Signs and senses as an epistemological problem
- DOI
- 10.5922/2225-5346-2023-4-2
- Pages
- 31-47
Abstract
The semiotic problem of the triad “sign – meaning – sense” is discussed as a methodological problem caused by philosophy of external realism and the representational theory of cognition based on it. Reification of linguistic signs, along with the erroneous view of the nature and function of language as a communication tool rather than the mode of existence of humans as living (cognitive) systems, impedes scientific explanation of both language and linguistic signs. As an alternative, the core problem of semiotics is approached within the framework of constructivist epistemology that allows us to resolve the contradictions in the objectivist interpretation and explanation of sign, meaning, and sense which are viewed as emergent phenomena.
Reference
Blumenau, D. I., 1982. Problemy svertyvaniya nauchnoi informatsii [Problems of collapsing scientific information]. Moscow (in Russ.).
Bunnell, P., 2015. Dancing with ambiguity. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 22 (4), pp. 101—112.
Chechulin, V. L., 2011. On the etymology “smysl” (sense) in Russian and European languages. Privolzhskii nauchnyi vestnik [Privolzhsky Research Bulletin], 3, pp. 77—79 (in Russ.).
Davidson, A., 2019. Writing: the re-construction of language. Language Sciences, 72, pp. 134—149, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2018.09.004.
Deacon, T. W., 2015. Steps to a science of biosemiotics. Green Letters: Studies in Ecocriticism, 19 (3), pp. 293—311, https://doi.org/10.1080/14688417.2015.1072948.
Demyankov, V. Z., 1989. Interpretatsiya, ponimanie i lingvisticheskie aspekty ikh modelirovaniya na EVM [Interpretation, understanding, and the linguistic aspects of their computer modelling]. Moscow (in Russ.).
Doroszewski, W., 1973. Elementy leksikologii i semiotiki [Elements of lexicology and semiotics]. Moscow (in Russ.).
Foerster, H. von, 2002. Vision, language and knowledge: The double blind. In: D. F. Schnitman and J. Schnitman, eds. New paradigms, culture, and subjectivity. Cresskill NJ: Hampton Press, pp. 65—81.
Frege, G., 1892. Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, N. F., Bd. 100/1, pp. 25—50.
Glasersfeld, E. von, 1995. Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: Falmer Press.
Hebb, D. O., 1949. The organization of behavior. New York: Wiley & Sons.
Keller, R., 1998. A theory of linguistic signs. Translated by K. Duenwald. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kellogg, R. T., 1994. The psychology of writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kravchenko, A. V., 2003a. The ontology of signs as linguistic and non-linguistic entities: a cognitive perspective. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 1, pp. 179—191, https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.1.10kra.
Kravchenko, A. V., 2003b. Sign, meaning, knowledge: An essay in the cognitive philosophy of language. Frankfurt a/M et al.
Kravchenko, A. V., 2007. Essential properties of language, or, why language is not a code. Language Sciences, 29 (5), pp. 650—671, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci. 2007.01.004.
Kravchenko, A. V., 2008. Biology of cognition and linguistic analysis: From non-realist linguistics to a realistic language science. Frankfurt a/M et al.
Kravchenko, A. V., 2009. The experiential basis of speech and writing as different cognitive domains. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17 (3), pp. 527—548, https://doi.org/10. 1075/pc.17.3.03kra.
Kravchenko, A. V., 2013. Ot yazykovogo mifa k biologicheskoi real'nosti: pereosmyslyaya poznavatel'nye ustanovki yazykoznaniya [From the language myth to biological reality: Reassessing the epistemological assumptions of linguistics]. Moscow (in Russ.).
Kravchenko, A. V., 2015. External realism and biology of cognition: the epistemological turn. In: E. I. Pivovar, ed. Gumanitarnye chteniya RGGU — 2014 [The RGGU readings in the humanities — 2014]. Moscow, pp. 697—709 (in Russ.).
Kravchenko, A. V., 2016. The epistemological trap of language. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya [Tomsk State University Journal of Philology], 3 (41), pp. 14—26, https://doi.org/10.17223/19986645/41/2 (in Russ.).
Kravchenko, A. V., 2020. A critique of Barbieri’s code biology. Constructivist Foundations, 15 (2), pp. 122—134.
Kravchenko, A. V., 2021. Approaching linguistic semiosis biologically: implications for human evolution. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio, 15 (2), pp. 139—158, https://doi.org/10.4396/2021209.
Kravchenko, A. V., 2021. What is wrong with linguistics as a science. In: K. S. Kardanova-Birukova, ed. Metodologiya sovremennogo yazykoznaniya — 3 [Contemporary linguistic methodology — 3]. Moscow, pp. 163—176 (in Russ.).
Kravchenko, A. V., 2022. The ecological paradigm in linguistic research: a shift in epistemological assumptions. In: A. P. Skovorodnikov and G. A. Kopnina, eds. Lingvoekologiya: problemy i puti ikh resheniya [Linguaecology: problems and their possible resolution]. Krasnoyarsk, pp. 10—27 (in Russ.).
Linell, P., 2005. The written language bias in linguistics: Its nature, origins and transformations. London; New York: Routledge.
Linell, P., 2013. Two views on the nature of language: formal linguistics (with its written language bias) vs dialogical linguistics. In: A. V. Kravchenko, ed. Kognitivnaya dinamika v yazykovykh vzaimodeistviyakh (Studia linguistica cognitiva 3) [Cognitive dynamics in linguistic interactions]. Moscow, pp. 41—57 (in Russ.).
Maturana, H. R. and Varela, F. J., 1987. The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Boston MA: Shambhala.
Maturana, H. R., 1970. Biology of cognition. BCL Report # 9.0. University of Illinois, Urbana.
Maturana, H. R., 1988. Ontology of observing: The biological foundations of self-consciousness and of the physical domain of existence. In: R. E. Donaldson, ed. Texts in cybernetic theory: An in-depth exploration of the thought of Humberto R. Maturana, William T. Powers, and Ernst von Glasersfeld. Felton, CA: American Society for Cybernetics, pp. 1—54.
Maturana, H. R., Mpodozis, J. and Letelier, J. C., 1995. Brain, language, and the origin of human mental functions. Biological Research, 28, pp. 15—26.
Maturana, H. R., 1978. Biology of language: The epistemology of reality. In: G. Miller and E. Lenneberg, eds. Psychology and biology of language and thought. New York: Academic Press, pp. 28—62.
Morehouse, R. E., 2012. Beginning interpretive inquiry: A step-by-step approach to research and evaluation. London and New York: Routledge.
Morris, C. W., 1938. Foundations of the theory of signs. In: O. Neurath, R. Carnap and C. W. Morris, eds. International encyclopedia of unified science. Vol. 1, Part 2. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 1—59.
Ogden, C. K. and Richards, I. A., 1923. The meaning of meaning: A study of the influence of language upon thought and of the science of symbolism. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.
Putnam, Η., 1983. Realism and reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R., 1998. Mind, language and society: Philosophy in the real world. New York: Basic Books.
Shchedrovitsky, G. P., 2004. Signs and activity. Center for Technologies in the Humanities. Available at: https://gtmarket.ru/library/articles/5272 [Accessed 1 March 2023] (in Russ.).
Simsky, A. D., Kravchenko, A. V. and Druzhinin, A. S., 2021. Action-thoughts and the genesis of time in linguistic semiosis. Slovo. ru: Baltic accent, 12 (2), pp. 7—28, https://doi.org/ 10.5922/2225-5346-2021-2-1 (in Russ.).
Staver, J. R., 2012. Constructivism and realism: Dueling paradigms. In: B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin and C. J. McRobbie, eds. Second international handbook of science education. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 1017—1028.
Yartseva, V. N., ed., 1990. Lingvisticheskii entsiklopedicheskii slovar' [Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary]. Moscow (in Russ.).