Abstract
The interdisciplinary grasp of semiotics makes it a good window into how humanities-based research programs deal with the issues of specific theoretical commitments, raising the stakes on how to do theory in a setting of disparity of approaches and methods. The particular case of biosemiotics as a naturalized instance of semiotics is used as a specific example of an interdisciplinary combination of theory and scientific practice to address the necessity of integrating both external methodological elements and scientific discoveries with a theory capable of giving both of these a valid connotation within the discipline. The main claim of the article will be that integrating different methods in humanities-based research programs such as semiotics creates a problematic picture for metatheoretical commitments, but examining this in light of metatheory itself can produce more robust theoretical positions within the humanities.
Funding: This research was supported by the Support of Academic Mobility project at Palacký University Olomouc, project number CZ.02.2.69/0.0/0.0/16 _027/0008482.
References
Barbieri, Marcello. 2015. Code biology: A new science of life Cham: Springer.Search in Google Scholar
Barthes, Roland. 1997. Elements of semiology New York: Hill & Wang.Search in Google Scholar
Bates, Marcia J. 2005. An introduction to metatheories, theories, and models. In Karen E. Fisher, Sanda Erdelez & Lynne (E. F.) McKechnie, Theories of information behavior vol. 11, 1–24. Medford: Information Today.Search in Google Scholar
Brutian, Georg. 2012. Metaphilosophy in the systems of metatheories. Metaphilosophy 43(3). 294–305.Search in Google Scholar
Deely, John N. 2006. On ‘semiotics’ as naming the doctrine of signs. Semiotica 2006(158). 1–33.Search in Google Scholar
Deely, John N. 2009. Basics of semiotics Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Search in Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto. 1976. A theory of semiotics Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Eysenck Hans J. 1985. The place of theory in a world of facts. In K. B. Madsen & Leendert P. Mos (eds.), Annals of theoretical psychology vol. 3, 17–72. New York: Plenum Press.Search in Google Scholar
Forte, James A. 2007. Using a semiotic metatheory for theory understanding, appraisal, and use: An illustrative social work translation of the Affect Control Theory of Emotions. Advances in Social Work 8(1). 1–18.Search in Google Scholar
Hein, Hilde. 1969. Molecular biology vs. organicism: The enduring dispute between mechanism and vitalism. Synthese 20(2). 238–253.Search in Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1961. Prolegomena to a theory of language Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hénault, Anne. 2010. The Saussurean heritage. In Paul Cobley, The Routledge companion to semiotics 101–117. Oxford: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Lanigan, Richard L. 1979. A semiotic metatheory of human communication. Semiotica 27(4). 293–306.Search in Google Scholar
Lotman, Yu M. 1988. The semiotics of culture and the concept of a text. Soviet Psychology 26(3). 52–58.Search in Google Scholar
Mazzola, Guerino, Maria Mannone, Yan Pang, Margaret O’Brien & Nathan Torunsky. 2016. The Babushka Principle in semiotics: Connotation, motivation, and metatheory. In Guerino Mazzola, Maria Mannone, Yan Pang, Margaret O’Brien & Nathan Torunsky, All about music: The complete ontology: realities, semiotics, communication, and embodiment (Computational Music Science), 81–83. Cham: Springer.Search in Google Scholar
Meehl, Paul E. 2004. Cliometric metatheory III: Peircean consensus, verisimilitude and asymptotic method. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55(4). 615–643.Search in Google Scholar
Nöth, Winfried. 1995. Handbook of semiotics Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Overgaard, Søren, Paul Gilbert & Stephen Burwood. 2013. An Introduction to metaphilosophy Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Overton, Willis F. 2007. A coherent metatheory for dynamic systems: Relational organicism-contextualism. Human Development 50(2–3). 154–159.Search in Google Scholar
Pelc, Jerzy. 1986. The methodological nature of semiotics. In Thomas A. Sebeok, Encyclopedic dictionary of semiotics (Approaches to Semiotics 73), 901–912. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Rotberg, Robert I., Theodore K. Rabb & Reed Ueda. 2017. Introduction: The Quest for Interdisciplinary History. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 48(3). 293–294.Search in Google Scholar
Sebeok, Thomas A. 2001. Signs: An introduction to semiotics Toronto studies in semiotics and communication. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Search in Google Scholar
Siertsema, Bertha. 1955. A study of glossematics: Critical survey of its fundamental concepts Dordrecht: Springer.Search in Google Scholar
Speelman, Willem Marie. 1995. The generation of meaning in liturgical songs: A semiotic analysis of five liturgical songs as syncretic discourses Louvain: Peeters Publishers.Search in Google Scholar
Stich, Stephen P. 1985. Theory, metatheory, and Weltanschauung. In K. B. Madsen & Leendert P. Mos (eds.), Annals of theoretical psychology vol. 3, 87–94. New York: Plenum Press.Search in Google Scholar
Urban, G. 2006. Metasemiosis and metapragmatics. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics 88–91. Elsevier.Search in Google Scholar
Walldén, Rea. 2012. Reaching toward the outside: Saussure, Hjelmslev and cinema semiosis. Gramma: Journal of Theory and Criticism 20. 51–72.Search in Google Scholar
Wozniak, Robert H. 1986. Notes toward a co-constructive theory of the emotion-cognition relationship. In David J. Bearison & Herbert Zimile, Thought and emotion: Developmental perspectives 39–64. New York: Psychology Press.Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston