Advertisement

Intertheoricity: How to Build Bigger Models

  • Pauline Delahaye
Chapter
Part of the Biosemiotics book series (BSEM, volume 19)

Abstract

Creation sub-question n°1: How does intertheoricity allow us to build bigger and more efficient models in animal studies?

This chapter will introduce the concept of intertheoricity. Thus, it will return to the current academic positions regarding interdisciplinarity, to the difficulties brought by this operating mode and the way Guillaume’s theory of intertheoricity suggests solving these issues. Following this, the chapter will analyse our model of animal semiotic study, by showing how it is enabled by intertheoricity: thanks to the development of a joint methodology for language sciences and life sciences, thanks to the harmonization (and creation when needed) of definitions between fields, and thanks to opening a dialogue between different concepts across fields. Finally, this chapter will explain why such models are necessary today, whether it is to study more complex subjects, compensate for the over-specialization of researchers, or optimize the impact of research.

Keywords

Intertheoricity Interdisciplinarity Linguistics Biology Theoretical models 

References

  1. Boesch, C. (2007). What makes us human (Homo sapiens)? The challenge of cognitive cross-species comparison. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121, 227–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Delahaye, P. (2017). Etude sémiotique des émotions complexes animales : des signes pour le dire. Paris: Paris Sorbonne – Sorbonne Université.Google Scholar
  3. Guillaume, A. (2013). Transférabilité du sens d’hier et d’aujourd’hui. Des mots, des signes, des cultures. Nanterre: Université de Paris Ouest La Défense.Google Scholar
  4. Guillaume, A. (2014). L’interthéoricité : sémiotique de la transférogenèse. Plasticité, élasticité, hybridité des théories. Revue PLASTIR, Plasticités, Sciences et Arts, 37, 1–36.Google Scholar
  5. Hess, J., Beever, J., Strobel, J., & Brightman, A. (2017). Empathic perspective-taking and ethical decision-making in engineering ethics education. In D. P. Michelfelder, B. Newberry, & Q. Zhu (Eds.), Philosophy and engineering: Exploring boundaries, expanding connections (pp. 163–179). Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45193-0.Google Scholar
  6. Langer, M. C., et al. (2017). Untangling the dinosaur family tree. Nature, 551, E1–E3.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Mäekivi, N. (2018). The zoological garden as a hybrid environment – A (zoo)semiotic analysis. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Google Scholar
  8. Michelfelder, D. P., & Newberry, B. (2017). Philosophy and engineering: Exploring boundaries, expanding connections (pp. 163–179). Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45193-0.Google Scholar
  9. Rattasepp, S. (2018). The human mirror. A critique of the philosophical discourse on animals from the position of multispecies semiotics. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pauline Delahaye
    • 1
  1. 1.Paris-Sorbonne UniversityParisFrance

Personalised recommendations