrdene & Anderson (Eds.), Consensus on Peirce’s Con- cept of Habit. Springer (pp. 109–119). Cham: Springer.
Bruner, J. S. (1957). Going beyond the information given. New York: Norton.
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge: Belknap.
Campbell, C. (2017). Learning that reflects the living: aligning Anticipation and edusemiotics. Public Journal of Semiotics, 8(1), 1–25.
Campbell, C. (2018a). Returning ‘learning’ to education: Toward an ecological conception of learning and teaching. Σηµειωτκή-Sign Systems Studies, 46(4), 538–568.
Campbell, C. (2018b). In search of our beginnings: Locating ‘firstness’ in arts education in the service of advocacy. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 19(13), 1–36.
Campbell, C. (2019). Educating semiosis: Foundational concepts for an ecological edusemiotic. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 38(3), 291–317.
Campbell, C., Olteanu, A., & Kull, K. (2020). Learning and knowing as semiosis: Extending the conceptual apparatus of semiotics. Sign Systems Studies, 47(3/4), 352–381.
Cassirer, E. (1944). An Essay on Man: An introduction to a philosophy of human culture. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Cobley, P., & Stjernfelt, F. (2015). Scaffolding development and the human condition. Biosemiotics, 8(2), 291–304.
CP = Peirce, C. S. The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. (Hartshorne, Charles; Weiss, Paul, eds. 1931–1935; Burks, Arthur W., ed. 1958.) Cambridge: Belknap.
Deacon, T. (1997). The Symbolic Species: The co-evolution of language and the brain. New York: W. W. Norton & Co: Lon don.
Deacon, T. (2012a). Incomplete Nature: How mind emerged from matter. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Deacon, T. (2012b). The symbol concept. In: Maggie Tallerman; Kathleen R. Gibson (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 393–405.
Deely, J. (1990). Basics of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology. trans. In Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. [original publication 1967].
Dewey, J. (1925). Experience and nature. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company.
Eco, U. (1995). Unlimited semeiosis and drift: Pragmaticism vs.‘pragmatism’. In K. Ketner (Ed.), Peirce and contemporary thought (pp. 205– 221) New York: Fordham University Press.
Eco, U. (2000). . In Kant and the platypus: Essays on language and cognition. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Eco, U. (2014). From the tree to the labyrinth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Favareau, D. (Ed.). (2010a). Essential readings in biosemiotics: Anthology and Commentary. Dordrecht: Springer.
Favareau, D. (2010b). Introduction: An evolutionary history of biosemiotics. In D. Favareau (Ed.), Essential Readings in Biosemiotics (pp. 1–77). Dordrecht: Springer.
Feil, S. (2017). What are we appealing to? A Semiotic Approach to the Notion of Context in Literary Studies. KODIKAS/CODE. Ars Semeiotica, 40(3–4), 221–238.
Feil, S., & Olteanu, A. (2018). Abduction, hermeneutics and the interpretation of interpretations. Human Arenas, 1(2), 206–222.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gould, S. J., & Vrba, E. S. (1982). Exaptation – a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology, 8(1), 4–15.
Hoffmeyer, J. (2007). Semiotic scaffolding of living systems. In Marcello Barbieri (ed.) Intro duction to Biosemiotics (pp. 149–166). Berlin: Springer.
Hoffmeyer, J. (2015a). Introduction: Semiotic scaffolding. Biosemiotics, 8(2), 153–158.
Hoffmeyer, J. (2015b). Semiotic scaffolding of multicellularity. Biosemiotics, 8(2), 159–171.
Hoffmeyer, J. (2015c). Semiotic scaffolding: a unitary principle gluing life and culture together. Green Letters, 19(3), 243–254.
Hoffmeyer, J., & Stjernfelt, F. (2016). The great chain of semiosis. Investigating the steps in the evolution of semiotic competence. Biosemiotics, 9, 7–29.
Ingold, T. (2017). Anthropology and/as education. Abingdon: Routledge.
Jaroš, F., & Maran, T. (2019). Humans on top, humans among the other animals: Narratives of anthropological fifference. Biosemiotics, First online. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-019-09364-w.
Kallen, H. (1956). Cultural pluralism and the American idea: An essay in social philosophy. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Koopman, C. (2009). Pragmatism as transition: Historicity and hope in James, Dewey, and Rorty. New York: Columbia University Press.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communica- tion. London: Routledge.
Kress, G., & Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold.
Kull, K. (2003). Thomas A. Sebeok and biology: building biosemiotics. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 10(1), 47–60.
Kull, K. (2015). Evolution, choice, and scaffolding: Semiosis is changing its own building. Biosemiotics, 8(2), 223–234.
Kull, K. (2018). Choosing and learning: Semiosis means choice. Sign Systems Studies, 46(4), 452–466.
Kull, K. (2019). Steps towards the natural meronomy and taxonomy of semiosis: Emon between index and symbol. Sign Systems Studies, 47(1/2), 88–104.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Conceptual metaphor theory in everyday language. The Journal of Philosophy, 77(8), 453–486.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its chal- lenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Langacker, R. (1990). Concept, image, and symbol: the cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Legg, C. (2017). ‘Diagrammatic teaching’: The role of iconic signs in meaningful pedagogy. In I. Semetsky (Ed.), Edusemiotics—A Handbook (pp. 29–45). Singapore: Springer.
Lotman, J. (1977). Primary and secondary communication-modeling systems. In D. Lucid & Peri (Eds.), Soviet Semiotics: An Anthology (pp. 95–98). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lotman, J. (1990). Universe of the mind. Trans. Shukman, Ann. Intr. Eco, Umberto. London: I. B. Tauris.
MacLarnon, A. (2012). The anatomical and physiological basis of human speech production: Adaptations and exaptations. In K. R. Gibson & M. Tallerman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language Evolution (pp. 224–235). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MacLarnon, A., & Hewitt Gwen, P. (1999). The evolution of human speech: the role of enhanced breathing control. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 109(3), 341–363.
Maran, T. (2020). Applied ecosemiotics: Ontological basis and conceptual models. In P. Cobley & A. Olteanu (Eds.), Semiotics and its masters. Forthcoming: Mouton De Gruyter.
Mead, G. H. (1972 ). Mind, self and society. Ed. Charles Morris; Intr. Charles Morris. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1995). La nature. Notes. Cours de Collège de France. Paris: Seuil.
Merrell, F. (1996). Signs grow: Semiosis and life processes. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Nadin, M. (2014). Semiotics is fundamental science. In M. Jennex (Ed.), Knowledge Discovery, Transfer, and Man agement in the Information Age (pp. 76–125). Hershey: Information Science Reference.
Nöth, W. (2018). The semiotics of models. Sign Systems Studies, 46(1), 7–43.
Olteanu, A. (2019). Multiculturalism as multimodal communication: A semiotic perspective. Cham: Springer.
Olteanu, A., & Stables, A. (2018). Learning and adaptation from a semiotic perspective. Sign Systems Studies, 46(4), 409–434.
Pearson, C. (2017). Eight Common Fallacies of Elementary Semiotics. Chinese Semiotic Studies, 13(4), 339–346.
Pietarinen, A.-V. (2004). Multi-agent systems and game theory—A Peircean manifesto. Inter- national Journal of General Systems., 33(4), 395–414.
Prodi, G. (1988). Signs and codes in immunology. In E. Sercarz, F. Celada, A. Mitchison & T. Tado (Eds.), The Semiotics of Cellular Communication in the Immune System. Berlin: Springer.
Randviir, A., & Cobley. Paul 2010. Sociosemiotics. In P. Cobley (Ed.), The Routledge Companion to Semiotics. New York: Routledge, 118–134.
Reybrouck, M. (2012). Musical Sense-Making and the Concept of Affordance: An Ecosemiotic and Experiential Approach. Biosemiotics, 5(3), 391–409.
Reybrouck, M. (2015). Music as Environment: An Ecological and Biosemiotic Approach. Behavioral Sciences, 5(1), 1–26.
Rorty, R., & Ed, M. (1967). The linguistic turn: essays in philosophical method with two retro spective essays. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Salthe, S. N. (2010). What is Semiotics? Review of the Routledge Companion to Semiotics. Biosemiotics, 3(2), 245–251.
Scalia, J. C. (2019). Towards a holo-semiotic framework for the evolution of language. In A. Olteanu, A. Stables & D. Borţun (Eds.), Meanings & Co.: The Interdis- ciplinarity of Semiotics, Communication and Multimodality (pp. 89–104). Cham: Springer.
Sebeok, T. (1965a). Animal communication. Science, 147, 1006–1014.
Sebeok, T. (1965b). Zoosemiotics: A new key to linguistics. The Review, 7, 27–33.
Sebeok, T. (1976). Contributions to the doctrine of signs. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Sebeok, T. (1986). The problem of the origin of language in an evolutionary frame. Language Sciences, 8(2), 169–176.
Sebeok, T. (1991). A sign is just a sign: Advances in semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Sebeok, T. (2001a). . In Signs: An introduction to semiotics. Toronto: University of Tor- onto Press.
Sebeok, T., & Danesi, M. (2000). The forms of meaning: Modelling systems theory and se- miotic analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sebeok, T.A. (2001b). Nonverbal communication. In P. Cobley (Ed.), The Routledge Com- panion to Semiotics and Linguistics (pp. 14–27). New York: Routledge.
Sharov, A., Maran, T., & Tønnessen, M. (2016). Comprehending the semiosis of evolution. Biosemiotics, 9(1), 1–6.
Stables, A., & Bishop, K. (2001). Weak and strong conceptions of environmental literacy: Implications for environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 7(1), 89–97.
Stjernfelt, E. Jens-Martin, Frederik (2012). The democratic contradictions of Multiculturalism. New York: Telos Press.
Stjernfelt, F. 2006. The semiotic body. A semiotic concept of embodiment? In Nöth, Win- fried (Ed.), Semiotic Bodies, Aesthetic Embodiments and Cyberbodies. Kassel: Kassel Uni versity Press, 13–48.
Stjernfelt, F. (2007). Diagrammatology. An investigation on the borderlines of phenomenol- ogy, ontology and semiotics. Dordrecht: Springer.
Stjernfelt, F. (2012). The evolution of semiotic self-control. In T. Schilhab, F. Stjernfelt & T. Deacon (Eds.), The Symbolic Species Evolved (pp. 39–63). Dordrecht: Springer.
Stjernfelt, F. (2014). Natural propositions: The actuality of Peirce’s doctrine of dicisigns. Boston: Docent Press.
Stjernfelt, F. (2015). Dicisigns: Peirce’s semiotic doctrine of propositions. Synthese, 192(4), 1019–1054.
Stjernfelt, F. (2016). Dicisigns and habits: Implicit propositions and habit-taking in Peirce’s pragmatism. In E. Donna, West; M. & Anderson (Eds.), Consensus on Peirce’s Concept of Habit (pp. 241–262). Springer Cham: Springer.
Tønnessen, M., Maran, T., & Sharov, A. (2018). Phenomenology and biosemiotics. Biosemiotics, 11(3), 323–330.
von Uexküll, J. (1926). Theoretical biology. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.
von Uexküll, J. 2010 [1934, 1940]. A foray into the worlds of animals and humans with a theory of meaning. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Wheeler, W. (2008). ‘Do not block the path of inquiry!’ Peircean abduction, the tacit dimension, and biosemiotic creativity in nature and culture. The American Journal of Semiotics, 24(1/3), 171–187.
Zlatev, J. (2009). The semiotic hierarchy: Life, consciousness, signs and language. Cognitive Semiotics, 4, 169–200.
Zlatev, J. (2013). The mimesis hierarchy of aemiotic development: Five stages of intersubjectivity in children. Public Journal of Semiotics, 4(2), 47–70.
Zlatev, J., & Andrén, M. (2009). Stages and transitions in children’s semiotic development. In J. Zlatev, M. Andrén, M. Johansson-Falck & C. Lundmark (Eds.), Studies in Language and Cognition (pp. 380–401). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Nadin, M. (Ed.). (2017). Anticipation and the brain. In Anticipation and Medicine (pp. 147–175). New York: Springer.
For this research, Alin Olteanu received funding from the Estonian Research Council (MOBJD346).
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Olteanu, A., Campbell, C. & Feil, S. Naturalizing Models: New Perspectives in a Peircean Key. Biosemiotics 13, 179–197 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-020-09385-w
- C. S. Peirce
- Diagrammatic reasoning