On multiple semiotics integrally, aspectively and concretely
- DOI
- 10.5922/2225-5346-2023-4-7
- Pages
- 125-136
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.).