Sign System Studies and Modern Socio-Anthropomorphism

Open access

Abstract

The article examines the individual and social, practical, and theoretical presumptions (“idols” and “beliefs”) that constitute the conscious and unconscious re-construction of the social reality and reality of different conventional sign systems that represent and are represented by society. It is shown that in everyday life and in theoretical studies, we quite often analyze sign systems as if they were autonomous and empirically “given” realities. The work explains how this “natural belief” originated and developed. It is argued that conventional sign systems cannot be reduced to the reality of material “sign vehicles” because in society, sign systems are both subjective and objective, internal and external, and process and object.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1] Searle J. 1995. The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.

  • [2] Sukhoverkhov A. V. Fowler C. A. 2015. Why language evolution needs memory: Systems and ecological approaches. Biosemiotics 8(1) 47–65.

  • [3] Barthes R. 1972. Mythologies. Trans. Annette Lavers. New York: Noonday Press.

  • [4] Wheeler H. 2001. The semiosis of Francis Bacon’s scientific empiricism. Semiotica La Haye Then Berlin 133(1/4) 45–68.

  • [5] Sukhoverkhov A. V. 2010. Memory sign systems and self-reproductive processes. Biological Theory 5(2) 161–166.

  • [6] Sutton J. 2004. Representation reduction and interdisciplinarity in the sciences of memory. In Clapin H. Staines P. Slezak P. (Eds.) Representation in mind. Amsterdam: Elsevier pp. 187–216.

  • [7] Teubert W. 2010. Meaning discourse and society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • [8] Apel K.-O. 1981. Charles S. Peirce: From pragmatism to pragmaticism. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

  • [9] Miller P. J. Hoogstra L. 1992. Language as tool in the socialization and apprehension of cultural meanings. New Directions in Psychological Anthropology 3 83–101.

  • [10] Smith B. Searle J. 2003. An illuminating exchange the construction of social reality. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 62(1) 285–309.

  • [11] Hickmann M. 2000. Linguistic relativity and linguistic determinism: Some new directions. Linguistics 38(2) 409–434.

  • [12] Saussure F. 1983. Course in general linguistics. London: Duckworth.

  • [13] Clark A. Chalmers D. J. 1998. The extended mind. Analysis 58 10–23.

  • [14] Sterelny K. 2004. Externalism epistemic artefacts and the extended mind. In Schantz R. (Ed.) The externalist challenge: New studies on cognition and intentionality. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter pp. 239–254.

  • [15] Berger P. L. Luckmann T. 1966. The social construction of reality: A treatise its the sociology of knowledge. Garden City NY: Anchor Books.

  • [16] Klimov M. Y. 2018. Sport as a semiotic structure. Journal of Physical Fitness Medicine & Treatment in Sports 2(2) 555585.

Search
Journal information
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 3 3 3
PDF Downloads 3 3 3