Abstract
As a branch of theoretical semiotics that aims to contribute to the development of the theory of both semiotics and education, edusemiotics must also problematize the most foundational semiotic conceptions of sign and semiosis. The biosemiotic notion that a sign relation is necessarily dependent on learning restricts semiotics to the biological sphere, to living beings. This fits well with education, which can be seen as transition from the zoosemiotic sphere to the anthroposemiotic sphere. However this radical discontinuity between living and non-living spheres makes it difficult to understand how signs and semiosis are viable at all and what their basic nature is. Ontologically we can imagine that sign relations must also be somehow based on the features of non-living beings. In this article I will analyze how a concept of a sign can be seen as a general model of interaction between any beings. This paper develops the conception of semiosis and signification with regard to the competence (or habits) of the subject experiencing the meaning. Such task requires the explication of the ontological basis of semiosis – a step often perceived as dangerous by semioticians or ignored by educators.
References
Benner, Dietrich. 1996. Allgemeine Pädagogik: Eine systematisch-problemgeschichtliche Einführung in die Grundstruktur pädagogischen Denkens und Handelns. Weinheim: Juventa.Search in Google Scholar
Deely, John. 2001. Physioemiosis in the semiotic spiral: A play of musement 1. Sign Systems Studies 29(1). 27.10.12697/SSS.2001.29.1.03Search in Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto. 1979. A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Emmeche, Claus. 1995. Tekoelämä [The garden in the machine]. Helsinki: Art House.Search in Google Scholar
Greimas, Algirdas J. 1976. Sémantique structurale: Recherche de méthode. Paris: Larousse.Search in Google Scholar
Greimas, Algirdas J. 1980. Strukturaalista Semantiikkaa [Sémantique structurale: recherche de méthode]. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.Search in Google Scholar
Greimas, Algirdas J. 1987. On meaning: Selected writings in semiotic theory. London: Pinter.Search in Google Scholar
Greimas, Algirdas J. & Joseph Courtés. 1982. Semiotics and language: An analytical dictionary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Harman, Graham. 2011. The quadruple object. Winchester: Zero.Search in Google Scholar
Harman, Graham. 2013. Tristan Garcia and the thing-in-itself. Parrhesia 16. 26–34. http://www.parrhesiajournal.org/parrhesia16/parrhesia16_harman.pdf (accessed 30 August 2014).Search in Google Scholar
Hegel, Georg W. F. 2008. Outlines of the philosophy of right. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Heil, John. 2003. From an ontological point of view. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/0199259747.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Heil, John. 2005. Dispositions. Synthese 144(3). 343–356.10.1007/s11229-005-5864-3Search in Google Scholar
Heil, John. 2012. The universe as we find it. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199596201.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko. 1989. The paradox of transcendental knowledge. In James R. Brown & Jürgen Mittelstrass (eds.), An intimate relation: Studies in the history and philosophy of science, 243–257. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-009-2327-0_12Search in Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1992. Kant on education [Ueber Pädagogik]. Bristol: Thoemmes Press.Search in Google Scholar
Keinänen, Markku. 2005. Trope theories and the problem of universals. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto.Search in Google Scholar
Kivelä, Ari, Pauli Siljander & Ari Sutinen. 2012. Between bildung and growth: Connections and controversies. In Pauli Siljander, Ari Kivelä & Ari Sutinen (eds.), Theories of bildung and growth: Connections and controversies between Continental educational thinking and American pragmatism, 303–312. Rotterdam: Sense.10.1007/978-94-6209-031-6_19Search in Google Scholar
Knuuttila, Simo. 1998. Järjen ja tunteen kerrostumat [The strata of reason and emotion]. Helsinki: Suomalainen teologinen kirjallisuusseura.Search in Google Scholar
Kull, Kalevi. 2014. Physical laws are not habits, while rules of life are. In Torkild L. Thellefsen & Bent Sørensen (eds.), Charles Sanders Peirce in his own words: 100 years of semiotics, communication and cognition, 87–94. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781614516415.87Search in Google Scholar
Maran, Timo. 2014. Structure and semiosis in biological mimicry. In Torkild L. Thellefsen & Bent Sørensen (eds.), Charles Sanders Peirce in his own words: 100 years of semiotics, communication and cognition, 167–177. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, C. B. 1980. Substance substantiated. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 58(1). 3–10.10.1080/00048408012341001Search in Google Scholar
Martin, C. B. 1993. The need for ontology: Some choices. Philosophy 68(266). 505–522.10.1017/S0031819100041863Search in Google Scholar
Martin, C. B. 2002. Properties and dispositions. In D. M. Armstrong, C. B. Martin, U. T. Place & Tim Crane (eds.), Dispositions: A debate, 71–87. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203004876Search in Google Scholar
Martin, C. B. 2008. The mind in nature. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, C. B. & John Heil. 1998. Rules and powers. Noûs 32. 283–312.10.1111/0029-4624.32.s12.13Search in Google Scholar
McDowell, John. 1996. Mind and world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.2307/j.ctvjghtzjSearch in Google Scholar
Pattee, Howard H. & Kalevi Kull. 2009. A biosemiotic conversation: Between physics and semiotics. Sign Systems Studies 37(1). 311–331.10.12697/SSS.2009.37.1-2.12Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1894. What is a sign? http://www.iupui.edu/~peirce/ep/ep2/ep2book/ch02/ep2ch2.htm (accessed 30 August 2014).Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1955. Logic as semiotic: The theory of signs. In Justus Buchler (ed.), The philosophical writings of Peirce, 98–119. New York: Dover.Search in Google Scholar
Pikkarainen, Eetu. 2011. The semiotics of education: A new vision in an old landscape. Educational Philosophy and Theory 43(10). 1135–1144.10.1111/j.1469-5812.2009.00632.xSearch in Google Scholar
Pikkarainen, Eetu. 2013. From the ontology of interaction to the semiotics of education. In Kirsi Tirri & Elina Kuusisto (eds.), Interaction in educational domains, 51–62. Rotterdam: Sense.10.1007/978-94-6209-395-9_5Search in Google Scholar
Pikkarainen, Eetu. 2014a. Competence as a key concept of educational theory: A semiotic point of view. Journal of Philosophy of Education 48(4). 621–636.10.1111/1467-9752.12080Search in Google Scholar
Pikkarainen, Eetu. 2014b. Education, values and authority: A semiotic view. In Inna Semetsky & Andrew Stables (eds.), Pedagogy and edusemiotics: Theoretical challenges/practical opportunities, 91–105. Rotterdam: Sense.10.1007/978-94-6209-857-2_9Search in Google Scholar
Sebeok, Thomas. 1985. Zoosemiotic components of human communication. In Robert E. Innis (ed.), Semiotics: An introductory anthology, 292–324. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Simons, Peter. 1994. Particulars in particular clothing: Three trope theories of substance. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54(3). 553–575.10.2307/2108581Search in Google Scholar
Tarasti, Eero. 2012. Existential semiotics and cultural psychology. In Jaan Valsiner (ed.), The Oxford handbook of culture and psychology, 316–343. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396430.013.0016Search in Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1981. Filosofisia Tutkimuksia [Philosophische Untersuchungen]. Porvoo: WSOY.Search in Google Scholar
©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton
