Abstract
The grounding of semiotics in the finiteness of cognition is extended into constructs and methods for analysis by incorporating the assumption that cognition can be similar within and between agents. After examining and formalizing cognitive similarity as an ontological commitment, the recurrence of cognitive states is examined in terms of a “cognitive set.” In the individual, the cognitive set is seen as evolving under the bidirectional, cyclical determination of thought by the historical environment. At the population level, the distributed “global” cognitive set is argued to be constrained to a manifold in which the cognition of individuals is determined only when their cognitive sets meet certain conditions in the world: a result seen as consistent with Lotman’s semiosphere.
With these foundations in place, dimensional modelling of the semiosic field is inaugurated. Firstly, measures of cognitive similarity are formalized as cognitive “distance” and on this basis the concept of a semiotic vector is defined. Secondly, semiotic vectors are seen to shape a general pattern of oscillation in semiosis, and thus to imply zero points in semiosic potential. Thirdly, semiosic oscillation in individual agents is shown to be consistent with a novel diachronic or longitudinal interpretation of Greimas’ semiotic square expanded into a “semiotic pipe” in which cognition traverses an n-dimensional space structured by axes of oscillation. Finally, the expanded theory of finite semiotics is advanced as a useful basis for two new complementary disciplines: (1) a computational, mathematical science of “natural semiotic processing” (NSP) to trace and model semiotic vectors and oscillation; and (2) an ethical, rhetorical art of “technological influencing” (TI) to guide its inputs and applications.
References
Baudrillard, J. 1994 [1981]. Simulacra and simulation, S. F. Glaser (trans.). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.9904Search in Google Scholar
Chandler, D. 2017. Semiotics: The basics, 3rd edn. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. 1970. Word associations and linguistic theory. New Horizons in Linguistics 1. 271–286.Search in Google Scholar
Eco, U., R. Rorty, J. Culler & C. Brooke-Rose. 1992. Interpretation and overinterpretation, S. Collini (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511627408Search in Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 2002 [1969]. The archaeology of knowledge, A. Sheridan (trans.). New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203604168Search in Google Scholar
Greimas, A. J. & F. Rastier. 1968. The interaction of semiotic constraints. Yale French Studies 41. 86–105.10.2307/2929667Search in Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. V. 1978 [1976]. The mirage of social justice (Law, Legislation, and Liberty 2). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226321257.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Ionesco, E. 2010 [1951]. La leçon: Drame comique. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Sprachen.Search in Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1972. Verbal communication. Scientific American 227(3). 72–81.10.1038/scientificamerican0972-72Search in Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. & A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2). 263–291.10.2307/1914185Search in Google Scholar
Lotman, Y. M. 2001 [1990]. Universe of the mind: A semiotic theory of culture, A. Shukman (trans.). London: IB Tauris.Search in Google Scholar
McLuhan, M. 1994 [1964]. Understanding media: The extensions of man. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.4324/9780203992968-15Search in Google Scholar
Meyer, D. E. & R. W. Schvaneveldt. 1971. Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology 90(2). 227–234.10.1037/h0031564Search in Google Scholar
Nöth, W. 1990. Handbook of semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.10.2307/j.ctv14npk46Search in Google Scholar
Parsons, T. 2017. The traditional square of opposition. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/square/ (accessed 2 August 2017).Search in Google Scholar
Piaget, J. 2013 [1954]. The construction of reality in the child, M. Cook (trans.). London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315009650Search in Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. 1951. Two dogmas of empiricism. Philosophical Review 60(1). 20–43.10.2307/2181906Search in Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E. 1978. Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. San Diego, CA: Center for Human Information Processing.Search in Google Scholar
Saussure, F. de. 1959 [1916]. Course in general linguistics, C. Bally & A. Sechehaye (eds.), W. Baskin (trans.). New York: Philosophical Library.Search in Google Scholar
Shackell, C. 2018. Finite cognition and finite semiosis: A new perspective on semiotics for the information age. Semiotica 222. 225–240. doi:10.1515/sem-2018-0020.Search in Google Scholar
Shackell, C. 2019. Finite semiotics: Recovery functions, semioformation and the hyperreal. Semiotica 227. 211–226. doi:10.1515/sem-2016-0153.Search in Google Scholar
Uttal, W. R. 2013. Reliability in cognitive neuroscience: A meta-meta-analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262018524.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical investigations, G. E. M. Anscombe (trans.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1974 [1922]. Tractatus logico-philosophicus, D. F. Pears & B. F. McGuinness (trans.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
