Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton August 19, 2020

Metatheoretical Commitments in the Humanities

Interdisciplinary research programs and metasemiotics

Claudio Julio Rodríguez Higuera
From the journal Chinese Semiotic Studies


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.

  1. 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.


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

Published Online: 2020-08-19
Published in Print: 2020-08-26

© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston