Abstract
Taking influence from Peirce’s phenomenological categories (Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness), a notion of what we call bottom-up modeling has become increasingly significant in research areas interested in learning, cognition, and development. Here, following a particular reading of Peircean semiotics (cf. Deacon, Terrence. 1997. The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain. London and New York: W. W. Norton; Sebeok, Thomas and Marcel Danesi. 2000. The forms of meaning: Modelling systems theory and semiotic analysis. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter), modeling, and thus also learning, has mostly been thought of as ascending from simple, basic sign types to complex ones (iconic – indexical – symbolic; Firstness – Secondness – Thirdness). This constitutes the basis of most currently accepted (neo-Peircean) semiotic modeling 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 will present, in abbreviated form, a discussion as to the limits of this theoretical approach for theories of learning that draws upon Peirce’s late semiotic philosophy, in particular his late work on iconicity and propositions. We also explore the corollary conceptions of semiotic resources and competences and affordances to develop an ecological perspective on learning that notably does not impose a linear developmental progression from simple to complex. In conclusion, we address some of the implications of this (post-Peircean) conceptualization for transdisciplinary research into learning.
Funding source: Estonian Research Council
Award Identifier / Grant number: MOBDJ346
Funding source: SSHRC
About the authors
Cary Campbell (b. 1990) is an instructor at Simon Fraser University. His research interests include philosophy of education, learning theory, ecological and environmental education, and arts/music education. Some recent publications include “Learning and knowing as semiosis: extending the conceptual apparatus of semiotics” (with Olteanu and Kull 2019) and “Returning ‘learning’ to education: Toward an ecological conception of learning and teaching” (2018).
Alin Olteanu (b. 1987) is a Postdoctoral researcher at RWTH Aachen University. His research interests include multiculturalism, digital literacy, learning, and communication. His publications include “Multiculturalism as multimodal communication: A semiotic perspective” (2019), “Translation from a contemporary media perspective: avoiding monolingualism and culturalism” (in press), and “Learning and adaptation from a semiotic perspective” (2018, with Andrew Stables).
Sebastian Feil (b. 1984) is a research assistant at the University of Augsburg. His research interests include – besides Peirce’s semiotics – conceptual history, hermeneutics, and literary theory. Some more recent publications include “The power of habit” (2019) about the relation of Foucault’s concept of power and Dewey’s notion of habit and “Der Begriff der/als Schnittstelle” (2020, in German) about the notion of “concept” as interface.
Acknowledgments
Cary Campbell received funding from an SSHRC Joseph-Armand Bombardier scholarship.
References
Brandt, Per Aage. 2011. What is cognitive semiotics? A new paradigm in the study of meaning. Signata: Annales des sémiotiques/Annals of Semiotics 2. 49–60. https://doi.org/10.4000/signata.526.Search in Google Scholar
Campbell, Cary. 2017. Learning that reflects the living: aligning Anticipation and edusemiotics. Public Journal of Semiotics 8(1). 1–25.10.37693/pjos.2017.8.16686Search in Google Scholar
Campbell, Cary. 2018. Returning “learning” to education: Toward an ecological conception of learning and teaching. Σημειωτκή-Sign Systems Studies 46(4). 538–568. https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.2018.46.4.07.Search in Google Scholar
Campbell, Cary. 2019. Educating semiosis: Foundational concepts for an ecological edusemiotic. Studies in Philosophy and Education 38(3). 291–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-018-9617-4.Search in Google Scholar
Campbell, Cary. 2020. Introduction to the 2020 Peirce section. Chinese Semiotic Studies 16(1). 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2020-0007.Search in Google Scholar
Campbell, Cary, Alin Olteanu & Kalevi Kull. 2019. Learning and knowing as semiosis: Extending the conceptual apparatus of semiotics. Sign Systems Studies 47(3/4). 352–381.10.12697/SSS.2019.47.3-4.01Search in Google Scholar
Clark, Andy & Chalmers, David. 1998. The extended mind. Analysis 58 (1). 7-19.10.7551/mitpress/9780262014038.003.0002Search in Google Scholar
Deacon, Terrence. 1997. The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain. London & New York: W. W. Norton.Search in Google Scholar
Deacon, Terrence. 2012. Beyond the symbolic species. In Theresa Schilhab, Frederik Stjernfelt & Terrence Deacon (eds.), The symbolic species evolved, 9–38. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-2336-8_2Search in Google Scholar
Deacon, Terrence. 2019. From information theory to semiotics. In Lecture at the University of Tartu, Department of Semiotics, 15 July 2019. https://www.uttv.ee/naita?id=28688&jwsource=cl.Search in Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. 1976 [1967]. Of grammatology. Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto. 2000. Kant and the platypus: Essays on language and cognition. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Search in Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto. 2014. From the tree to the labyrinth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674728165Search in Google Scholar
Elleström, Lars. 2013. Spatiotemporal aspects of iconicity. In Lars, Elleström, Olga, Fischer, and Christina, Ljundberg (eds.), Iconic Investigations, 95–117. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub.10.1075/ill.12.09ellSearch in Google Scholar
Elliot, Niels Lindahl. 2019. Observing wildlife in tropical forests: A geosemiotic approach. Bristol: Delome.Search in Google Scholar
Eriksen, Jens-Martin & Frederik Stjernfelt. 2012. The democratic contradictions of Multiculturalism. New York: Telos Press.Search in Google Scholar
Feil, Sebastian & Alin Olteanu. 2018. Abduction, hermeneutics and the interpretation of interpretations. Human Arenas 1(2). 206–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-018-0013-y.Search in Google Scholar
Fernández, Eliseo. 2019. From tendencies to purposes. Chinese Semiotic Studies 15(1). 139–151.10.1515/css-2019-0009Search in Google Scholar
Hoffmeyer, Jesper. 2007. Semiotic scaffolding of living systems. In Marcello Barbieri (ed.), Introduction to biosemiotics, 149–166. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/1-4020-4814-9_6Search in Google Scholar
Hoffmeyer, Jesper. 2015c. Semiotic scaffolding: A unitary principle gluing life and culture together. Green Letters 19(3). 243–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/14688417.2015.1058175.Search in Google Scholar
Hoffmeyer, Jesper. 2018. Knowledge is never just there. Biosemiotics 11(1). 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-018-9320-4.Search in Google Scholar
Hutchins, Edwin. 1995. How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science 19(3). 265–288.10.1207/s15516709cog1903_1Search in Google Scholar
Koopman, Colin. 2009. Pragmatism as transition: Historicity and hope in James, Dewey, and Rorty. New York: Columbia University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kull, Kalevi. 2003. Thomas A. Sebeok and biology: Building biosemiotics. Cybernetics and Human Knowing 10(1). 47–60.Search in Google Scholar
Kull, Kalevi. 2009. Biosemiotics: To know, what life knows. Cybernetics and Human Knowing 16(3–1). 81–88.Search in Google Scholar
Kull, Kalevi. 2015. Evolution, choice, and scaffolding: Semiosis is changing its own building. Biosemiotics 8(2). 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-015-9243-2.Search in Google Scholar
Kull, Kalevi. 2018. Choosing and learning: Semiosis means choice. Sign Systems Studies 46(4). 452–466. https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.2018.46.4.03.Search in Google Scholar
Kull, Kalevi. 2020. Semiotic fitting and the nativeness of community. Biosemiotics 13(1). 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-020-09375-y.Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar
Legg, Catherine. 2017. ‘Diagrammatic teaching’: The role of iconic signs in meaningful pedagogy. In Inna Semetsky (ed.), Edusemiotics — A handbook, 29–45. Singapore: Springer.10.1007/978-981-10-1495-6_3Search in Google Scholar
Mittelberg, Irene. 2013. The exbodied mind: Cognitive-semiotic principles as motivating forces in gesture. In Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva H. Ladewig, David McNeil & Sedinha Teßendorf (eds.), Body – language – communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 755–784.10.1515/9783110261318.755Search in Google Scholar
Mittelberg, Irene. 2019. Peirce’s universal categories: On their potential for gesture theory and multimodal analysis. Semiotica 228. 193–222. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2018-0090.Search in Google Scholar
Nadin, Mihaai. 2014. Semiotics is fundamental science. In Murray Jennex (ed.), Knowledge discovery, transfer, and management in the information age, 76–125. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.10.4018/978-1-4666-4711-4.ch005Search in Google Scholar
Nadin, Mihai. 2017. Anticipation and the brain. In Mihai Nadin (ed.), Anticipation and medicine, 147–175. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-45142-8_9Search in Google Scholar
Nöth, Winfried. 2018. The semiotics of models. Sign Systems Studies 46(1). 7–43.10.12697/SSS.2018.46.1.01Search in Google Scholar
Olteanu, Alin. 2019a. Multiculturalism as multimodal communication: A semiotic perspective. Cham: Springer.Search in Google Scholar
Olteanu, Alin. 2019b. Schematic enough to be safe from kidnappers: The semiotics of Charles Peirce as transitionalist pragmatism. Journal of Philosophy of Education 53(4). 788–806. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12403.Search in Google Scholar
Olteanu, Alin & Cary Campbell. 2018. A short introduction to edusemiotics. Chinese Semiotic Studies 14(2). 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2018-0015.Search in Google Scholar
Olteanu, Alin & Andrew Stables. 2018. Learning and adaptation from a semiotic perspective. Sign Systems Studies 46(4). 409–434. https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.2018.46.4.01.Search in Google Scholar
Olteanu, Alin, Cary Campbell & Sebastian Feil. 2020. Naturalizing models: New perspectives in a Peircean key. Biosemiotics 13(1). 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-020-09385-w.Search in Google Scholar
Paolucci, Claudio. 2011. The “External mind”: Semiotics, pragmatism, extended mind and distributed cognition. Versus 112–113. 69–96.Search in Google Scholar
Pape, Helmut. 1997. The logical structure of idealism: C. S. Peirce’s search for a logic of mental processes. In Jacqueline, Brunning & Paul, Forster (eds.), The rule of reason: The philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce, 153–184. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.10.3138/9781442682276-011Search in Google Scholar
Pearson, Charls. 2017. Eight common fallacies of elementary semiotics. Chinese Semiotic Studies 13(4). 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2017-0019.Search in Google Scholar
Pearson, Charles. 2018. In memoriam: Eliseo Fernández: Semiotics’ dear friend, with deepest sympathy. Chinese Semiotic Studies 14(4). 393–418.10.1515/css-2018-0023Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1868. Some consequences of four incapacities. Journal of Speculative Philosophy 2(3). 140–157.Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1877 [1955/1940]. The fixation of belief. In Justus Buchler (ed.), Philosophical writings of Peirce, 5–22. New York: Dover.Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1935. The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vols. I–VI. Edited by Charles Hartshorne & Paul Weiss. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [In-text references are to CP, followed by volume and paragraph numbers].Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1958. The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vols. VII–VIII. Edited by Arthur W. Burks. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [In-text references are to CP, followed by volume and paragraph numbers].Search in Google Scholar
Pelkey, Jamin. 2018. Emptiness and desire in the first rule of logic. Sign Systems Studies 46(4). 467–490. https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.2018.46.4.04.Search in Google Scholar
Pikkarainen, Eetu. 2018. Adaptation, learning, Bildung: Discussion with edu- and biosemiotics. Sign Systems Studies 46(4). 435–451. https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.2018.46.4.02.Search in Google Scholar
Prodi, G. 1988. Signs and codes in immunology. In Eli Sercarz, Franco Celada, N. Avrion Mitchison & Tomio Tada (eds.), The semiotics of cellular communication in the immune system, 53–64. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-73145-7_6Search in Google Scholar
Rodríguez Higuera, Claudio J. 2019. Everything seems so settled here: The conceivability of post-Peircean biosemiotics. Sign Systems Studies 47(3/4). 420–435.10.12697/SSS.2019.47.3-4.04Search in Google Scholar
Scalia, Jeremiah Cassar. 2019. Towards a holo-semiotic framework for the evolution of language. In Alin Olteanu, Andrew Stables & Dumitru Borţun (eds.), Meanings & co.: The interdisciplinarity of semiotics, communication and multimodality, 89–104. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-91986-7_6Search in Google Scholar
Sebeok, Thomas A. 1965a. Animal communication. Science 147(3661). 1006–1014. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.147.3661.1006.Search in Google Scholar
Sebeok, Thomas A. 1965b. Zoosemiotics: A new key to linguistics. The Review 7. 27–33.Search in Google Scholar
Sebeok, Thomas A. 1976. Contributions to the doctrine of signs. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Sebeok, Thomas A. 1991. A sign is just a sign: Advances in semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Sebeok, Thomas A. 2001a [1994]. Signs: An introduction to semiotics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Search in Google Scholar
Sebeok, Thomas A. 2001b. Nonverbal communication. In Paul Cobley (ed.), The Routledge companion to semiotics and linguistics, 14–27. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Sebeok, Thomas & Marcel Danesi. 2000. The forms of meaning: Modelling systems theory and semiotic analysis. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110816143Search in Google Scholar
Stables, Andrew. 2006. Sign(al)s: Living and learning as semiotic engagement. Journal of Curriculum Studies 38(4). 373–387.10.1080/00220270600732260Search in Google Scholar
Stables, Andrew. 2012. Be(com)ing human: Semiosis and the myth of reason. Cham: Springer Science & Business Media.10.1007/978-94-6091-997-8Search in Google Scholar
Stables, Andrew. 2019a. Semiotics and transitionalist pragmatism. Journal of Philosophy of Education 53(4). 773–787. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12402.Search in Google Scholar
Stables, Andrew. 2019b. New localism: Living in the here and now. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-21579-8Search in Google Scholar
Stables, Andrew, Winfried Nöth, Alin Olteanu, Sébastien Pesce & Eetu Pikkarainen. 2018. Semiotic theory of learning. New perspectives in the philosophy of education. London & New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315182438Search in Google Scholar
Stjernfelt, Frederik. 2007. Diagrammatology. An investigation on the borderlines of phenomenology, ontology and semiotics. Dordrecht: Springer.Search in Google Scholar
Stjernfelt, Frederik. 2014. Natural propositions: The actuality of Peirce’s doctrine of dicisigns. Boston: Docent Press.10.1007/s11229-014-0406-5Search in Google Scholar
Stjernfelt, Frederik. 2015. Dicisigns: Peirce’s semiotic doctrine of propositions. Synthese 192(4). 1019–1054. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0406-5.Search in Google Scholar
Stjernfelt, Frederik. 2016. Dicisigns and habits: Implicit propositions and habit-taking in Peirce’s pragmatism. In Donna West & MyrdeneAnderson (eds.), Consensus on Peirce’s concept of habit, 241–262. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-45920-2_14Search in Google Scholar
Strand, Torill. 2013. Peirce’s rhetorical turn: Conceptualizing education as semiosis. Educational Philosophy and Theory 45(7). 789–803.10.1111/j.1469-5812.2011.00837.xSearch in Google Scholar
Uexküll, Jakob von. 1926. Theoretical biology. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.Search in Google Scholar
Uexküll, Jakob von. 2010 [1934, 1940]. A foray into the worlds of animals and humans with a theory of meaning. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Search in Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan. 2009. The semiotic hierarchy: Life, consciousness, signs and language. Cognitive Semiotics 4: 169–200. https://doi.org/10.3726/81608_169.Search in Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan. 2013. The mimesis hierarchy of semiotic development: Five stages of intersubjectivity in children. Public Journal of Semiotics 4(2). 47–70. https://doi.org/10.37693/pjos.2013.4.8842.Search in Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan & Mats Andrén. 2009. Stages and transitions in children’s semiotic development. In Jordan Zlatev, Mats Andrén, Marlene, Johansson-Falc & Carita Lundmark (eds.), Studies in language and cognition, 380–401. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan, Timothy P. Racine, Chris Sinha & Esa Itkonen (eds.). 2008. The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/celcr.12Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
