Semiotic modelling of biological processes: an introduction to Peircean semiotics

potentiality, Quality is closer to a blend of Firstness and Thirdness, than to pure Firstness. Such a treatment seems to be compatible with Peirce’s categorical scheme, since, as Potter (1997: 94) stresses, the categorical structure which Peirce uses is ‘highly subtle and complex, admitting of various combinations’. For Murphey, there is a transition from the notion of meaning as a qualitative conception carried by a sign to an inter-relational notion according to which the meaning of a concept consists in a ‘law relating operations performed upon the object or conditions of perceptions to perceived effects’ (Flower & Murphey 1977: 589). The qualitative conception involves reference to the sign’s ground, while the ‘law’ or necessary conditions of perception are inter-relational rather than qualitative -‘If the meaning of a concept of an object is to consist in the conditionals relating operations on the object to perceived effects, these conditionals will in fact be habits’ (Flower & Murphey 1977: 590). Here, we would like to stress that the form communicated or conveying from the object to the interpretant through the sign is not the particular shape of an object, or something alike, but a regularity, a habit which allows a given semiotic system to interpret that form as indicative of a particular class of entities, processes, phenomena, and, thus, to answer to it in a similarly regular, lawful way. Otherwise, the semiotic system would not be really capable of interpretation. The communication/conveyance of a form from the object to the interpretant constrains the behavior of an interpreter in the sense that it brings about a constrained set of relations between the object and the interpretant through the mediation of the sign. We will understand the “meaning” of a sign, thus, as an effect of the sign conceived as a medium for the communication/conveyance of forms on an interpreter by means of the triadic relation S-O-I. A meaning process can be thus defined as the action of a sign (semiosis). This brings about a constrained set of effects of the Object on the interpreter through the mediation of the Sign. In short, Peirce defines a Sign both as ‘a Medium for the communication of a Form’ and as ‘a triadic relation, to its Object which determines it, and to its Interpretant which it determines’. If we consider both definitions of a Sign, we can say that semiosis is a triadic process of communication of a form from the Object to the Interpretant by the Sign mediation. Semiosis necessarily entails the instantiation of chains of triadic relations (which we will abbreviate here as ‘triads’), since a sign in a given triad will lead to the production of an interpretant, which is, in turn, a new sign. This property is highly relevant to our analysis. An interpretant is both the third term of a previous triad and the first term (sign) of a subsequent triad (Savan 1987. See Figure 2). Here, we have a first transition accounting for the dynamical nature of semiosis, namely, the interpretant-sign (I-S) transition. By this ‘transition’ we simply mean that the same element that plays in a triad the role of the interpretant will play in a subsequent triad the role of the sign. From a Peircean perspective, to perform sign processing and interpretation is to produce further (or, as Peirce says, more developed) signs. Nevertheless, there are cases in which a semiotic process ends up in the production of interpretants which are not signs, such as, for instance, actions in a living system, say, the triggering of a given chemical reaction or a prey’s behavior to escape from a predator. It is clearly the case that such a reaction or behavior can be signs for further interpretation, but that particular chain of signs which were taking place has indeed come to an end through that action or behavior, and these further interpretative processes must be modeled as another, new chain of signs. Peirce himself, after 1907, acknowledged that there are interpretants that are not signs, or, to put it differently, does not have the nature of a sign. Please also remember that the outline in this section is logical (or semiotic) and that within a particular physical, chemical or biological system, the semiotic processes described here in general terms can be instantiated by different physical means, e.g., shifts in chemical concentrations or processes of molecular recognition. We will add this material aspect when we present two biosemiotic models below. Figure 2: The triadic relation S-O-I forms a chain of triads. The grey area at the bottom of the figure shows that all signs in the chain of triads refer to the same dynamical object through a series of immediate objects. The arrows show the interpretant-sign (I-S) transition and the changes in the occupant of the functional role of the immediate object. When the I-S transition takes place, there is also a change in the occupant of the functional role of the immediate object (Figure 2). When the interpretant becomes the sign of another triad, the relation of reference to the same dynamical object depends on the fact that the new occupant of the role of immediate object stands for the same aspect of the dynamical object that the immediate object of a previous triad stood for. Thus, an object turns to be a plural object via semiosis. As Figure 2 shows, in a triad i a given sign Si indicates a dynamical object by representing some aspect of it, the immediate object Oi. Through the triadic relation, an interpretant Ii is produced in the semiotic system. This interpretant becomes the sign in a subsequent triadic relation, Si+1, which now indicates the same dynamical object. It should indicate this object through a new immediate object, which corresponds to an aspect of the dynamical object represented in the sign. We have now a new occupant of the role of immediate object that stands for the same aspect of the dynamical object which was represented in the previous sign, Si. It is in this sense that there is a change in the occupant of the functional role of the immediate object, from Oi in a previous triad to Oi+1 in a subsequent triad. Through the triadic relation, a further interpretant, Ii+1, will be produced, which will then become the sign in a new triad, Si+2, and thus successively, up to the end of that specific sign process. 4. The subdivision of the object and the interpretant We also need to consider here Peirce’s distinctions regarding the nature of objects and interpretants (For a review of these topics, see Savan 1987-1988, Liszka 1990, Short 1996). He distinguishes between the immediate and dynamical objects of a sign as follows: “We must distinguish between the Immediate Object – i.e., the Object as represented in the sign – and [...] the Dynamical Object, which, from the nature of things, the Sign cannot express, which it can only indicate and leave the interpreter to find out by collateral experience” (CP 8.314. Emphasis in the original). And we should also consider his distinction between three kinds of interpretants: “The Immediate Interpretant is the immediate pertinent possible effect in its unanalyzed primitive entirety. [...]. The Dynamical Interpretant is the actual effect produced upon a given interpreter on a given occasion in a given stage of his consideration of the Sign” (MS 339d:546-547. Emphasis in the original).