{"title":"生物符号学和皮尔斯","authors":"Tony Jappy","doi":"10.1515/lass-2023-0011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Peirce’s final statements on the sign were consigned in various ways over a hundred years ago as a form of logic, a branch of the science of enquiry based upon observation. This means inevitably that some parts of the theory will have been contested or considered superseded by more recent pronouncements on cognitive activity in general, both within and without the field of semiotics. Two such areas that have been host to innovative developments concern central preoccupations of the entire Peircean edifice: the basic unit of semiotics and its function, and ways of looking. First, following Thomas Sebeok’s pioneering integration of semiotics and the biological theories of Jakob von Uexküll, biosemiotics, it is claimed, has espoused a Peircean approach to the definitions of sign and semiosis. Second, observation involves the relation between the observer and the object observed, and, as a theoretical consequence, the relation between an organism and its environment, von Uexküll’s Umwelt. In view of the importance accorded Peircean semiotic theory in this more recent science, the paper compares and contrasts aspects of the later theory with the earlier, and concludes that there are significant theoretical differences between the two conceptions of the sign and its theoretical implications.","PeriodicalId":74056,"journal":{"name":"Language and semiotic studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Biosemiotics and Peirce\",\"authors\":\"Tony Jappy\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/lass-2023-0011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Peirce’s final statements on the sign were consigned in various ways over a hundred years ago as a form of logic, a branch of the science of enquiry based upon observation. This means inevitably that some parts of the theory will have been contested or considered superseded by more recent pronouncements on cognitive activity in general, both within and without the field of semiotics. Two such areas that have been host to innovative developments concern central preoccupations of the entire Peircean edifice: the basic unit of semiotics and its function, and ways of looking. First, following Thomas Sebeok’s pioneering integration of semiotics and the biological theories of Jakob von Uexküll, biosemiotics, it is claimed, has espoused a Peircean approach to the definitions of sign and semiosis. Second, observation involves the relation between the observer and the object observed, and, as a theoretical consequence, the relation between an organism and its environment, von Uexküll’s Umwelt. In view of the importance accorded Peircean semiotic theory in this more recent science, the paper compares and contrasts aspects of the later theory with the earlier, and concludes that there are significant theoretical differences between the two conceptions of the sign and its theoretical implications.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74056,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Language and semiotic studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Language and semiotic studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/lass-2023-0011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language and semiotic studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/lass-2023-0011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
一百多年前,皮尔斯关于符号的最后陈述以各种方式被视为逻辑的一种形式,是基于观察的探索科学的一个分支。这不可避免地意味着,该理论的某些部分将受到质疑,或者被符号学领域内外关于认知活动的最新声明所取代。两个这样的领域已经成为创新发展的主体,涉及整个佩尔海大厦的中心关注点:符号学的基本单位及其功能,以及观察的方式。首先,继Thomas Sebeok开创性地将符号学与Jakob von uexk的生物学理论整合之后,生物符号学被认为支持了一种对符号和符号学定义的peirean方法。其次,观察涉及到观察者和被观察对象之间的关系,作为一个理论结果,也涉及到有机体和它的环境之间的关系。鉴于佩尔琴符号学理论在这门较新的科学中的重要性,本文比较和对比了佩尔琴符号学理论与佩尔琴符号学理论的各个方面,并得出结论,佩尔琴符号学理论与佩尔琴符号学理论之间存在着显著的理论差异。
Abstract Peirce’s final statements on the sign were consigned in various ways over a hundred years ago as a form of logic, a branch of the science of enquiry based upon observation. This means inevitably that some parts of the theory will have been contested or considered superseded by more recent pronouncements on cognitive activity in general, both within and without the field of semiotics. Two such areas that have been host to innovative developments concern central preoccupations of the entire Peircean edifice: the basic unit of semiotics and its function, and ways of looking. First, following Thomas Sebeok’s pioneering integration of semiotics and the biological theories of Jakob von Uexküll, biosemiotics, it is claimed, has espoused a Peircean approach to the definitions of sign and semiosis. Second, observation involves the relation between the observer and the object observed, and, as a theoretical consequence, the relation between an organism and its environment, von Uexküll’s Umwelt. In view of the importance accorded Peircean semiotic theory in this more recent science, the paper compares and contrasts aspects of the later theory with the earlier, and concludes that there are significant theoretical differences between the two conceptions of the sign and its theoretical implications.