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.10.1007/978-3-319-14535-8Search 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). 294–305.10.1111/j.1467-9973.2012.01748.xSearch in Google Scholar
Deely, John N. 2006. On ‘semiotics’ as naming the doctrine of signs. Semiotica 2006(158). 1–33.10.1515/SEM.2006.001Search 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.10.1007/978-1-349-15849-2Search 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.10.1007/978-1-4613-2487-4_2Search 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). 1–18.10.18060/128Search in Google Scholar
Hein, Hilde. 1969. Molecular biology vs. organicism: The enduring dispute between mechanism and vitalism. Synthese 20(2). 238–253.10.1007/BF00413789Search 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). 293–306.10.1515/semi.1979.27.4.293Search in Google Scholar
Lotman, Yu M. 1988. The semiotics of culture and the concept of a text. Soviet Psychology 26(3). 52–58.10.2753/RPO1061-0405260352Search 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.10.1007/978-3-319-47334-5_10Search 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). 615–643.10.1093/bjps/55.4.615Search 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.10.1017/CBO9781139018043Search in Google Scholar
Overton, Willis F. 2007. A coherent metatheory for dynamic systems: Relational organicism-contextualism. Human Development 50(2–3). 154–159.10.1159/000100944Search 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). 293–294.10.1162/JINH_e_01158Search 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.10.1007/978-94-017-6671-5Search 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.10.1007/978-1-4613-2487-4_4Search in Google Scholar
Urban, G. 2006. Metasemiosis and metapragmatics. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics 88–91. Elsevier.10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/03036-4Search 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