Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Metaphors in Model-Building Within the Sciences of Meaning

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Re-Inventing Organic Metaphors for the Social Sciences

Part of the book series: Theory and History in the Human and Social Sciences ((THHSS))

Abstract

Solidifying our understanding of science seldom takes the shape of a unified field. Underlying conditions may or may not be relevant drivers for building metatheoretical understandings of how we operate when dealing with questions of scientific compatibility. That is, in different areas of research there may be important methodological and explanatory assets that may not always be compatible across disciplines, but these disciplines may have a certain core of ideas that make them, if anything, related.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Semantics may indeed mean many things to many different people, including cognitive scientists and philosophers (Fodor & Lepore, 2012). Our main task here is simply differentiating it from semiotics, so we will skip the question of the empirical or formal status of semantics.

  2. 2.

    This view is, however, underdeveloped and calls for a deeper study in terms of the Saussurean heritage of both current semiotics and semantics (Paolucci, 2012).

  3. 3.

    Not related to ‘semantic biology’ in the sense of semantic web technologies applied to biology, as in Hancock (2014).

  4. 4.

    Code biology stands as a particular example because of the institutional formalization it undertook after declaring itself not a part of biosemiotics (Barbieri, 2018).

  5. 5.

    This in turn is a loosely defined concept in semiotics, usually referring to ‘the action of signs.’

  6. 6.

    There are cases, however, in which this can be taken to a certain extreme, including all potential physical structures as properly semiotic (Salthe, 2012).

References

  • Barbieri, M. (2002). Organic codes: Metaphors or realities? Sign Systems Studies, 30(2), 743–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri, M. (2008). The code model of semiosis: The first steps toward a scientific biosemiotics. The American Journal of Semiotics, 24(1–3), 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri, M. (2009). Three types of semiosis. Biosemiotics, 2(1), 19–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri, M. (2014). From biosemiotics to code biology. Biological Theory, 9, 239–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri, M. (2018). What is code biology? Biosystems, 164, 1–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barthes, R. (1997). Elements of semiology. Hill & Wang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camp, E. (2006). Metaphor and that certain ‘Je Ne Sais Quoi’. Philosophical Studies, 129(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coca, J. R., Eraña, H., & Castilla, J. (2021). Biosemiotics comprehension of PrP code and prion disease. Biosystems, 210, 104542.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Luca Picione, R. (2020). The semiotic paradigm in psychology. A mature Weltanschauung for the definition of semiotic mind. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54(3), 639–650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09555-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deacon, T. W. (2015). Steps to a science of biosemiotics. Green Letters, 19(3), 293–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delahaye, P. (2021). Rats, mice and humans. Linguistic Frontiers, 4, 44–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eco, U. (1976). A theory of semiotics. Indiana University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Emmeche, C., & Hoffmeyer, J. (2009). From language to nature: The semiotic metaphor in biology. Semiotica, 84(1–2), 1–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (2020). Concept formation in the wild: Towards a research agenda. Éducation et Didactique, 14–2, 99–113. https://doi.org/10.4000/educationdidactique.6816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J., & Lepore, E. (2012). What sort of science is semantics? In G. Peter & R.-M. Krauße (Eds.), Selbstbeobachtung der modernen Gesellschaft und die neuen Grenzen des Sozialen (pp. 217–226). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Guimaraes, R. (2003). The organic codes: An introduction to semantic biology. Genetics and Molecular Biology, 26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, J. (2014). Editorial: Biological ontologies and semantic biology. Frontiers in Genetics, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer, J. (2007). Semiotic scaffolding of living systems. In M. Barbieri (Ed.), Introduction to biosemiotics: The new biological synthesis (pp. 149–166). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer, J. (2011). Biology is immature biosemiotics. In Towards a semiotic biology (pp. 43–65). Imperial College Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jaroš, F. (2017). The three semiotic lives of domestic cats: A case study on animal social cognition. Biosemiotics, 10, 279–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, S. (2015). From physics to semiotics. In D. Evers, M. Fuller, A. Jackelén, & K.-W. Sæther (Eds.), Issues in science and theology: What is life?, issues in science and religion: Publications of the European Society for the Study of science and theology (pp. 3–19). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kull, K. (2002). A sign is not alive – A text is. Sign Systems Studies,30(1):327–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kull, K. (2003). Thomas A. Sebeok and biology: Building biosemiotics. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 10, 47–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kull, K. (2009). Vegetative, animal, and cultural semiosis: The semiotic threshold zones. Cognitive Semiotics, 4, 8–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. (2006). Conceptual metaphor: The contemporary theory of metaphor. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (pp. 185–238). Mouton de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lepore, E., & Stone, M. (2010). Against metaphorical meaning. Topoi, 29(2), 165–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maran, T., Tønnessen, M., Tüür, K., Magnus, R., Rattasepp, S., & Mäekivi, N. (2016a). Methodology of zoosemiotics: Concepts, categorisations, models. In T. Maran, M. Tønnessen, K. Armstrong Oma, L. Kiiroja, R. Magnus, N. Mäekivi, S. Rattasepp, P. Thibault, & K. Tüür (Eds.), Animal Umwelten in a changing world: Zoosemiotic perspectives (Tartu semiotics library) (Vol. 18, pp. 29–50). Tartu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maran, T., Tønnessen, M., Magnus, Mäekivi, Rattasepp, N. R. S, and Tüür, K (2016b). Introducing zoosemiotics: Philosophy and historical background. In Maran, T., Tønnessen, M., Armstrong Oma, K., Kiiroja, L., Magnus, R., Mäekivi, N., Rattasepp, S., Thibault, P., and Tüür, K., Animal Umwelten in a changing world: Zoosemiotic perspectives, 18 Tartu semiotics library, 10–28. , Tartu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, P. (2001). A short history of structural linguistics. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Meacham, D. (2016). How low can you go? BioEnactivism, cognitive biology and umwelt ontology. Humana.Mente Journal of Philosophical Studies, 31, 73–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nöth, W. (2000). Umberto Eco’s semiotic threshold. Sign Systems Studies, 28, 49–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogden, C., & Richards, I. (1930). In K. Paul & T. Trench (Eds.), The meaning of meaning: A study of the influence of language upon thought and of the sciences of symbolism (3rd ed.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Overton, W. F., & Palermo, D. S. (1994). The nature and ontogenesis of meaning. Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owsianková, H., Faltýnek, D., & Kučera, O. (2018). Genetic analysis of cabbages and related cultivated plants using the bag-of-words model. Linguistic Frontiers, 1(2), 122–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paolucci, C. (2012). Identité, sémantique, valeur. L’Arctualité de Saussure pour la sémiotique contemporaine. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure, 65, 81–102. Publisher: Librairie Droz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattee, H. H. (2012). Evolving self-reference: Matter, symbols, and semantic closure. In LAWS, LANGUAGE and LIFE, biosemiotics (pp. 211–226). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Proni, G. (2015). Umberto Eco and Charles Peirce: A slow and respectful convergence. Semiotica, 2015(206), 13–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of `meaning. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 7, 131–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Queiroz, J., & El-Hani, C. N. (2006). Semiosis as an emergent process. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 42(1), 78–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur, P. (1975). La Métaphore vive. Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez Higuera, C. J. (2018). Productive perils: On metaphor as a theory building device. Linguistic Frontiers, 1(2), 102–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez Higuera, C. J. (2020). Metatheoretical commitments in the humanities. Chinese semiotic studies, 16(3), 477–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salthe, S. (2012). On the origin of semiosis. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 19(3), 53–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salupere, S. (2011). Semiotics as science. Sign Systems Studies, 39(2/4), 271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sebeok, T. A. (1968). Zoosemiotics. American Speech, 43(2), 142–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sebeok, T. A. (1991). A sign is just a sign. Advances in semiotics. Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharov, A. A. (2016). Evolution of natural agents: Preservation, advance, and emergence of functional information. Biosemiotics, 9(1), 103–120.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Sharov, A. A., & Kull, K. (2022). Evolution and semiosis. In J. Pelkey (Ed.), Bloomsbury semiotics: History and semiosis, Bloomsbury semiotics (Vol. 1, pp. 149–168). London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stegmann, U. E. (2016). ‘Genetic coding’ reconsidered: An analysis of actual usage. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 67(3), 707–730.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tønnessen, M. (2009). Umwelt transitions: Uexküll and environmental change. Biosemiotics, 2(1), 47–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tønnessen, M. (2015). Uexküllian phenomenology. Chinese Semiotic Studies, 11(3), 347–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uexküll, J. V. (2010). A foray into the worlds of animals and humans: With a theory of meaning (1st ed.). University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vega, F. (2018). A critique of Barbieri’s code biology through Rosen’s relational biology: Reconciling Barbieri’s biosemiotics with Peircean biosemiotics. Biological Theory, 13(4), 261–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vidales, C. (2021). From cybernetics to semiotics to Cybersemiotics: The question of communication and meaning processes in living systems. In C. Vidales & S. Brier (Eds.), Introduction to Cybersemiotics: A transdisciplinary perspective, biosemiotics (pp. 33–74). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weinreich, U. (1980). Semantics and semiotics. In On semantics (pp. 3–13). University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Witzany, G. (1998). Explaining and understanding LIFE. The biosemiotic model and some suggestions in the light of pragmatics of language. Semiotica, 120, 421–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zámečník, L. (2021). Causal and non-causal explanations in code biology. Biosystems, 209, 104499.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Palacký University, Olomouc, Czech Republic

    Claudio J. Rodríguez Higuera

Authors
  1. Claudio J. Rodríguez Higuera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. IBEF- International Centre of Excellence on Innovative Learning, Teaching Environments and Practices, Shanghai, China

    Marc Antoine Campill

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rodríguez Higuera, C.J. (2023). The Role of Metaphors in Model-Building Within the Sciences of Meaning. In: Campill, M.A. (eds) Re-Inventing Organic Metaphors for the Social Sciences. Theory and History in the Human and Social Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26677-5_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation