Résumé
Dans cet article, nous discuterons de l’intégration du numérique à la sémiotique et proposerons qu’une modélisation conceptuelle puisse offrir un pont de dialogue entre ces deux domaines classiquement cloisonnés. Plus précisément, nous avancerons l’hypothèse que tout projet de recherche qui en appellera à l’informatique soit une démarche scientifique que s’il construit une théorie qui contient, en plus des modèles classiques que sont les modèles formel, computationnel et physique, un modèle conceptuel. Ce lieu, où les chercheur-es conceptualisent les multiples dimensions de leur objet de recherche, sera alors défini en tant que socle d’une relation solide entre la sémiotique et l’informatique. Nous verrons que les différentes définitions du modèle conceptuel convergent vers la thèse soutenant que la connaissance scientifique met en œuvre une instance de conceptualisation qui doit identifier les diverses dimensions du problème en plus de devoir s’exprimer de manière à ce qu’elle soit communicable entre les membres des communautés épistémiques. Nous verrons, enfin, qu’un projet de recherché sémiotique exige la construction d’un tel modèle afin de décrire, généraliser et sélectionner des problèmes et que ce même modèle, conceptuel, sera aussi nécessaire si le ou la sémioticien-ne utilise l’informatique dans le cadre de sa recherche.fr
Mots-clés
sémiotique, informatique, computation, computation, humanités, numériques, épistémologie
Abstract
In this article, we will discuss the integration of digital with semiotics and propose that a conceptual modeling can offer a bridge of dialogue between these two classically partitioned domains. More precisely, we will put forward the hypothesis that any research project that will call for computer science is a scientific process if it constructs a theory that contains, in addition to the classical models that are the formal, computational and physical models, a conceptual model. This place, where researchers conceptualize the multiple dimensions of their research subject, will then be defined as the foundation for a strong relationship between semiotics and computer science. We will see that the different definitions of the conceptual model converge on the thesis that scientific knowledge implements a conceptualization process that must identify the various dimensions of the problem in addition to having to express itself in such a way that it can be communicated between members of epistemic communities. We will see, finally, that a semiotic research project requires the construction of such a model in order to describe, generalize and select problems and that this same conceptual model will also be necessary if the semiotician uses computer science in the context of his or her research.
Références
Allington, Daniel, Sarah Brouillette & David Golumbia. 2016. Neoliberal tools (and archives): A political history of digital humanities. Los Angeles Review of Books. https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/neoliberal-tools-archives-political-history-digital-humanities/ (consulté le 20 mars 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Anderson, Myrene & Floyd Merrell (eds.). 1991. On semiotic modelling. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110849875Search in Google Scholar
Armatte, Michel & Amy D. Dalmedico. 2004. Modèles et modélisations, 1950–2000: Nouvelles pratiques, nouveaux enjeux. Revue d’histoire des sciences 57(2). 243–303. https://doi.org/10.3406/rhs.2004.2214.Search in Google Scholar
Bachelard, Suzanne. 1979. Quelques aspects historiques des notions de modèle et de justification des modèles. In Dans P. Delattre & M. Thellier (dirs.), Elaboration et justification des modèles, vol. 1, 3–18. Paris : Maloine.Search in Google Scholar
Bachimont, Bruno. 1996. Herméneutique matérielle et Artefacture : Des machines qui pensent aux machines qui donnent à penser. L’École Polytechnique, Montreal, thèse de doctorat.10.4000/tc.571Search in Google Scholar
Bogen, James. 2017. Theory and observation in science. In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/science-theory-observation/ (consulté le 20 mars 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Heather L. 2007. Conceptual systems. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203967904Search in Google Scholar
Burdick, Anne, Johanna Drucker, Peter Lunefeld & Jeffrey Schapp. 2002. Digital humanities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. 1937. The logical syntax of language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Search in Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. 1983. How the laws of physics lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0198247044.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Chartier, Jean-François, Davide Pulizzotto, Louis Chartrand & Jean-Guy Meunier. 2019. A data-driven computational semiotics: The semantic vector space of Magritte’s artworks. Special issue, Semiotica 230(1/4). 211–235. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2018-0120.Search in Google Scholar
Chartrand, Louis, Jean-Franccois Chartier & Jean-Guy Meunier. 2013. Des mots pour se retrouver recherche d’information dans l’œuvre de Magritte à l’aide d’un corpus de descripteurs sémiotiques. Cahiers du LANCI 2013–01.Search in Google Scholar
Chartrand, Louis, Jean-Franccois Chartier & Jean-Guy Meunier. 2015. Peindre Magritte avec des mots : Analyse conceptuelle dans l’œuvre de Magritte à l’aide d’un corpus de descripteurs sémiotiques. Cahiers de l’Institut des Sciences Cognitives UQAM ISC 4.Search in Google Scholar
Cobley, Paul. 2013. Semiotic models of communication. In Paul Cobley & Peter J. Schulz (eds.), Theories and models of communication, 223–240. Berlin: Mouton de Grutyer.10.1515/9783110240450.223Search in Google Scholar
Craik, Kenneth. 1943. The nature of explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Dacos, Marin & Pierre Mounier. 2014. Humanités numériques : État des lieux et positionnement de la recherche française dans le contexte international. Paris : Institut Français.Search in Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel. 1978. Brainstorms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Duhem, Pierre. 1906. La théorie physique : Son objet et sa structure. Paris : Chevalier et Rivière.Search in Google Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul. 1975. Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. London: New Left.Search in Google Scholar
Frigg, Roman & Stephan Hartmann. 2020 [2006]. Models in science. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/models-science/ (consulté le 20 mars 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Gardenfors, Peter. 2000. Conceptual spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/2076.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald N. 1999. Using models to represent reality. In Lorenzo Magnani, Nancy J. Nersessian & Paul Thagard, (eds.), Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery, 41–57. New York: Plenum.10.1007/978-1-4615-4813-3_3Search in Google Scholar
Glaser, Barney & Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014Search in Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, Peter. 2009. Models and fictions in science. Philosophical Studies 143(1). 101–116.10.1007/s11098-008-9313-2Search in Google Scholar
Granjon, Fabien. 2016. Critiques des humanités numériques. Variations 19. https://journals.openedition.org/variations/782 (consulté le 20 mars 2020).10.4000/variations.748Search in Google Scholar
Green, Sara. 2013. When one model is not enough: Combining epistemic tools in systems biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44(2). 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.03.012.Search in Google Scholar
Guizzardi, Giancarlo. 2005. Ontological foundation for structural conceptual model. Enschede: Telematica Instituut, PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Haslanger, Sally. 2012. Resisting reality: Social construction and social critique. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199892631.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Hayes, Patrick J. 1979. The naive physics manifesto. In Donald Michie (ed.), Expert systems in the micro-electronic age, 242–270. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hebert, Louis, Pascal Michelucci & Éric Trudel (dirs.). 2018. Magritte, perspectives, nouveaux regards. Quebec : Nota Bene.Search in Google Scholar
Hoffmeyer, Jesper. 2008. Biosemiotics: An examination into the signs of life and the life of signs. Scranton, PA: University of Scranton Press.Search in Google Scholar
Jabareen, Y. 2009. Building a conceptual framework: Philosophy, definitions, and procedure. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 8(4). 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800406.Search in Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, Philip N. 1983. Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kintch, Walter & Teun A. Van Dijk. 1983. Strategies of discourse comprehension. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Knuuttila, Tarja. 2011. Modelling and representing: An artefactual approach to model-based representation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42(2). 262–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.11.034.Search in Google Scholar
Kockelman, Paul. 2013. Information is the enclosure of meaning: Cybernetic, semiotics and alternative theories of information. Language and Communication 33. 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2013.01.002.Search in Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1976. Proofs and refutations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139171472Search in Google Scholar
Lemoigne, Jean-Louis. 1987. Qu’est-ce qu’un modèle ? Aix-en-Provence : Université d’Aix-Marseille II.Search in Google Scholar
Leonelli, Sabina. 2007. What is in a model? Combining theoretical and material models to develop intelligible theories. In Manfred D. Laubichler & Gerd B. Müller (eds.), Modeling biology: Structure, behaviors, evolution, 15–31. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lewis, David K. 1966. An argument for the identity theory. Journal of Philosophy 63. 17–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/2024524.Search in Google Scholar
Maibom, Heidi. 2003. The mindreader and the scientist. Mind and Language 18. 296–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00229.Search in Google Scholar
Marr, David. 1982. Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.Search in Google Scholar
Meunier, Jen-Guy. 1998. Categorial structure of iconic languages. Theory and Psychology 8(6). 805–827. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354398086005.Search in Google Scholar
Morgan, Mary S. & Margaret Morrison (eds.). 1999. Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511660108Search in Google Scholar
Morrison, Margaret. 2007. Where have all the theories gone? Philosophy of Science 74(2). 195–228. https://doi.org/10.1086/520778.Search in Google Scholar
Papineau, David. 2009. The poverty of analysis. The Aristotelian Society Supplementary 83(1). 1–30.10.1111/j.1467-8349.2009.00170.xSearch in Google Scholar
Pylyshyn, Zenon. 1984. Cognition and computation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Rastier, François. 2011. La mesure et le grain : Sémantique de corpus. Paris : Champion.Search in Google Scholar
Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg. 1997. Towards a history of epistemic things: Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg. 2007. Experimental model systems: An epistemological apercu from the perspective of molecular biology. In Manfred D. Laubichler & Gerd B. Müller (eds.), Modeling biology: Structure, behaviors, evolution, 37–46. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg. 2009. Recent science and its exploration: The case of molecular biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 40(1). 6–12.10.1016/j.shpsc.2008.12.002Search in Google Scholar
Robinson, Stewart, Gilbert Arbez, Louis G. Birta, Andreas Tolk & Gerd Wagner. 2015. Conceptual modeling: Definition, purpose, and benefits. In 2015 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), Huntington Beach, CA, 2812–2826. https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2015.7408386.Search in Google Scholar
Rompré, Louis, Ismaïl Biskri & F. Meunier. 2008. Text classification: A preferred tool for audio file classification. In Proceedings of the 6th ACS/IEEE International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications (AICCSA-08). Doha, Qatar.10.1109/AICCSA.2008.4493624Search in Google Scholar
Sebeok, Thomas A. 1985 [1977]. Zoosemiotic components of human communication. In Robert E. Innis (ed.), Semiotics: An introductory anthology, 294–324. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.10.1515/9783110803327-023Search in Google Scholar
Sebeok, Thomas A. 1991. In what sense is language a “primary modelling system”? In Myrene Anderson & Floyd Merell (eds.), On semiotic modelling, 327–341. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110849875.327Search in Google Scholar
Sebeok, Thomas A. & Marcel, Danesi. 2000. The forms of meaning: Modeling systems theory and semiotic analysis. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110816143Search in Google Scholar
Sellars, W. 1948. Concepts as involving laws and inconceivable without them. Philosophy of Science 15(4). 287–315. https://doi.org/10.1086/286997.Search in Google Scholar
Staggers, Nancy & A. F. Norcio. 1993. Mental models: Concepts for human-computer interaction research. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 38(4). 587–605. https://doi.org/10.1006/imms.1993.1028.Search in Google Scholar
Stjernfelt, Frederik. 2007. Diagrammatology: An Investigation on the borderlines of phenonology, ontology, and semiotics. Dortrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-5652-9Search in Google Scholar
Suárez, Mary S. 1999. The role of models in the application of scientific theories: Epistemological implications. In Mary S. Morgan & Margaret Morrison (eds.), Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science, 168–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511660108.008Search in Google Scholar
Thagard, Paul. 2012. Cognitive science of science: Explanation, discovery, and conceptual change. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9218.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Tijus, Charles, Javier Barcenilla, Brigitte Cambon de Lavalette & Jean-Guy Meunier. 2007. The design, understanding, and usability of pictograms. In Denis Alamargot, Patrice Terrier & Jean-Marie Cellier (eds.), Improving the production and understanding of written documents in the workplace, 17–312. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Search in Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas. 1980. The scientific image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0198244274.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Weisberg, Michael. 2013. Simulation and similarity: Using models to understand the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199933662.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
