Abstract
The article introduces the concept of the logonomic sign as an elaboration on Hodge and Kress’s promising yet under-examined ideas about logonomic systems. Logonomic signs are defined as socially devised signs that constrain multimodal semiosis by restricting who is able to produce what signs under what circumstances. Based on the Peircean categories, the functioning of logonomic signs is modeled as a three-phase process of (1) logonomic understanding (production of the meaning that is the Initial Interpretant of a logonomic sign), (2) logonomic actualization (production of the actual semiotic event that is the Dynamical Interpretant of a logonomic sign), and (3) logonomic reproduction ([re]production of the semiotic Habit that is the Final Interpretant of a logonomic sign). Based on Kull’s theory of evolution of semiotic systems, logonomic signs are theorized as mechanisms of retention and standardization of semiotic Habits. The mechanism of reproduction of logonomic signs is modeled as a sign in which past logonomic semioses function as Objects by being iconically represented by similar current logonomic semioses functioning as Representamens, and in which future logonomic semioses are produced as Interpretants. The methodological potential of the proposed concept is discussed in the context of the integrative transdisciplinary capacity of semiotics in social research.
Funding source: Russian Science Foundation
Award Identifier / Grant number: 17-18-01536
-
Research funding: This work was funded by Russian Science Foundation (No. 17-18-01536).
References
Atã, Pedro & João Queiroz. 2016. Habit in semiosis: Two different perspectives based on hierarchical multi-level system modeling and niche construction theory. In Donna E. West & Myrdene Anderson (eds.), Consensus on Peirce’s concept of habit, 109–119. Cham: Springer International.10.1007/978-3-319-45920-2_7Search in Google Scholar
Bateman, John A. 2018. Peircean semiotics and multimodality: Towards a new synthesis. Multimodal Communication 7(1). Art. no. 20170021.10.1515/mc-2017-0021Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, Le & Xin Wang. 2019. Cyber asset in judicial discourses: A socio-semiotic interpretation. Social Semiotics 29(4). 507–523.10.1080/10350330.2018.1487110Search in Google Scholar
Chernov, Igor’. 1967. O semiotike zapretov (predvaritel’noe soobshchenie) [Semiotic aspects of interdiction]. Sign Systems Studies 3. 45–59.Search in Google Scholar
Dawkins, Richard. 2006. The selfish gene. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1995. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.Search in Google Scholar
Deacon, Terrence W. 1999. Memes as signs. Semiotic Review of Books 10(3). 1–3.Search in Google Scholar
Deacon, Terrence W. 2012. Incomplete nature: How mind emerged from matter. New York & London: W. W. Norton.Search in Google Scholar
Fomin, Ivan. 2018a. O semioticheskoi modeli obraza [On the semiotic model of image]. Slovo.ru: baltijskij accent 9(2). 37–51.Search in Google Scholar
Fomin, Ivan. 2018b. Transdisciplinary potential of semiotics for discourse studies: Political studies’ perspective. In Y. Kuzmina, I. Oukhvanova, A. Savich, E. Vasilenko (eds.), Current approaches in Eastern Europe (discourse linguistics and beyond 2), 45–52. Berlin: Sprachlit & De-iure-pl.Search in Google Scholar
Fomin, Ivan. 2019. Memes, genes, and signs: Semiotics in the conceptual interface of evolutionary biology and memetics. Semiotica 230(1/4). 327–340.10.1515/sem-2018-0016Search in Google Scholar
Fomin, Ivan. 2020. Sociosemiotic frontiers: Achievements, challenges, and prospects of converging semiotic and social. Linguistic Frontiers 3(2). 34–43.10.2478/lf-2020-0012Search in Google Scholar
Fomin, Ivan V. & Mikhail V. Ilyin. 2019. Social semiotics: Paths towards integrating social and semiotic knowledge. Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal [Sociological Journal] 25(4). 123–141.10.19181/socjour.2019.25.4.6822Search in Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1969. L’archéologie du savoir. Paris: Gallimard.Search in Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 2002. Archaeology of knowledge. London & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Hall, Peter A. & Rosemary C. R. Taylor. 1996. Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies 44(5). 936–957.10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00343.xSearch in Google Scholar
Harries, Dan M. 1997. Semiotics, discourse, and parodic spectatorship. Semiotica 113(3/4). 293–316.10.1515/semi.1997.113.3-4.293Search in Google Scholar
Hasar, Rahman Veisi. 2020. The grotesque knot of the symptom: Heterogeneity and mutability. Semiotica 233(1/4). 19–34.10.1515/sem-2018-0013Search in Google Scholar
Heintz, Christophe. 2007. Institutions as mechanisms of cultural evolution: Prospects of the epidemiological approach. Biological Theory 2(3). 244–249.10.1162/biot.2007.2.3.244Search in Google Scholar
Heiskala, Risto. 2003. Society as semiosis: Neostructuralist theory of culture and society (Studies in sociology 2). Frankfurt am Main & New York: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Heiskala, Risto. 2007. Economy and society: From Parsons through Habermas to semiotic institutionalism. Social Science Information 46(2). 243–272.10.1177/0539018407076648Search in Google Scholar
Heiskala, Risto. 2014. Toward semiotic sociology: A synthesis of semiology, semiotics, and phenomenological sociology. Social Science Information 53(1). 35–53.10.1177/0539018413509434Search in Google Scholar
Hodge, Bob. 2016a. Multiscalar analysis. In Social semiotics for a complex world: Analyzing language and social meaning. Cambridge, UK: Polity & Wiley.Search in Google Scholar
Hodge, Bob. 2016b. Social semiotics for a complex world: Analyzing language and social meaning. Cambridge, UK: Polity & Wiley.Search in Google Scholar
Hodge, Bob. 2016c. The ethnographic imagination. In Social semiotics for a complex world: Analysing language and social meaning. Cambridge, UK: Polity & Wiley.Search in Google Scholar
Hodge, Bob. n.d. Social semiotics. In Paul Bouissac (ed.), Semiotics encyclopedia online. http://www.semioticon.com/seo/S/social_semiotics.html# (accessed 21 April 2022).Search in Google Scholar
Hodge, Robert & Gunther Kress. 1988. Social semiotics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hookway, Christopher. 2002. “A sort of composite photograph”: Pragmatism, ideas, and schematism. Transactions of the Charles S Peirce Society 38(1/2). 29–45.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199588381.003.0008Search in Google Scholar
Husserl, Edmund. 1969. Formal and transcendental logic, Dorion Cairns (trans.). The Hague: Nijhoff.10.1007/978-94-017-4900-8Search in Google Scholar
Husserl, Edmund. 1992. Formale und transzendentale Logik: Versuch einer Kritik der logischen Vernunft. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Search in Google Scholar
Keestra, Machiel. 2014. How do narratives and brains mutually influence each other? Taking both the “neuroscientific turn” and the “narrative turn” in explaining bio-political orders. In Paper presented at the for Amsterdam School for Cultural Analysis workshop, April 16–18, 2014. https://philarchive.org/archive/KEEHDN-2 (accessed 23 February 2021).Search in Google Scholar
Keestra, Machiel. 2017. “Neironauchnyi” i “narrativnyi” povoroty v ob"iasnenii biopoliticheskikh poriadkov: Kak narrativy i mozg oboiudno vliiaiut drug na druga? [How do narratives and brains mutually influence each other? Taking both the “neuroscientific turn” and the “narrative turn” in explaining bio-political orders]. METHOD: Moscow Yearbook of Social Studies 7. 248–258.Search in Google Scholar
Kilpinen, Erkki. 2008. Memes versus signs: On the use of meaning concepts about nature and culture. Semiotica 171(1/4). 215–237.10.1515/SEMI.2008.075Search in Google Scholar
Kockelman, Paul. 2011. Biosemiosis, technocognition, and sociogenesis: Selection and significance in a multiverse of sieving and serendipity. Current Anthropology 52(5). 711–739.10.1086/661708Search in Google Scholar
Kull, Kalevi. 2000. Copy versus translate, meme versus sign: Development of biological textuality. European Journal for Semiotic Studies 12(1). 101–120.Search in Google Scholar
Kull, Kalevi. 2014. Towards a theory of evolution of semiotic systems. Chinese Semiotic Studies 10(3). 485–495.10.1515/css-2014-0039Search in Google Scholar
Legg, Catherine. 2021. Discursive habits: a representationalist re-reading of teleosemiotics. Synthese 199. 14751–14768.10.1007/s11229-021-03442-8Search in Google Scholar
Lotman, Iurii Mikhailovich. 1975. Dekabrist v povsednevnoi zhizni (Bytovoe povedenie kak istoriko-psikhologicheskaia kategoriia). In V. G. Bazanov & V. E. Vatsuro (eds.), Literaturnoe nasledie dekabristov, 25–74. Leningrad: Nauka: Leningradskoe otdelenie.Search in Google Scholar
Lotman, Iurii Mikhailovich. 1976. Bytovoe povedenie i tipologiia kul’tury v Rossii XVIII v. In Vasilii Grigor’evich Bazanov (ed.), Kul’turnoe nasledie Drevnei Rusi. Istoki. Stanovlenie. Traditsii, 292–297. Moscow: Nauka.Search in Google Scholar
Lotman, Iurii Mikhailovich. 1996. Simvol v sisteme kul’tury. In T. D. Kuzovkina (ed.), Vnutri mysliashchikh mirov. Chelovek – tekst – semiosfera – istoriia, 146–160. Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury.Search in Google Scholar
Lotman, Jurij. 1977. The representational verbal sign (image). In The structure of the artistic text, Gail Lenhoff & Ronald Vroon (trans.), 55–56. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Search in Google Scholar
Lotman, Yuri M. 1990. The symbol in the cultural system. In Universe of the mind: A semiotic theory of culture, Ann Shukman (trans.), 102–111. London & New York: Tauris.Search in Google Scholar
Lotman, Iurii Mikhailovich. 1998. Slovesnyi izobrazitel’nyi znak (obraz). In O. Ia. Nechipurenko, Ia. G. Nikolaiuk (eds.), Ob iskusstve, 65–66. Saint Petersburg: Iskusstvo – SPB.Search in Google Scholar
Morris, Charles. 1938. Foundations of the theory of signs. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Murphy, Joseph John. 1869. Habit and intelligence in their connexion with the laws of matter and force: A series of scientific essays, vol. 1. London: Macmillan.10.5962/bhl.title.48971Search in Google Scholar
North, Douglass C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511808678Search in Google Scholar
Patzelt, Werner J. 2000. Institutions as knowledge-gaining systems: What can social scientists learn from evolutionary epistemology? Evolution and Cognition 6(1). 70–83.Search in Google Scholar
Patzelt, Werner J. 2007. Evolutorischer Institutionalismus: Theorie und exemplarische Studien zu Evolution, Institutionalität und Geschichtlichkeit. Ergon: Würzburg.Search in Google Scholar
Patzelt, Werner J. 2011. “Blueprints” and institution-building: Former East Germany and its present state parliaments as a case in point. Journal of East European & Asian Studies 2(1). 17–40.Search in Google Scholar
Patzelt, Werner J. 2012. The morphological approach to comparative regime analysis: Paper presented at the panel “Time matters: Historical and evolutionary morphology of politics,”. Madrid: IPSA World Congress, 10 July. https://www.academia.edu/6037810/Patzelt_Evolutionary_morphology_IPSA_Madrid_2012 (accessed 23 February 2021).Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1966. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce, 8 vols., C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. W. Burks (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Reference to Peirce’s papers will be designated CP followed by volume and paragraph number.]Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1967. Manuscripts in the Houghton Library of Harvard University, as identified by Richard Robin, Annotated catalogue of the Papers of Charles S. Peirce. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. [Reference to Peirce’s manuscripts will be designated MS or L].Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1982. Writings of Charles S. Peirce, 8 vols., M. Fisch, E. Moore & C. Kloesel (eds.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [Reference to Peirce’s writings will be designated W followed by volume and page number.]Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1998, (1893–1913). Essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings, 2 vols., Peirce Edition Project (ed.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [Reference to vol. 2 of Essential Peirce will be designated EP 2.]Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 2014. Illustrations of the logic of science, Cornelis de Waal (ed.). Chicago: Open Court.Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 2015. Habit. In Mats, Bergman & Sami, Paavola (eds.), The commens dictionary: Peirce’s terms in his own words. http://www.commens.org/dictionary/entry/quote-sketch-logical-critic-4 (accessed 22 November 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Peoples, Columba. 2008. Decoding ballistic missile defense: Semiotics and the power of the image in American Ballistic Missile Defense. Social Semiotics 18(1). 17–31.10.1080/10350330701838852Search in Google Scholar
Pyatigorski, Alexandr & Boris Ouspenski. 1967. Personological classification as a semiotic problem. Sign Systems Studies 3. 7–29.10.1515/semi.1975.15.2.99Search in Google Scholar
Randviir, Anti. 2004. Mapping the world: Towards a sociosemiotic approach to culture. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic.Search in Google Scholar
Salthe, Stanley N. 1985. Evolving hierarchical systems: Their structure and representation. New York: Columbia University Press.10.7312/salt91068Search in Google Scholar
Schuetz, Alfred. 1953. Common-sense and scientific interpretation of human action. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 14(1). 1–38.10.2307/2104013Search in Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1989. How performatives work. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(5). 535–558.10.1017/CBO9780511606366.011Search in Google Scholar
Sherman, Jeremy. 2017. Neither ghost nor machine: The emergence and nature of selves. New York: Columbia University Press.10.7312/sher17332Search in Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. 1962. The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 106(6). 467–482.Search in Google Scholar
Spirov, Aleksandr Vladimirovich. 2018. Ot evoliutsionnykh vychislenii do evoliutsii memov: Nekotorye obshchie tendentsii [From evolutional calculations to evolution of memes: Some general trends]. METHOD: Moscow Yearbook of Social Studies 8. 243–256.Search in Google Scholar
Stepanov, Iurii Sergeevich. 1971. Semiotika. Moscow: Nauka.Search in Google Scholar
Taub, Ismail. 1994. Orientalism and the semiotics of non‐representation: Some social semiotic extensions. Social Semiotics 4(1–2). 197–216.10.1080/10350339409384434Search in Google Scholar
Thelen, Kathleen & Sven Steinmo. 1992. Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. In Sven Steinmo, Kathleen Thelen & Longstreth Frank (eds.), Structuring politics, 1–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511528125.002Search in Google Scholar
Thurlow, Crispin. 2020. When globalese meets localese: Transformational tactics in the typographic landscape: A Bernese case study. Social Semiotics 31(1). 88–107.10.1080/10350330.2020.1810544Search in Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 1985. Johannes Winckelmann (ed.), Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre. Mohr: Tübingen.Search in Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1999. Philosophical investigations, G. E. M. Anscombe (trans.). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Zieba, Anna. 2020. Visual representation of happiness: A sociosemiotic perspective on stock photography. Social Semiotics. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2020.1788824 (accessed 2 July 2021).Search in Google Scholar
Zolyan, Suren. 2017. Juri Lotman and social semiotics: Paths for new research. Matica Srpska Journal of Slavic Studies 92. 123–150.Search in Google Scholar
Zolyan, Suren. 2019. General sociolinguistics, social semiotics and semiotics of culture – ex pluribus unum? Sign Systems Studies 47(3–4). 400–419.10.12697/SSS.2019.47.3-4.03Search in Google Scholar
Zolyan, Suren & Igor’ Chernov. 1977. O strukture iazyka opisaniia povedeniia [About the structure of the language of behaviour description]. Sign Systems Studies 8. 151–163.Search in Google Scholar
Zolyan, Suren Tigranovich. 2018. The problem of meaning in social semiotics: Max Weber today. Slovo.ru: baltijskij accent 9(4). 27–42.10.5922/2225-5346-2018-4-3Search in Google Scholar
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
