Search
Submit an article
Slovo.ru: Baltic accent

2023 Vol. 14 №4

Back to the list Download the article
Ilyin M.V.

On multiple semiotics integrally, aspectively and concretely

DOI
10.5922/2225-5346-2023-4-7
Pages
125-136
discursive particle TI1 pragmatic marker pragmasemantics transdiscipli­nary organons-integrators metritics morphetics semiotics

Abstract

Anton Zimmerling’s interpretation of the discursive particle TI1 is an important achievement. The article considers possibilities used by Zimmerling to interpret TI1 as a dis­cursive particle, enclitic, part of speech and semantic sign. In addition, the article discusses its interpretation as a pragmatic marker. The author comments on the interpretations of semiot­ics by Zimmerling, in particular, the question of primary and secondary semiotic systems. The author presents his own concept of semiotics as a research programme in Imre Lakatos’ sense. Semiotics is also a kind of cognitive ability common to many forms of life and at the same time a system of epistemological and methodological possibilities for carrying out scien­tific research on meaning-making or semiosis built on this ability. Moreover, semiotics is not only a research programme, but a transdisciplinary integrative organon. Such universal com­plexes for integrating the capabilities of scientific knowledge are based on three basic cognitive abilities — (1) to perceive signals, to rank and to process them; (2) to recognize patterns (sig­nal configurations) and shape them into more complex formations; (3) assessing and utilizing the meaning (initially functional significance, relevance) of the forms and modes of actuality. The latter ability is precisely the basis of semiotics and semiosis. The first two are metretics or organon for computational mathematics and statistics, as well as morphetics or organon for a wide variety of morphologies, comparative studies, discrete mathematics, topology, etc.

Reference

Avdonin, V. S., 2015. Methods in the "vertical" dimension (metatheory and meta­languages-organons). Metod: moskovskii ezhegodnik trudov iz obshchestvovedcheskikh distsiplin [METHOD: Moscow Yearbook of Works from Social Science Disciplines], 5, pp. 265—278 (in Russ.).

Bazhanov, V. A., 2009. Unknown Lakatos. Epistemologiya i filosofiya nauki [Epis­temology and philosophy of science], 20 (2), pp. 204—209 (in Russ.).

Beseda s Yuriem Sergeevichem Stepanovym [Conversation with Yuri Sergeevich Stepanov], 2002. Political Science, 3, pp. 90—104 (in Russ.).

Bezemer, J. and Kress, G., 2015. Multimodality, learning and communication: A social semiotic frame. London; New York: Routledge.

Bezemer, J., Kress, G., Cope, A. and Kneebone, R., 2021. Learning in the opera­ting theatre. In: V. Cook, C. Daly and M. Newman, eds. Work-Based Learning in Clini­cal Settings: Insights from Socio-Cultural Perspectives. London.

Bezemer, J., Murtagh, G. and Cope, A., 2019. Inspecting objects: Visibility ma­noeuvres in laparoscopic surgery. In: E. Reber and C. Gerhardt, eds. Embodied Activi­ties in Face-to-face and Mediated Settings: Social Encounters in Time and Space. London, pp. 107—135.

Campbell, C., Olteanu, A. and Kull, K., 2019. Learning and knowing as semiosis: Extending the conceptual apparatus of semiotics. Sign systems studies, 47 (3/4), pp. 352—381, https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2019.47.3-4.01.

Cowley, S. J., 2008. Meaning in nature: Organic manufacture? Biosemiotics, 1 (1), pp. 85—98, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-008-9003-7.

Fan, I. B., 2006. Job and Leviathan: A Dispute for the Sake of Concord. Interview with M. V. Ilyin. Diskurs-Pi [Discourse-P], 6 (1), 84—91 (in Russ.).

Gaman-Golutvina, O. V., 2019. Overcoming Methodological Differences: The De­bate about Knowledge Politics in an Age of Uncertainty. Polis. Political Studies, 5, pp. 19—42, https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2019.05.03 (in Russ.).

Gaman-Golutvina, O. V., 2020. Modern comparative political science before the challenges of development. Perspektivy. Elektronnyi zhurnal [Perspectives and pro­spects. E-journal], 1 (21), pp. 6—29, https://doi.org/10.32726/2411-3417-2020-1-6-29 (in Russ.).

Ilyin, M. V., 2014. Methodological challenge. What makes science united? How to connect the disconnected spheres of knowledge? Metod: moskovskii ezhegodnik trudov iz obshchestvovedcheskikh distsiplin [METHOD: Moscow Yearbook of Works from So­cial Science Disciplines], 4, pp. 6—11 (in Russ.).

Ilyin, M. V., 2015a. Semiotics as a Basis for the Study of Language Policy and De­velopment of Discourse Analysis. Diskurs-Pi [Discourse-P], 12 (1), pp. 43—47 (in Russ.).

Ilyin, M. V., 2015b. Semiotic, morphological, comparative methods of discourse analysis in an interdisciplinary application. Biznes. Obshchestvo. Vlast' [Business. So­ciety. Power], 22, pp. 67—82 (in Russ.).

Ilyin, M. V., Avdonin, V. S. and Fomin, I. V., 2018. Methodological challenge. Cri­tical reflection. How to keep balance at the curves from visual precision to scientific va­lidity and back. Metod: moskovskii ezhegodnik trudov iz obshchestvovedcheskikh dist­siplin [METHOD: Moscow Yearbook of Works from Social Science Disciplines], 8, pp. 5—11 (in Russ.).

Kravchenko, A., 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.

Kull, K., 1999. Biosemiotics in the twentieth century: A view from biology. Semi­otica, 127 (1—4), pp. 385—414.

Kull, K., 2012. Advancements in Biosemiotics: Where we are now discovering the ba­sic mechanisms of meaning making. In: T. Bennett and S. Rattasepp, eds. Gatherings in biosemiotics, Tartu, pp. 11—24.

Kull, K., 2021. Natural selection and self-organization do not make meaning, while the agent’s choice does. Biosemiotics, 14, pp. 49—53, https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12304-021-09422-2.

Kull, K., 2022. The aim of extended synthesis is to include semiosis. Theoretical Biology Forum, 115 (1—2), pp. 119—132, https://doi.org/10.19272/202211402008.

Lacková, L. and Faltýnek, D., 2021. The lower threshold as a unifying principle bet­ween Code Biology and Biosemiotics. BioSystems, 210, pp. 104523, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2021.104523.

Lakatos, I., 2008. Falsification and methodology of research programs. In: I. La­ka­tos, ed. Izbrannye proizvedeniya po filosofii i metodologii nauki [Selected works on phi­losophy and methodology of science]. Moscow, pp. 281—474 (in Russ.).

Nöth, W., 2023. Pragmatist Semiotics. In: J. Pelkey ed. Bloomsbury Semiotics. Vol. 1: History and Semiosis. London; New York, pp. 91—107.

Olteanu, A., 2021. Multimodal modeling: Bridging biosemiotics and social semio­tics. Biosemiotics, 14, pp. 783—805, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09463-7.

Olteanu, A., 2022. Learning as Becoming Conscious: A note on Jablonka and Ginsburg’s Notion of Learning. Biosemiotics, 15, pp. 457—467, https://doi. org/10.1007/ s12304-022-09510-x.

Olteanu, A., Campbell, C. and Feil, S., 2020. Naturalizing models: New perspec­ti­ves in a Peircean key. Biosemiotics, 13, pp. 179—197, https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12304-020-09385-w.

Porus, V. N., 2008. Between philosophy and history of science: on the way to the "flexible" theory of scientific rationality. In: I. Lakatos, ed. Izbrannye proizvedeniya po filosofii i metodologii nauki [Selected works on philosophy and methodology of sci­ence]. Moscow, pp. 9—24 (in Russ.).

Sharov, A. and Tønnessen, M., 2021. Semiotic agency. Springer International Pub­lishing.

Zimmerling, A. V., 2021. Ot integral'nogo k aspektivnomu [From integral to aspec­tive]. Moscow; St. Petersburg, 652 p. (in Russ.).

Zimmerling, A. V., 2023. Really: syntactics without semiotics? Slovo. ru: Baltic ac­cent, 14 (3), pp. 125—153, https://doi.org/10.5922/2225-5346-2023-3-9 (in Russ.).