Advertisement

Educating Semiosis: Foundational Concepts for an Ecological Edusemiotic

  • Cary Campbell
Article
  • 53 Downloads

Abstract

Many edusemiotic writers have begun to closely align edusemitoics to biosemiotics; the basic logic being that, if the life process can be defined through the criterion of semiotic engagement, so can the learning process (Stables in J Curr Stud 38(4):373–387, 2006). Thus, the ecological concept of umwelt has come to be a central area of investigation for edusemiotics; allowing theorists to address learning and living concurrently, from the perspective of meaning and significance. To address the conceptual and experiential foundations of the edusemiotic perspective, this paper will focus its attention on the basic semiosic processes that sustain the learner’s primary modelling system or umwelt—the world of meaning and sensory engagement that the organism is immersed in. This focus enables us to identify and explore four basic principles that an ecologically concerned edusemiotic perspective can be said to rest upon; the Iconicity Hypothesis, the Principle of Suprasubjective Relation, the Natural Learning Flow Principle, and the Continuity Principle. The identification and elaboration of these basic philosophical orientations will help establish the importance and relevance of the edusemiotic perspective for educational philosophy and theory in general. This task requires the methodological framework of Sebeok and Danesi’s (The forms of meaning: modeling systems theory and semiotic analysis, vol 1, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 2000) Modelling Systems Theory (MST), which; (a) provides a biosemiotically grounded approach to understanding the diversity of modelling phenomena across all species, and; (b) contextualizes the specific focus of this study within the broader forms of learning and knowing encompassed by a semiotic theory of learning. Hopefully such attention to the foundational doctrina of this new perspective will encourage more educational research to take what Semetsky (J Philos Educ 48:490–506, 2014) has called the edusemiotic turn.

Keywords

Edusemitoics Umwelt Semiotics Primary iconism Indexicality Modeling CS. Peirce Umberto Eco Sebeok Danesi 

References

  1. Ayer, A.J. 1968. The Origins of Pragmatism: Studies in the Philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce and William James. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Affifi, R. 2014. Biological Pedagogy as Concern for Semiotic Growth. Biosemiotics 7(1): 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biesta, G.J. 2016 [2013]. Beautiful Risk of Education. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, C. 2016. Indexical Ways of Knowing: An Inquiry into the Indexical Sign and How to Educate for Novelty. Philosophical Inquiry in Education 24(1): 15–36.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, C. 2017. Learning that Reflects the Living: Aligning Anticipation and Edusemiotics. Public Journal of Semiotics 8(1): 1–25.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, C. 2018a. Toward a Pedagogy of Firstness. Chinese Semiotic Studies 14(1): 71–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell, C. 2018b. Educating Openness: Umberto Eco’s Poetics of Openness as a Pedagogical Value. Signs and Society 6(2): 305–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, C. 2018c. In Search of Our Beginnings: Locating ‘Firstness’ in Arts Education in the Service of Advocacy. International Journal of Education & the Arts 19(13): 1–36.Google Scholar
  9. Carr, W. 1997. Professing Education in a Postmodern Age. Journal of Philosophy of Education 31(2): 309–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chiasson, P. 2005. Peirce’s Design for Thinking: An Embedded Philosophy of Education. Educational Philosophy and Theory 37(2): 207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Colapietro, V. 1999. Peirce’s Guess at the Riddle of Rationality: Deliberative Imagination as the Personal Locus of Human Practice. In Classical American Pragmatism. Its Contemporary Vitality, ed. S. Rosenthal, C.R. Hausman, and D.R. Anderson, 15–30. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  12. Colapietro, Vincent. 2013. Peirce and Education: Contemporary Reflections in the Spirit of a Contrite Fallibilist. Foro de Educación 11(15): 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cunningham, D. 1988. Abduction and Affordance: A Semiotic View of Cognition. Paper presented at the 1988 AERA Conference, April 5–9, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  14. Cunningham, Donald J. 1998. Cognition as Semiosis: The Role of Inference. Theory & Psychology 8(6): 827–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cunningham, D. 2007. Educating the Semiotic Mind: Introduction to Special Issue on ‘Semiotics and Education’. Semiotica 164: 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. D’Aquili, E.G., C.D. Laughlin, and J. McManus. 1979. The Spectrum of Ritual: A Biogenetic Structural Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Danesi, M. 1993. Vico, Metaphor, and the Origin of Language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Danesi, M. 1994. Vico and Cognitive Science. In The Imaginative Basis of Thought and Culture: Contemporary Perspectives on Giambattista Vico, ed. M. Danesi and F. Nuesser, 47–70. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.Google Scholar
  19. Danesi, Marcel. 1998. The Body in the Sign: Thomas A. Sebeok and Semiotics. Ottawa: Legas.Google Scholar
  20. Danesi, M. 2010. Forward. In Semiotics Education Experience, ed. I. Semetsky. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Danesi, M. 2013. On the Metaphorical Connectivity of Cultural Sign Systems. Signs and Society 1(1): 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Deacon, T.W. 2011. Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter. New York: WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  23. Dewey, J. 1934/2005. Art as Experience. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  24. Dewey, J. 2004[1916]. Democracy and Education. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  25. Deely, J. 1990. Basics of Semiotics. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Deely, John. 2001. Four Ages of Understanding. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Deely, J. 2004. A Sign is What?: A Dialogue between a Semiotist and a Would-Be Realist. The American Journal of Semiotics 20(1/4): 1–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Deely, J. 2009. Augustine and Poinsot: The Protosemiotic Development. Scranton: University of Scranton Press.Google Scholar
  29. Deely, J. 2010. Realism for the 21st Century: A John Deely Reader. Scranton: University of Scranton Press.Google Scholar
  30. Deely, J., and I. Semetsky. 2017. Semiotics, Edusemiotics and the Culture of Education. Educational Philosophy and Theory 49(3): 207–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Eco, U. 1979. The role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Eco, U. 1984. Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Eco, Umberto. 1989. The Open Work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP. [Original work published 1962].Google Scholar
  34. Eco, U. 2000. Kant and the Platypus: Essays on Language and Cognition. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  35. Eco, U. 2014. From the Tree to the Labyrinth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Esposito, J.L. 2007. Synechism: The Keystone of Peirce’s Metaphysics. In Digital Encyclopedia of Charles S. Peirce, ed. J. Queiro and R. Gudwin. http://www.digitalpeirce.fee.unicamp.br/p-synesp.htm. Accessed April 2018.
  37. Gibson, J.J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  38. Gouinlock, James. 1972. John Dewey’s Philosophy of Value. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hirst, Paul H., and Richard S. Peters, (eds). 2012[1970]. The Logic of Education, Vol. 16. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Ingold, T. 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ingold, T. 2009. Point, Line and Counterpoint: From Environment to Fluid Space. In Neurobiology of “Umwelt”: How Living Beings Perceive the World, Research and Perspectives in Neurosciences, ed. A. Berthoz and Y. Christen. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Ingold, T. 2017. Anthropology and/as Education. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Jorgensen, E.R. 2003. Transforming Music Education. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Kull, K. 2009. Biosemiotics: To Know, What Life Knows. Cybernetics and Human Knowing 16(3–4): 81–88.Google Scholar
  45. Laughlin, C.D. 1992. Consciousness in Biogenetic Structural Theory. Anthropology of Consciousness 3(1–2): 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Laughlin, C.D. 1996. The Properties of Neurognosis. Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems 19(4): 363–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Laughin, Charles D. 1998. Neurognosis and Experience. Retrieved from December 1, 2017 http://biogeneticstructuralism.com/exper.htm.
  48. Laughlin, C.D., J. McManus, and E.G. d’Aquili. 1990. Brain, Symbol & Experience: Toward a Neurophenomenology of Human Consciousness. Boston: New Science Library.Google Scholar
  49. Legg, C. 2017. ‘Diagrammatic Teaching’: The Role of Iconic Signs in Meaningful Pedagogy. In Edusemiotics—A Handbook, ed. I. Semetsky, 29–45. Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Masschelein, J. 2010. E-ducating the Gaze: The Idea of a Poor Pedagogy. Ethics and Education 5(1): 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nadin, M. 2009. Anticipation and the Artificial. Aesthetics, Ethics, and Synthetic Life. Special issue on ethics and aesthetics of technologies—AI & Society (Computer Science), 103–118. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  52. Nadin, M. 2010. Anticipation and the Artificial: Aesthetics, Ethics, and Synthetic Life. AI & Society 25(1): 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nadin, M. 2014. Semiotics is Fundamental Science. In Knowledge Discovery, Transfer, and Management in the Information Age, ed. M. Jennex, 76–125. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nadin, M. (ed.). 2017. Anticipation and the Brain. In Anticipation and Medicine, 147–175. New York: SpringerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nesher, D. 2001. Peircean Epistmology of Learning and the Function of Abduction as the Logic of Discovery. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 37(1): 23–57.Google Scholar
  56. Nöth, W. 1998. Ecosemiotics. Sign Systems Studies 26: 332–343.Google Scholar
  57. Nöth, W. 2001. Ecosemiotics and the Semiotics of Nature. Sign Systems Studies 29(1): 71–81.Google Scholar
  58. Noth, W. 2010. The Semiotics of Teaching and the Teaching of Semiotics. In Semiotics Education Experience, ed. I. Semetsky. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  59. Olteanu, A. 2015. Philosophy of Education in the Semiotics of Charles Peirce: A Cosmology of Learning and Loving. Oxford: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Olteanu, A. 2016. Review of Edusemiotics. Social Semiotics 26(5): 582–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Olteanu, A., and C. Campbell. 2018. A Short Introduction to Edusemiotics. Chinese Semiotic Studies 14(2): 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Paavola, S. 2005. Peircean Abduction: Instinct or Inference? Semiotica 153(1/4): 131–154.Google Scholar
  63. Pearson, C. 2017. Eight Common Fallacies of Elementary Semiotics. Chinese Semiotic Studies 13(4): 339–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Peirce, C.S. 1903[1998]. Sundry Logical Conceptions. In The Essential Peirce. Selected Philosophical Writings. Vol. 2 (1893–1913), ed. N. Houser and C.J.W. Kloesel, 267–88. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1966. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Ed. Charles Hartshorne, Paul Weiss, and Arthur W. Burks. Cambridge, MA: Belknap. [References to collected papers—CP followed by volume and paragraph—are in accordance with common practice].Google Scholar
  66. Petrilli, S. 2003. Sebeok’s Semiosic Universe and Global Semiotics. Cybernetics & Human Knowing 10(1): 61–79.Google Scholar
  67. Petrilli, Susan, and Augusto Ponzio. 2005. Semiotics Unbounded: Interpretive Routes Through the Open Network of Signs. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Poinsot, John. 1985 [1632]. Tractatus de Signis: The Semiotic of John Poinsot, ed. John Deely, and Ralph A. Powell. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  69. Ponzio, A. 2002. Sebeok’s Semiotics and Education. Semiotica 38(4): 299–312.Google Scholar
  70. Ransdell, J. 1979. The Epistemic Function of Iconicity in Perception. Peirce Studies 1: 51–66.Google Scholar
  71. Reybrouck, M. 2012. Musical Sense-Making and the Concept of Affordance: An Ecosemiotic and Experiential Approach. Biosemiotics 5(3): 391–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rose, P. 2016. CS Peirce’s Cosmogonic Philosophy of Emergent Evolution: Deriving Something from Nothing. Revista de Filosofía 12: 123–142.Google Scholar
  73. Sakitt, B. 1975. Locus of Short-Term Visual Storage. Science 190: 1318–1319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sebeok, Thomas A. 2001 [1994]. Signs: An Introduction to Semiotics. 2nd edn. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  75. Sebeok, T.A. 2001. Global Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Sebeok, T.A., and M. Danesi. 2000. The Forms of Meaning: Modeling Systems Theory and Semiotic Analysis, vol. 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Semetsky, I. 2005. Peirce’s Semiotics, Subdoxastic Aboutness, and the Paradox of Inquiry. Educational Philosophy and Theory 37(2): 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Semetsky, I. 2010. Semiotics Education Experience. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  79. Semetsky, I. 2014. Taking the Edusemiotic Turn: A Body ~ Mind Approach to Education. Journal of Philosophy of Education 48: 490–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Semetsky, Inna (ed.). 2017. Edusemiotics—A Handbook. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  81. Semetsky, I., and C. Campbell. 2018. Semiotics and/as Education. Chinese Semiotic Studies 14(1): 121–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Shank, G. 1991. Abduction: Teaching to the Ground State of Cognition. In Bergamo Conference on Curriculum Theory and Classroom Practice, Dayton, OH.Google Scholar
  83. Shank, Gary. 1998. The Extraordinary Ordinary Powers of Abductive Reasoning. Theory & Psychology 8(6): 841–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Shank, Gary. 2008. Abductive Strategies in Educational Research. The American Journal of Semiotics 5(2): 275–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Shank, G., and D.J. Cunningham. 1996. Modeling the Six Modes of Peircean Abduction for Educational Purposes. In Annual Meeting of the Midwest Al and Cognitive Science conference, Bloomington, IN. Retrieved May 2018, from http://www.academia.edu/download/35830501/1996_MAICS_final_version.pdf.
  86. Sheriff, J.K. 1994. Charles Peirce’s Guess at the Riddle: Grounds for Human Significance. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Stables, A. 2006. Sign(al)s: Living and Learning as Semiotic Engagement. Journal of Curriculum Studies 38(4): 373–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Stables, A., and I. Semetsky. 2015. Edusemiotics: Semiotic Philosophy as Educational Foundation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  89. Stables, Andrew, Susannah Learoyd-Smith, Harry Daniels, and Hau Ming Tse. 2014. Schools and Schooling as Semiotic Engagement: A Focus on Design. In Pedagogy and Edusemiotics: Theoretical challenges/Practical Opportunities, ed. Inna Semetsky and Andrew Stables, 35–50. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Stables, A., W. Nöth, A. Olteanu, P. Sebastien, and E. Pikkarainen. 2018. Semiotic Theory of Learning: New Perspectives in the Philosophy of Education. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  91. Strand, T. 2013. Peirce’s Rhetorical Turn: Conceptualizing Education as Semiosis. Educational Philosophy and Theory 45(7): 789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Thom, R. 1973. De l’icone au symbole: Esquisse d’une theorie du symbolisme. Cahiers Internationaux de Symbolisme. 22–23: 85–106.Google Scholar
  93. Von Uexkull, J. 1957 [1934]. A stroll through the worlds of animals of men. A picture book of invisible worlds. In Instinctive Behavior: The Development of a Modern Concept, ed. C. Schiller, 5–80. New York, NY: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
  94. Von Uexkull, J. 1982 [1940]. The Theory of Meaning, Semiotica 42(1), 25–82.Google Scholar
  95. West, D. 2015. The Work of Secondness as Habit in the Development of Early Schemes. The Public Journal of Semiotics 6(2): 1–13.Google Scholar
  96. West, D.E. 2018. Cultivating the Guessing Instinct. Chinese Semiotic Studies 14(2): 229–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Yu, H. 2017. Semiotic Modeling and Education. Semiotica 215: 365–379.Google Scholar
  98. Zlatev, J. 2009. The Semiotic Hierarchy: Life, Consciousness, Signs and Language. Cognitive Semiotics 4: 169–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Zlatev, J. 2013. The Mimesis Hierarchy of Semiotic Development: Five Stages of Intersubjectivity in Children. Public Journal of Semiotics 4(2): 47–70.Google Scholar
  100. Zlatev, J., and M. Andrén. 2009. Stages and Transitions in Children’s Semiotic Development. In Studies in Language and Cognition, ed. J. Zlatev, M. Andrén, M. Johansson-Falck, and C. Lundmark, 380–401. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Simon Fraser UniversityVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations