Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Naturalizing Models: New Perspectives in a Peircean Key

  • Published:
Biosemiotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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 via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Complex in the sense that it is dynamic and not totally reducible to production rules, that is, computations, see Campbell (2017); Kull (2018); Nadin (2014, 2017).

  2. 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.

  3. 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).

  4. See, https://philosophasters.org/blog/2018/8/13/from-plato-to-peirce-an-interview-with-winfried-noth.

  5. 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”.

References

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1957). Going beyond the information given. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge: Belknap.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, C. (2019). Educating semiosis: Foundational concepts for an ecological edusemiotic. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 38(3), 291–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassirer, E. (1944). An Essay on Man: An introduction to a philosophy of human culture. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology. trans. In Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. [original publication 1967].

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1925). Experience and nature. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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). [1997]. In Kant and the platypus: Essays on language and cognition. New York: Harcourt Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eco, U. (2014). From the tree to the labyrinth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Favareau, D. (Ed.). (2010a). Essential readings in biosemiotics: Anthology and Commentary. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Favareau, D. (2010b). Introduction: An evolutionary history of biosemiotics. In D. Favareau (Ed.), Essential Readings in Biosemiotics (pp. 1–77). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feil, S., & Olteanu, A. (2018). Abduction, hermeneutics and the interpretation of interpretations. Human Arenas, 1(2), 206–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J., & Vrba, E. S. (1982). Exaptation – a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology, 8(1), 4–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer, J. (2015b). Semiotic scaffolding of multicellularity. Biosemiotics, 8(2), 159–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, T. (2017). Anthropology and/as education. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kallen, H. (1956). Cultural pluralism and the American idea: An essay in social philosophy. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koopman, C. (2009). Pragmatism as transition: Historicity and hope in James, Dewey, and Rorty. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communica- tion. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G., & Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kull, K. (2003). Thomas A. Sebeok and biology: building biosemiotics. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 10(1), 47–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kull, K. (2015). Evolution, choice, and scaffolding: Semiosis is changing its own building. Biosemiotics, 8(2), 223–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kull, K. (2018). Choosing and learning: Semiosis means choice. Sign Systems Studies, 46(4), 452–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Conceptual metaphor theory in everyday language. The Journal of Philosophy, 77(8), 453–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its chal- lenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lotman, J. (1990). Universe of the mind. Trans. Shukman, Ann. Intr. Eco, Umberto. London: I. B. Tauris.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maran, T. (2020). Applied ecosemiotics: Ontological basis and conceptual models. In P. Cobley & A. Olteanu (Eds.), Semiotics and its masters. Forthcoming: Mouton De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, G. H. (1972 [1934]). 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrell, F. (1996). Signs grow: Semiosis and life processes. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nöth, W. (2018). The semiotics of models. Sign Systems Studies, 46(1), 7–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olteanu, A. (2019). Multiculturalism as multimodal communication: A semiotic perspective. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olteanu, A., & Stables, A. (2018). Learning and adaptation from a semiotic perspective. Sign Systems Studies, 46(4), 409–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, C. (2017). Eight Common Fallacies of Elementary Semiotics. Chinese Semiotic Studies, 13(4), 339–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pietarinen, A.-V. (2004). Multi-agent systems and game theory—A Peircean manifesto. Inter- national Journal of General Systems., 33(4), 395–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reybrouck, M. (2015). Music as Environment: An Ecological and Biosemiotic Approach. Behavioral Sciences, 5(1), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, R., & Ed, M. (1967). The linguistic turn: essays in philosophical method with two retro spective essays. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebeok, T. (1965a). Animal communication. Science, 147, 1006–1014.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebeok, T. (1986). The problem of the origin of language in an evolutionary frame. Language Sciences, 8(2), 169–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebeok, T. (1991). A sign is just a sign: Advances in semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebeok, T. (2001a). [1994]. In Signs: An introduction to semiotics. Toronto: University of Tor- onto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebeok, T., & Danesi, M. (2000). The forms of meaning: Modelling systems theory and se- miotic analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Stables, A., & Bishop, K. (2001). Weak and strong conceptions of environmental literacy: Implications for environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 7(1), 89–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stjernfelt, F. (2014). Natural propositions: The actuality of Peirce’s doctrine of dicisigns. Boston: Docent Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stjernfelt, F. (2015). Dicisigns: Peirce’s semiotic doctrine of propositions. Synthese, 192(4), 1019–1054.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Uexküll, J. (1926). Theoretical biology. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zlatev, J. (2009). The semiotic hierarchy: Life, consciousness, signs and language. Cognitive Semiotics, 4, 169–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zlatev, J. (2013). The mimesis hierarchy of aemiotic development: Five stages of intersubjectivity in children. Public Journal of Semiotics, 4(2), 47–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadin, M. (Ed.). (2017). Anticipation and the brain. In Anticipation and Medicine (pp. 147–175). New York: Springer.

Download references

Acknowledgements

For this research, Alin Olteanu received funding from the Estonian Research Council (MOBJD346).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Semiotics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

    Alin Olteanu

  2. Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania

    Alin Olteanu

  3. Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada

    Cary Campbell

  4. Philologisch-Historische Fakultät, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany

    Sebastian Feil

Authors
  1. Alin Olteanu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cary Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sebastian Feil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alin Olteanu.

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

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-020-09385-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation