, Volume 190, Issue 16, pp 3397–3420 | Cite as

Models as icons: modeling models in the semiotic framework of Peirce’s theory of signs

  • Björn Kralemann
  • Claas LattmannEmail author


In this paper, we try to shed light on the ontological puzzle pertaining to models and to contribute to a better understanding of what models are. Our suggestion is that models should be regarded as a specific kind of signs according to the sign theory put forward by Charles S. Peirce, and, more precisely, as icons, i.e. as signs which are characterized by a similarity relation between sign (model) and object (original). We argue for this (1) by analyzing from a semiotic point of view the representational relation which is characteristic of models. We then corroborate our hypothesis (2) by discussing the conceptual differences between icons, i.e. models, and indexical and symbolic signs and (3) by putting forward a general classification of all icons into three functional subclasses (images, diagrams, and metaphors). Subsequently, we (4) integratively refine our results by resorting to two influential and, as can be shown, complementary philosophy of science approaches to models. This yields the following result: models are determined by a semiotic structure in which a subject intentionally uses an object, i.e. the model, as a sign for another object, i.e. the original, in the context of a chosen theory or language in order to attain a specific end by instituting a representational relation in which the syntactic structure of the model, i.e. its attributes and relations, represents by way of a mapping the properties of the original, which hence are regarded as similar in a relevant manner.


Models Semantics Modern logic Semiotics Icons C.S. Peirce 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Atkin, A. (2010). Peirce’s theory of signs. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 ed.). Retrieved from
  2. Bailer-Jones D. (2009) Scientific models in philosophy of science. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PAGoogle Scholar
  3. Balzer W. (1997) Die Wissenschaft und ihre Methoden: Grundsätze der Wissenschaftstheorie. Verlag Karl Alber, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  4. Black M. (1962) Models and metaphors. Studies in language and philosophy. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  5. Carnap R. (1926) Physikalische Begriffsbildung. Braun, KarlsruheGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang, C. C. (1979). Model theory 1945–1971. In L. Henkin (Ed.), Proceedings of the Tarski Symposium held at the University of California (2nd ed., pp. 173–186), Berkeley, 23–30 June 1971. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  7. Contessa G. (2010) Scientific models and fictional objects. Synthese 172: 215–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. CP = Hartshorne, Ch. et al. (Eds.). (1931–1958). Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Eco U. (2002) Einführung in die Semiotik. Fink, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  10. Frigg, R. (2002). Models and representation: Why structures are not enough. Measurement in Physics and Economics Project Discussion Paper Series, DP MEAS 25/02, London School of Economics. Retrieved from
  11. Frigg R. (2006) Scientific representation and the semantic view of theories. Theoria 55: 49–65Google Scholar
  12. Frigg R. (2010) Models and fiction. Synthese 172: 251–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frigg R., Hartmann S. (2006) Models in science. In: Sarkar S., Pfeifer J. (Eds.) The philosophy of science: An Encyclopedia. Routledge, New York, pp 740–749Google Scholar
  14. Frigg, R., & Hartmann, S. (2009). Models in science. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2009 ed.). Retrieved from
  15. Giere R. N. (1988) Explaining science: A cognitive approach. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Giere R. N. (1999) Using models to represent reality. In: Magnani L., Nersessian N. J., Thagard P. (Eds.) Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery. Kluwer, New York, pp 41–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Giere R. N. (2004) How models are used to represent reality. Philosophy of Science 71: 742–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Giere R. N. (2010) An agent-based conception of models and scientific representation. Synthese 172: 269–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hartmann, S. (2010). Modelle. In H.-J. Sandkühler (Ed.), Enzyklopädie Philosophie (Vol. 2, pp. 1627–1632). Hamburg: Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. Jakobson, R. (1988). Semiotik. Ausgewählte Texte. 1919–1982. Herausgegeben von Elmar Holenstein. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  21. Kant, I. (1781/1787). Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Riga: J. F. Hartknoch.Google Scholar
  22. Kralemann B. (2002) Zur Analyse des Modellbegriffs. In: Deppert W., Köther K., Kralemann B., Lattmann C., Martens N., Schaefer J. (Eds.) Selbstorganisierte Systemzeiten. Ein interdisziplinärer Diskurs zur Modellierung lebender Systeme auf der Grundlage interner Rhythmen. Leipzig, Leipziger Universitätsverlag, pp 145–164Google Scholar
  23. Kralemann B. (2006) Umwelt, Kultur, Semantik - Realität. Leipzig, Leipziger UniversitätsverlagGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuhn T. S. (1996) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lattmann, C. (2012). Icons of novel thought. A new perspective on Peirce’s definition of metaphor (CP 2.277). Semiotica, 192 (in print).Google Scholar
  26. Mahr B. (2009) Information science and the logic of models. Software and System Modeling 8: 365–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mahr B. (2010) Intentionality and modeling of conception. In: Bab S., Robering K. (Eds.) Judgements and propositions—Logical, linguistic, and cognitive issues. Logos Verlag, Berlin, pp 61–87Google Scholar
  28. Mittelstraß, J., Gabriel, G., & Carrier, M. (2005). Art. “ähnlich/Ähnlichkeit”. In J. Mittelstraß (Ed.), Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie (Vol. 1, p. 52). Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
  29. MS = manuscript by Charles S. Peirce, numbered according to Robins, R. S. (1967). Annotated Catalogue of the Papers of Charles S. Peirce (Worcester: Univ. of Massachusetts Press); Robins, R. S. (1971). The Peirce Papers. A Supplementary Catalogue. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 7, 37–57.Google Scholar
  30. Queiroz J., Stjernfelt F. (2011) Introduction: Diagrammatical reasoning and Peircean logic representations. Semiotica 186: 1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Quine W. V. O. (1951) Two dogmas of empiricism. Philosophical Review 60: 20–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rolf E. (2005) Metaphertheorien. Typologie, Darstellung, Bibliographie. de Gruyter, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Saussure, F. de (1983). Course in general linguistics (C. Bally & A. Sechehaye, Eds., Trans. R. Harris). La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
  34. Short T. L. (2007) Peirce’s theory of signs. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stachowiak H. (1973) Allgemeine Modelltheorie. Springer, WienCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stjernfelt F. (2007) Diagrammatology An investigation on the borderlines of phenomenology, ontology, and semiotics. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  37. Stjernfelt F. (2011) On operational and optimal iconicity in Peirce’s diagrammatology. Semiotica 186: 395–419Google Scholar
  38. Suárez M. (2003) Scientific representation: Against similarity and isomorphism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17: 225–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Suárez M. (2004) An inferential conception of scientific representation. Philosophy of Science 71: 767–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Suppes P. (1960) A comparison of the meaning and the uses of models in mathematics and the empirical sciences. Synthese 12: 287–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vaught, R. L. (1979). Model theory before 1945. In L. Henkin (Ed.), Proceedings of the Tarski symposium held at the University of California (2nd ed., pp. 173–186), Berkeley 23–30 June 1971. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  42. Wittgenstein L. (1953) Philosophische Untersuchungen. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für PädagogikChristian-Albrechts-Universität zu KielKielGermany
  2. 2.Institut für Klassische AltertumskundeChristian-Albrechts-Universität zu KielKielGermany

Personalised recommendations