Advertisement

Biosemiotics

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 169–184 | Cite as

Recurrences and Human Agential Meaning Grounding: Laying a Path in Walking

  • Sergio RodríguezEmail author
Article

Abstract

This article addresses the semiotic problem of how meaning is agentially grounded: how actual meaning is possible and is justifiably supported by agents’ capabilities and purposes. This article is particularly focused on human agential grounding; however, to a great degree, insights presented here can be extended to other living beings. Specifically, agential meaning is examined here inside the framework of agentive semiotics and embodied, situated and enactive cognition theories, in line with the mind-life continuity general thesis (which intends to naturalize mind and experience). To offer clarity and methodological precision about agential grounding, three explanation categories (called recurrences) are proposed: phylogenetic recurrence, the evolutionary basis for corporal/embodied grounding; ontogenetic recurrence, the developmental basis for individual meaning grounding; and collective recurrence, the basis for meaning recognized, attributed and assigned inside social contexts. These recurrences are conceived as three types of general processes that constantly enclose possibilities for purpose and meaning emergence in humans. As a result of these types of recurrences, two categories of human agendas or purposes are also proposed: individual and collective. Finally, remarks about how these categories can be useful for semiotic analysis and further research are suggested.

Keywords

Agentive semiotics Meaning grounding Agency Recurrences Embodied cognition Enaction 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was financed with funding from ‘Jóvenes investigadores e innovadores COLCIENCIAS’ program, under the special cooperation agreement No. 0189 of 2014 established between Fondo Nacional De Financiamiento para la Ciencia, la Tecnología y la Innovación Francisco José de Caldas and Fundación Universidad de Bogotá Jorge Tadeo Lozano in Colombia. This work was discussed inside Mente, Lenguaje y Sociedad Research Group with significant support from the Master in Semiotics’ professors from Fundación Universidad de Bogotá Jorge Tadeo Lozano.

References

  1. Alatorre, A. (2002). Los 1001 años de la Lengua española. México, D.F.: Fondo de cultura económica.Google Scholar
  2. Barresi, J. (2012). On seeing our selves and others as persons. New Ideas in Psychology, 30, 120–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barresi, J., & Martin, R. (2011). History as prologue: western theories of the self. In S. Gallagher (Ed.), Oxford handbook of the self (pp. 33–56). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. The Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Baxandall, M. (1985). Patterns of intention. On the historical explanation of pictures. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Baxandall, M. (1988). Painting and experience in fifteenth century Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brentari, C. (2015). Jakob von Uexküll: the discovery of the Umwelt between biosemiotics and theoretical biology. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coen, E. (2012). Cells to civilizations: the principles of change that shape life. Princeton: Princeton Universtiy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Jaegher, H., Di Paolo, E., & Gallagher, S. (2010). Can social interaction constitute social cognition? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(10), 441–447. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.06.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. De Jesus, P. (2016). From enactive phenomenology to biosemiotic enactivism. Adaptive Behavior, 24(2), 130–146. doi: 10.1177/1059712316636437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Di Paolo, E. (2005). Autopoiesis, adaptivity, teleology, agency. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 429–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Di Paolo, E. (2009). Extended life. Topoi, 28(1), 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Di Paolo, E., & De Jaegher, H. (2016). Neither individualistic, nor interactionistic. In Durt, C., Fuchs, T., & Tewes, C., Embodiment, enaction, and culture. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Eco, U. (1990). The limits of interpretation. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2003). The way we think: conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  17. Fillmore, C. (2005). Frame semantics. In Geeraaerts, D. (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings (pp. 373–400). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  18. Froese, T., & Di Paolo, E. (2009). Sociality and the life-mind coninuity thesis. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 8(4), 439–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gabora, L. (2008). The cultural evolution of socially situated cognition. Cognitive Systems Research, 9(1–2), 104–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gallagher, S. (2013). The socially extended mind. Cognitive Systems Research, 25-26, 4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gallagher, S., & Crisafi, A. (2009). Mental institutions. Topoi, 28(1), 45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gallagher, S., & Zahavi, D. (2008). The phenomenological mind. An introduction to philosophy of mind and cognitive science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Henry, A., & Thompson, E. (2011). Witnessing from here: self-awarenes from a bodily versus embodied perspective. In S. Gallagher (Ed.), Oxford handbook of the self (pp. 229–249). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hulswit, M. (2001). Peirce on causality and causation. In M. Bergman & J. Queiroz (Eds.), The Commens encyclopedia .The Digital Encyclopedia of Peirce studies. New Edition Google Scholar
  25. Hulswit, M. (2002). From cause to causation. Dordrecht: Springer Science + Bussines Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hutto, D. (2013). Radically enactive cognition in our grasp. In Radman, Z. (Ed.), The hand, an organ of the mind - What the manual tells the mental (pp. 227–252). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: the bodily basis of meaning, imagination and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kaschak, M. P., & Maner, J. K. (2009). Embodiment, evolution, and social cognition: an integrative framework. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(7), 1236–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: what categories reveal about mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: a basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lindholm, M. (2015). DNA dispose, but subjects decide. Learning and the extended sythesis. Biosemiotics, 8(3), 443–461.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Machado, A. (2010). Poesías completas. (Alvar, M., Ed.) Barcelona: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
  33. Maturana, H., & Mpodozis, J. (2000). The origin of species by means of natural drift. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural, 73, 261–310.Google Scholar
  34. Maturana, H., & Varela, F. J. (1992). The tree of knowledge. The biological roots of human understanding. Boston: Shambhala Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Niño, D. (2015). Elementos de semiótica agentiva. Bogotá: Universidad de Bogotá Jorge Tadeo Lozano.Google Scholar
  36. Norman, D. (2002). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday/Currency.Google Scholar
  37. Peirce, C. (1992). The essential Peirce. Selected philosophical writings. (Vol. I (1867–1893). (Houser, N., & Kloesel, C., Eds.) Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rakoczy, H., & Schmidt, M. F. (2013). The early ontogeny of social norms. Child Development Perspectives, 7(1), 17–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Read, D. (2003). From behavior to culture: an assesment of cultural evolution and a new synthesis. Complexity, 8(6), 17–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Robbins, P., & Ayedede, M. (2009). A short premier on situated cognition. In P. Robbins & M. Ayedede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 3–10). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Schmidt, M. F., Rakoczy, H., & Tomasello, M. (2010). Young children attribute normativity to novel actions without pedagogy or normative language. Developmental Science, 14(3), 530–539.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  43. Searle, J. R. (2007). Social ontology: the problem and steps towards a solution. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Intentional acts and institutional facts (pp. 11–28). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  44. Searle, J. R. (2010). Making the social world. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Short, T. L. (2007). Peirce's theory of signs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Swanson, L. W. (2008). 2. Basic plan of the nervous system. In L. Squire, D. Berg, F. Bloom, S. du Lac, A. Ghosh, & N. Spitzer (Eds.), Fundamental neuroscience. Burlington, San Diego, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  47. Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life. In Biology, phenomenology and the sciences of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Thompson, E., & Stapleton, M. (2009). Making sense of sense-making: reflections on enactive and extended mind theories. Topoi, 28(1), 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tomasello, M. (2014). A natural history of human thinking. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tønnessen, M. (2015). The biosemiotic glossary project: agent, agency. Biosemiotics, 8(1), 125–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tønnessen, M., Magnus, R., & Brentari, C. (2016). The biosemiotic glossary project: umwelt. Biosemiotics, Online first, 1–21. doi: 10.1007/s12304-015-9241-4
  52. Tunçgenç, B., Hohenberger, A., & Rakoczy, H. (2015). Early understanding of normativity and freedom to act in turkish toddlers. Journal of Cognition and Development, 16(1), 44–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Turner, M. (2006). The art of compression. In M. Turner (Ed.), The artful mind (pp. 93–113). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Varela, F. J., Thomspon, E., & Rosch, E. (1993). The embodied mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. Wu, W. (2011). Attention as selection for action. In C. Mole, D. Smithies, & W. Wu (Eds.), Attention. Philosophical and psychological essays (pp. 97–116). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Wyman, E., Rakoczy, H., & Tomasello, M. (2013). Non-verbal communication enables children coordination in a 'Stag Hunt' game. The European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10, 597–610. doi: 10.1080/17405629.2012.726469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de HumanidadesUniversidad de Bogotá Jorge Tadeo LozanoBogotáColombia

Personalised recommendations