Pragmatics beyond cognition: a perspective of Charles Peirce’s unfinished conception for (bio-)semiotics
- DOI
- 10.5922/2225-5346-2025-3-7
- Pages
- 98-116
Abstract
The development of artificial intelligence and the new understanding of biomolecular processes for transmitting genetic information have emphasized the necessity to consider semiotic activity, that may operate autonomously from human cognition. In this regard, Charles Peirce’s latest conception of semiosis is of particular interest. For Peirce, semiosis is an interpretation that doesn't necessitate an external interpreter. A sign is viewed as a quasi-mind, and semiotic processes are carried out by these signs, specifically through the quasi-minds that are embedded within them: a quasi-utterer and a quasi-interpreter. Semiosis can thus be viewed as an ongoing, personalized interaction of structural semiotic entities (quasi-minds). The latest findings in molecular genetics and their implications in biosemiotics shed light on a unique aspect of interpretation: it can occur without an external interpreter owing to its mechanism of self-organization. By studying communication and information processes at the biomolecular level, we can redefine pragmatics as operations intricately linked with systemic self-regulation and interaction with the environment.
Reference
Aames, J., 2018. The double function of the interpretant in Peirce’s theory of signs. Semiotica, 225, pp. 39—55, https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2017-0005.
Atkin, A., 2008. Peirce’s final account of signs and the philosophy of language. In: Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce society, 44 (1), 63—85.
Atkin, A., 2023. “Peirce’s Theory of Signs”. In: E. N. Zalta and U. Nodelman, eds. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2023 Edition). Available: https://plato. stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/peirce-semiotics/ [Accessed 01.04.2025].
Barbieri, M., 2008. The code model of semiosis: the first steps toward a scien¬tific biosemiotics. The American Journal of Semiotics, 24 (1/3), pp. 23—37, https://doi. org/10.5840/ajs2008241/33.
Barbieri, M., 2012. Codepoiesis — the deep logic of life. Biosemiotics, 5, pp. 297—299, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-012-9162-4.
Barbieri, M., 2019. Code biology, Peircean biosemiotics, and Rosen’s relational biology. Biological Theory, 14, pp. 21—29, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-018-0312-z.
Benveniste, E., 1981. The semiology of language. Semiotica, pp. 5—23.
Carter, Ch. W., Jr. and Wills, P. R., 2021. Reciprocally-coupled gating: strange loops in Bioenergetics, Genetics, and Catalysis. Biomolecules, 11 (2), p. 265, https:// doi.org/10.3390/biom11020265.
Collins, F. S., 2006. The language of God. New York.
Collins, F. S., 2009. The language of life: DNA and the revolution in personalized me-di¬cine. New York.
Crick, F. H. C., 1981. Life itself: its origin and nature. London.
Deacon, T. W., 2021. How molecules became signs. Biosemiotics, 14, pp. 537—559, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09453-9.
Eco, U., 1983. Semiotics and the philosophy of language. Bloomington, IN.
Eco, U., 1990. Drift and unlimited semiosis. Bloomington, IN.
Gamow, G., 1954. Possible relation between deoxyribonucleic acid and protein struc¬tures. Nature, 173, p. 318.
Gorlee, D. L., 1994. Semiotics and the problem of translation. With special reference to the semiotics of Charles S. Peirce. Amsterdam.
Haase, F., 2022. Speaking one’s mind: the sign as subject of interpretation in the ma¬nuscripts of Charles S. Peirce, between the theories of rhetoric and communica-tion. Semiotica, 245, pp. 79—98, https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2020-0086.
Habermas, J., 1995. Peirce and communication. In: K. L. Ketner, ed. Peirce and con¬tem¬porary thought: Philosophical inquiries. Fordham, pp. 243—266.
Hardwick, Ch. S., ed., 1977. Semiotic and significs: The correspondence between Char¬les S. Peirce and Victoria Lady Welby. Bloomington.
Hilpinen, R., 2019. On the immediate and dynamical interpretants and objects of signs. Semiotica, 228, pp. 91—101, https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2018-0094.
Jacob, F., 1973. The logic of life: a history of heredity. Translated by B. E. Spill¬mann. New York.
Jappy, T., 2016. The two-way interpretation process in Peirce’s late semiotics: A Priori and a Posteriori. Language and Semiotic Studies, 2 (4), pp. 14—30.
Jappy, T., 2019. From phenomenology to ontology in Peirce’s typologies. Semio-tica, 228, pp. 135—151, https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2018-0080.
Kull, K., 1998. Organism as a self-reading text: anticipation and semiosis. Interna¬tio¬nal Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems, 1, pp. 93—104.
Küppers, B. O., 2023. The language of living matter. How molecules acquire mea¬ning. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80319-3.
Lotman, Y., 1990. Universe of the Mind: A semiotic theory of culture. Tauris; Lon-don; New York.
Markoš, A., 2002. Readers of the Book of Life: contextualizing developmental evolutio-nary biology. Oxford.
Marty, R., n. d. 76 Definitions of the sign by C. S. Peirce сollected and analyzed by Marty. Available at: http://perso.numericable.fr/robert.marty/semiotique/76defeng. htm [Accessed 01.04.2025]
Morris, Ch. W., 1938. Foundations of the theory of signs. In: O. Neurath et al., eds. International encyclopedia of unified science. 1 (2). Chicago, pp. 1—59.
Nesher, D., 1983. Pragmatic theory of meaning: A note on Peirce's “last” formu-lation of the pragmatic maxim and its Interpretation. Semiotica, 44 (3-4), pp. 203—258, https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1983.44.3-4.203.
Nesher, D., 1990. Understanding sign semiosis as cognition and as self-conscious process: A reconstruction of some basic conceptions in Peirce’s semiotics. Semiotica, 79 (1-2), pp. 1—50, https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1990.79.1-2.1.
Nesher, D., 2018. “What makes a reasoning sound” is the proof of its truth: A re¬construction of Peirce’s semiotics as epistemic logic, and why he did not complete his realistic revolution. Semiotica, 221, pp. 29—52, https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2016- 0086.
Olteanu, A. and Ongstad, S., 2024. Utterance-genre-lifeworld and Sign-habit-Umwelt Compared as Phenomenologies. Integrating Socio- and Biosemiotic Concepts? Biose¬miotics, 17, pp. 523—546, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-024-09561-2.
Pape, H., 2015. C. S. Peirce on the dynamic object of a sign: From ontology to semiotics and back. Sign Systems Studies, 43 (4), pp. 419—437, http://dx.doi.org/10. 12697/SSS.2015.43.4.03.
Pattee, H. H., 2012. How does a molecule become a message? In: Laws, Language and Life. Biosemiotics, 7. Dordrecht, pp. 55—67, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007- 5161-3_3.
Peirce, Ch. S., 1906. Prolegomena to an apology for pragmaticism. The Monist, 16, pp. 492—546.
Peirce, Ch. S., 1907. Manuscripts 317—318. Pragmatism — Notes and Drafts. Avai-lable at: https://fromthepage.com/jeffdown1/c-s-peirce-manuscripts/ms-317-318- 1907-pragmatism-notes-and-drafts [Accessed 01.04.2025]
Peirce, Ch. S., 1976. Parts of Carnegie Application (L 75). In: C. Eisele, ed. The new elements of mathematics by Charles S. Peirce. Vol. 4. Berlin; New York, pp. 13—73.
Prodi, G., 1988. Material Bases of Signification. Semiotica, 69 (3—4), pp. 191—242, https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1988.69.3-4.191.
Prodi, G., 2021. The material bases of meaning. In: Tartu Semiotics Library, 22. Tartu.
Raible, W., 2001. Linguistics and genetics: systematic parallels. In: M. Haspel-math, E. König, W. Oesterreicher and W. Raible, eds. Language typology and language universals. An international handbook. Berlin, pp. 103—123.
Rutner, V., 2000. The Chronicle of the great discovery: ideas and persons. Priroda, 6, pp. 22—30 (in Russ.).
Schmidt, J. A., 2022. Peirce’s evolving interpretants. Semiotica, 246, pp. 211—223, https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2020-0115.
Schrödinger, E., 1944. What is life? The physical aspect of the living cell. Avai-lab¬le at: http://whatislife.stanford.edu/LoCo_files/What-is-Life.pdf [Accesed 10 June 2024].
Smith, M. J., 2000. The concept of information in Biology. Philosophy of Science, 67 (2), pp. 177—194.
Sørensen, B., Thellefsen, T., Thellefsen, M. and Dewi, N. A., 2019. Charles S. Peir¬ce’s sign typology of 1903 and the semeiotic of universe, man, and culture. Semiotica, 228, pp. 287—300, https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2018-0121.
Spirov, A. V., 2024. Languages of deployment of hereditary information in emb-ryogenesis: linguo-semiotic analogues and analogies. Slovo.ru: Baltic accent, 15 (4), pp. 25—40, https://doi.org/10.5922/2225-5346-2024-4-2 (in Russ.).
Švantner, M., 2014. Struggle of a description: Peirce and his late semiotics. Hu-man Affairs, 24 (2), pp. 204—214, https://doi.org/10.2478/s13374-014-0220-2.
Zolyan, S. and Zhdanov, R., 2018. Genome as (hyper)text: From metaphor to theo¬ry. Semiotica, (225), pp. 1—18, https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2016-0214.
Zolyan, S., 2021. On metaphors of text-reading and text-writing in molecular bio¬logy. Cognitive patterns and heuristic value. Quaderni del CIRM — Centro Interu-ni¬versitario di Ricerca sulle Metafore, 1 (1), pp. 65—100.
Zolyan, S., 2022a. From matter to form: the evolution of the genetic code as se-mio-poiesis. Semiotica, 245, pp. 17—61, https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2020-0088.
Zolyan, S., 2022b. Semio-poiesis: on the emergence of the semiosphere within the biosphere. Lexia. Rivista di semiotica, 39—40, pp. 101—120, https://doi.org/10.53136/ 97912218042636.
Zolyan, S. T., 2023а. Pragmatics as a self-generation of a subject-on-its own. Vop-rosy filosofii [Problems of Philosophy], 7, pp. 93—103, https://doi.org/10.21146/ 0042-8744-2023-7-93-103 (in Russ.).
Zolyan, S. T., 2023b. Pragmatics without a subject — but as a “speaking person”. In: METHOD: Moscow Yearbook of Social Studies, 3 (3). Moscow, pp. 77—94, https:// doi.org/10.31249/metod/2023.03.07 (in Russ.).
Zolyan, S. T., 2024. Should there be biomolecular pragmatics? Slovo.ru: Baltic accent, 15 (4), рр. 41—54, https://doi.org/10.5922/2225-5346-2024-4-3 (in Russ.).