Peircean anti-psychologism and learning theory

Abstract

Taking influence from Peirce’s phenomenological categories (Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness), a notion of what we call bottom-up modeling has become increasingly significant in research areas interested in learning, cognition, and development. Here, following a particular reading of Peircean semiotics (cf. Deacon, Terrence. 1997. The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain. London and New York: W. W. Norton; Sebeok, Thomas and Marcel Danesi. 2000. The forms of meaning: Modelling systems theory and semiotic analysis. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter), modeling, and thus also learning, has mostly been thought of as ascending from simple, basic sign types to complex ones (iconic – indexical – symbolic; Firstness – Secondness – Thirdness). This constitutes the basis of most currently accepted (neo-Peircean) semiotic modeling theories and entails the further acceptance of an unexamined a priori coherence between complexity of cognition and complexity of signification. Following recent readings of Peirce’s post-1900 semiotic, we will present, in abbreviated form, a discussion as to the limits of this theoretical approach for theories of learning that draws upon Peirce’s late semiotic philosophy, in particular his late work on iconicity and propositions. We also explore the corollary conceptions of semiotic resources and competences and affordances to develop an ecological perspective on learning that notably does not impose a linear developmental progression from simple to complex. In conclusion, we address some of the implications of this (post-Peircean) conceptualization for transdisciplinary research into learning.

A “Strong” Approach to Sustainability Literacy: Embodied Ecology and Media

“…This task, we argue, requires the crucial understanding that mediality is embodied. We aim to arrive at a satisfying and meaning-based sustainability literacy theory, by critically reengaging with some of the key concepts and ideas from multimodal and social semiotic approaches to literacy through a (bio/eco-)semiotic theory of learning, again, to which we have been contributing [9,10,16].…”

“…This follows from a notion of learning-as-modeling, in line with research alignments between edu-and biosemiotics [9,16,[45][46][47]. As some of us (see p. 90 in [10]) have observed recently: "To learn about something is to develop models of it, a process which evokes new affordances." By considering learning as species-specific meaning-making (or modelling), we can account for learning without reducing it to either anthropocentric, psychologist/mentalistic or computational accounts.…”

“…Varela et al [3] explain that the embodiment notion supposes "first, that cognition depends upon the kinds of experience that come from having a body with various sensorimotor capacities, and second, that these individual sensorimotor capacities are themselves embedded in a more encompassing biological, psychological, and cultural context." This paper presents an embodiment approach to literacy, the need of which has been revealed, in part, by a recent semiotic approach to philosophy of education (starting with Stables [6,7]) and to which these authors have been contributing (e.g., [8][9][10]). By explicating this approach, we also demarcate the position that we take in the current academic debates on educational philosophy, literacy and sustainability.…”

Multimodal Modeling: Bridging Biosemiotics and Social Semiotics

“…Contrary to Hodge and Kress' criticism, the reason for which Peirce was not concerned with the social and cultural dimension of signs is intricate to that for which he was, actually, not concerned with their psychological dimension either. Peirce found interest in the notion of sign, the transaction (or substitution) to which Hodge and Kress referred, because of its instrumentality in elaborating an anti-psychologistic logic (Stjernfelt, 2014;see Olteanu et al, 2020;Campbell et al, 2021). Peirce did not ascribe the action of signs to personal psychology or social cognition.…”

“…This is despite the common awareness that many animals model their environments multimodally (Martinelli, 2010: 91-93). The theoretical transformations in social semiotics entailed by this notion resulted in a framework that, I argue, can accommodate the biosemiotic notion of modeling (Sebeok, 2001;Sebeok & Danesi, 2000), not without revising some entailed concepts (Olteanu et al, 2020;Campbell et al, 2021). Biosemiotics consists in a systems modeling theory, where modeling is conceived as "the innate ability to produce forms to stand for objects, events, feelings, actions, situations, and ideas perceived to have some meaning, purpose, or useful function" (Sebeok & Danesi, 2000: 1).…”