Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On Peirce’s Pragmatic Notion of Semiosis—A Contribution for the Design of Meaning Machines

  • Published:
Minds and Machines Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

How to model meaning processes (semiosis) in artificial semiotic systems? Once all computer simulation becomes tantamount to theoretical simulation, involving epistemological metaphors of world versions, the selection and choice of models will dramatically compromise the nature of all work involving simulation. According to the pragmatic Peircean based approach, semiosis is an interpreter-dependent process that cannot be dissociated from the notion of a situated (and actively distributed) communicational agent. Our approach centers on the consideration of relevant properties and aspects of Peirce’s pragmatic concept of semiotics. Upon developing this approach, we have no pretensions of our being able to present an exhaustive analysis of the differences between Peirce and other theoretical positions. Nevertheless, our contribution will serve to demonstrate how theorists contribute toward revealing certain fundamental ‘semiotic constraints’ that will be of interest and importance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. ‘Meaning Machines’; available at: http://web.media.mit.edu/~dkroy.

  2. We shall follow the practice of citing from the Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Peirce, 1931–1935, 1958) by volume number and paragraph number, preceded by ‘CP’; the Essential Peirce by volume number and page number, preceded by ‘EP’. References to the microfilm edition of Peirce’s papers (Harvard University) will be indicated by ‘MS’, followed by the manuscript number.

  3. For further on categories, see: Hookway 1985; Murphey 1993; Potter 1997; Merrell 1997; Short 2007.

  4. Emergence theory in the context of complexity sciences and applied to semiotic systems, and computational experiments that simulate this process, are described elsewhere (see Queiroz and El-Hani 2006; Gomes et al. 2007).

  5. The idea that all kind of knowledge or thought is a sign can be found in many sections of Peirce’s philosophical work (e.g. CP 5.234, 5.251, 5.318; NEM 3: 883), and comprises a pragmatic theory of cognition originating from the years 1868–1869 (W2: 193–272). This idea has many forms, and culminate in another form of correspondence: “Logic, in its general sense, is, as I believe I have shown, only another name for semiotic ({sémeiötiké}), the quasi-necessary, or formal, doctrine of signs” (CP2.227; see also CP1.539, 1.191, 1.313, 7.355, 8.191).

  6. See Whobrey (2001) for a detailed interpretation of Fetzer’s arguments.

References

  • Avni, O. (1990). The resistance of reference: Linguistics, philosophy, and the literary text. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batali, J. (1994). Innate biases and critical periods: Combining evolution and learning in the acquisition of syntax. In R. Brooks & P. Maes (Eds.), Artificial life IV (pp. 160–171). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batali, J. (1998). Computational simulations of the emergence of grammar. In J. R. Hurford, M. Studdert-Kennedy, & C. Knight (Eds.), Approaches to the evolution of language—social and cognitive bases (pp. 405–426). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergman, M. (2000). Reflections on the role of the communicative sign in semeiotic. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society: A Quarterly Journal in American Philosophy, Spring, XXXVI(2), 225–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunning, J., & Forster, P. (Eds.). (1997). The rule of reason. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cangelosi, A., & Parisi, D. (1998). The emergence of a language in an evolving population of neural networks. Connection Science, 10(2), 83–97. doi:10.1080/095400998116512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cangelosi, A., & Parisi, D. (Eds.). (2002). Simulating the evolution of language. London: Springer.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cangelosi, A., & Turner, H. (2002). L’emergere del linguaggio. In A. M. Borghi & T. Iachini (Eds.), Scienze della Mente (pp. 227–244). Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chemero, A. (2000). Anti-representationalism and the dynamical stance. Philosophy of Science, 67(4), 625–647. doi:10.1086/392858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chemero, A. (2007). Gibsonian affordances for roboticists. Adaptive Behavior, 15(4), 473–480. doi:10.1177/1059712307085098.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body and world together again. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, Bradford Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colapietro, V. (1989). Peirce’s approach to the self: A semiotic perspective on human subjectivity. New York: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Saussure, F. (1966). Course in general linguistics. (W. Baskin, trans.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

  • De Tienne, A. (2003). Learning qua semiosis. S.E.E.D. Journal—semiotics. evolution, energy, and development, 3, 37–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deacon, T. (1997). Symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deacon, T. (1999). Memes as signs. The Semiotic Review of Books, 10(3), 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnellan, K. (1972). Proper names and identifying descriptions. In D. Davidson & G. Harman (Eds.), Semantics of natural language (pp. 356–379). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowman, M. (2008). The nature of words in human protolanguages: It’s not a holophrastic-atomic meanings dichotomy. Artificial Life, 14, 445–465. doi:10.1162/artl.2008.14.4.14403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, H. L. (2002). Intelligence without representation-Merleau-Ponty’s critique of mental representation: The relevance of phenomenology to scientific explanation. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. Special issue on Dreyfus and Representationalism, 1(4), 367–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dummett, M. (1972). Frege: Philosophy of language. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmeche, C. (2003). Causal processes, semiosis, and consciousness. In J. Seibt (Ed.), Process theories: Crossdisciplinary studies in dynamic categories (pp. 313–336). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fetzer, J. H. (1988). Signs and minds: An introduction to the theory of semiotic systems. In J. Fetzer (Ed.), Aspects of artificial intelligence (pp. 133–161). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fetzer, J. H. (1997). Thinking and computing: computers as special kinds of signs. Minds and Machines, 7, 345–364. doi:10.1023/A:1008230900201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisch, M. (1986). Peirce, semeiotic, and pragmatism. Indiana: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, J. (1966). Peirce’s theory of signs as foundation for pragmatism. The Hague: Mouton & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flower, E., & Murphey, M. (1977). A history of philosophy in America (Vol. 2). New York: Capricorn Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freadman, A. (2004). The machinery of talk—Charles Peirce and the sign hypothesis. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, E. (1983). The relevance of Charles Peirce. La Salle: Monist Library of Philosophy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frege, G. (1970). On sense and reference. In P. Geach & M. Black (Eds.), Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege (pp. 56–78). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomes, A., El-Hani, C., Gudwin, R., & Queiroz, J. (2007). Towards the emergence of meaning processes in computers from Peircean semiotics. Mind & society—cognitive studies in economics and social sciences, 6, 173–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1995). Peirce and communication. In K. Ketner (Ed.), Peirce and contemporary thought: Philosophical inquiries (pp. 243–266). NY: Fordham University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (1993). On Kripke’s and Goodman’s uses of ‘Grue’. In D. Stalker (Ed.), Grue! The new riddle of induction (pp. 193–223). LaSalle: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica D. Nonlinear Phenomena, 42, 335–346. doi:10.1016/0167-2789(90)90087-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, S. (1996). The world as a process: Simulations in the natural and social sciences. In R. Gegselmann, et al. (Eds.), Modelling and simulaton in the social sciences from the philosophy of science point of view (pp. 77–100). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugeland, J. (1985). Artificial intelligence: The very idea. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer, J. (1996). Signs of meaning in the universe. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hookway, C. (1985). Peirce. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houser, N. (1997). Introduction: Peirce as a logician. In N. Houser, D. Roberts, & J. Evra (Eds.), Studies in the logic of Charles Sanders Peirce (pp. 1–22). Indiana: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houser, N., Roberts, D. D., & Evra, J. (Eds.). (1997). Studies in the logic of Charles Sanders Peirce. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulswit, M. (2001). Semeiotic and the cement of the universe: A Peircean process approach to causation. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society: A Quarterly Journal in American Philosophy, Summer, XXXVII(3), 339–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, P. (2004). Extending ourselves: Computational science, empiricism, and scientific method. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobson, R. (1980). Linguistics and poetics. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Style and language (pp. 350–377). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansen, J. D. (1993). Dialogic semiosis. Indiana: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, S. (1999). Learning, bottlenecks and infinity: A working model of the evolution of syntactic communication. In K. Dautenhahn & C. Nehaniv (Eds.), Proceedings of the AISB’99 Symposium on Imitation in Animals and Artifacts (pp. 55–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Kripke, S. (1972). Naming and necessity. In D. Davidson & G. Harman (Eds.), Semantics of natural language (pp. 253–355). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kripke, S. (1977). Speaker reference and semantic reference. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 2, 255–276. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4975.1977.tb00045.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kripke, S. (1982). Wittgenstein on rules and private language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvasnicka, V., & Pospichal, J. (1999). An emergence of coordinated communication in populations of agents. Artificial Life, 5, 319–342. doi:10.1162/106454699568809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loula, A., Gudwin, R., & Queiroz, J. (Eds.). (2007). Artificial cognition systems. Hershey: IGI Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, C., Nehaniv, C. L., & Cangelosi, A. (Eds.). (2007). Emergence of communication and language. Netherlands: Springer.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • MacLennan, B. J. (2002). Synthetic ethology: a new tool for investigating animal cognition. In M. L. Magnani & N. J. Nersessian (Eds.), Model-based reasoning. Science, technology, values. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrell, F. (1997). Peirce, signs, and meaning. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Misak, C. (Ed.). (2004). The Cambridge companion to Peirce. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphey, M. G. (1993). The development of Peirce’s philosophy. Indianapolis: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parisi, D. (2001). Simulazioni—la realtà rifatta nel computer. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, K. (1998). The continuity of Peirce’s thought. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (EP1, EP2). The essential Peirce. Selected philosophical writings. Vol. 1, 1867–1893. Ed. by N. Houser, & C. Kloesel (Eds.), Vol. 2, 1893–1913. Ed. by the Peirce Edition Project. (Ed.), Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1992 and 1998. (quoted as EP1, EP2)

  • Peirce, C. S. (CP). (1931–1935). The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Electronic edition reproducing. Vols. I–VI, [Ed. by C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (Eds.), Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 1931–1935]. Vols. VII–VIII, [A. W. Burks (Ed.), same publisher, 1958]. Charlottesville: Intelex Corporation. (quoted as CP).

  • Peirce, C. S. (MS). (1967). Annotated catalogue the papers of Charles S. Peirce. R. S. Robin (Ed.), Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. (quoted as MS).

  • Pietarinen, A. (2005a). Signs of logic: Peircean themes on the philosophy of language, games, and communication. Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pietarinen, A. (2005b). Relevance theory through pragmatic theories of meaning, Proceedings of the XXVII Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Alpha: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1767–1772.

  • Port, R., & van Gelder, T. (Eds.). (1995). Mind as motion. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter, V. (1997). Charles S. Peirce: On norms & ideals. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1983). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. New York: Bantam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of meaning. In H. Putnam (Ed.), Mind, language, reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Queiroz, J., & El-Hani, C. N. (2006). Semiosis as an emergent process. Transaction of C.S. Peirce Society, 42(1), 78–116. doi:10.1353/csp.2006.0013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Queiroz, J., & Merrell, F. (2006). Semiosis and pragmatism: Toward a dynamic concept of meaning. Sign System Studies, 34(1), 37–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ransdell, J. (1977). Some leading ideas of Peirce’s semiotic. Semiotica, 19(3/4), 157–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ransdell, J. (2003). The relevance of Peircean semiotic to computational intelligence augmentation. S.E.E.D. Journal (Semiotics, Evolution, Energy, and Development, 3(3), 5–36. http://www.library.utoronto.ca/see/SEED/Vol3-3/Ransdell.htm.

  • Rescher, N. (1996). Process metaphysics: An introduction to process philosophy. New York: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, S. (1994). Charles Peirce’s pragmatic pluralism. NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, D. (2005a). Grounding words in perception and action: Insights from computational models. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(8), 389–396. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.06.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, D. (2005b). Semiotic schemas: A framework for grounding language in the action and perception. Artificial Intelligence, 167(1–2), 170–205. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2005.04.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). A mathematical model of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Short, T. L. (2007). Peirce’s theory of signs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skagested, P. (1993). Thinking with machines: Intelligence augmentation, evolutionary epistemology, and semiotic. The Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, 16(2), 157–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skagested, P. (2004). Peirce’s semeiotic model of the mind. In C. Misak (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Peirce (pp. 241–256). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sowa, J. F. (2000). Knowledge representation: Logical, philosophical, and computational foundations. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stampe, D. W. (1979). Towards a causal theory of linguistic representation. In P. A. French, T. E. Uehling, & H. K. Wettstein (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in the philosophy of language (pp. 81–102). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steels, L. (1999). The talking heads experiment: Vol I. Words and meanings. Pre-edition. Antwerpen: VUB Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Laboratorium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steels, L., & Kaplan, F. (1999). Situated grounded word semantics. In T. Dean (Ed.), IJCAI’99 Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 862–867). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

  • Steels, L., Kaplan, F., Mcintyre, A., & Van Looveren, J. (2002). Crucial factors in the origins of word-meaning. In A. Wray (Ed.), The transition to language (pp. 252–271). Oxford: Oxford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stjernfelt, F. (2007). Diagrammatology—An investigation on the borderlines of phenomenology, ontology, and semiotics. Synthese Library, Netherlands: Springer.

  • Sun, R. (2000). Symbol grounding: A new look at an old idea. Philosophical Psychology, 13(2), 149–172. doi:10.1080/09515080050075663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thom, R. (1975). Structural stability and morphogenesis (W. M. Brooks & D. Rand, Trans.). West Sussex: Ellis Horwood.

  • Tiercelin, C. (1995). The relevance of Peirce’s semiotic for contemporary issues in cognitive science. In L. Haaparanta & S. Heinämaa (Eds.), Mind and cognition: Philosophical perspectives on cognitive science and artificial intelligence (pp. 37–74). (Acta Philosophica Fennica 58).

  • Varela, F. J. (1979). Principles of biological autonomy. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, M. (2005). Reconstructing the cognitive world—the next step. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whobrey, D. (2001). Machine mentality and the nature of the ground relation. Minds and Machines, 11(3), 307–346. doi:10.1023/A:1017521226571.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Ziemke, T., & Sharkey, N. E. (2001). A stroll through the worlds of robots and animals: Applying Jakob von Uexküll’s theory of meaning to adaptive robots and artificial life. Semiotica, 134(1–4), 701–746. doi:10.1515/semi.2001.050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to J. H. Moor, and anonymous reviewers of our paper for their comments. J. Q. thanks the Brazilian National Research Council (CNPq) and the State of Bahia Foundation for Research Support (FAPESB).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate Studies Program in History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching, UFBA/UEFS, Salvador, Brazil

    João Queiroz

  2. Department of General Biology, Institute of Biology, Federal University of Bahia, Campus de Ondina, CEP 41270-190, Ondina, Salvador, BA, Brazil

    João Queiroz

  3. Department of Literature, Purdue University, EUA, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Floyd Merrell

Authors
  1. João Queiroz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Floyd Merrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to João Queiroz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Queiroz, J., Merrell, F. On Peirce’s Pragmatic Notion of Semiosis—A Contribution for the Design of Meaning Machines. Minds & Machines 19, 129–143 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-008-9129-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-008-9129-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation