A Sounding

of S igns Modalities and Moments in Music, Culture, and Philosophy

,,,,,,,,,er f

ACTA SI' MIOT ICA FENNICA

Edilor E~ro Tarasti

Associate Editors Paul Forsdl Richard Litclcfidd

Editorial Board (ASF) H onorary Member: Thomas A. Scbcok t

Perui Ahoncn H enry Broms Jacqucs Fomanillc Andr~ Hdbo Ahti Kuusamo Ukka Niiniluo[O Pdd.a Pcsoncn Hannu K. R..iikoncn Kari Salosaari Sinikka Tuohimaa t Vilmos Voigt

• •

A Sounding of Signs: Modalities and Moments in Music, Culture, and Philosophy

Essays in Honor of Eero Tarasti on his 60th Anniversary

Edited by Robert S. Hatten, Pirjo Kukkonen, Richard Littlefield, Harri Veivo, and Irma Vierimaa

Acta Scmiotica Fennica XXX

lnternarional Semiotics Institute at lmarra Semiotic Society of Finland 2 008

This book is a publication of

The international Semiorics Institute . Imatra (lSI)

hnp ://www.isittllliotics. fi l

Tdephone orders +jS8 LO 617 6639

Fax orders +358 LO 617 6696

E-mailordersmaija.rossi@isisemiotics.fi

Copyright Loo8 by International Semiotics institute,

Semiotic Society of Finland, and authors

All rights reserved

Cover design Irma Vj(rimaa

layout Paul Forsdl

Primed by Gummerus Printing,Jyvaskyla 2.008

ISBN 978-952.-S4P-13-0

ISSN IL}S-497X Acta Semimica Fennica XXX

CONTENTS

In Honor of Professor Euo Tarasti ........................... ··························9

SEMIOTICS OF MUSIC AND MUSICOLOGY

Marta Grabo(z

Classical Narratology and Narrative Analyses in Music . • ......... 19

Rob~TI S. flattm

An Interpretation of Expressive Meaning in the Fim Movemem

ofSchubert's Srring ~artet in A Minor. D. 80..... ...................... . .... ,

Kai LaSJfolk Conceprualizing MIDI . .................................................................... .. s6

Raymond Mom:lI~

The Absent MeaningofMusic ... ....... 67

L~wis Rowr" Gesture and Muning in the Musicallanguagcs of India ...... · .. · ........ 90

AIIII~ S;IJlloja -Glluallllnam

PaTlifol as the Undoing of Kundry .. .......................................... 10 ....

L~u Treitln' TIle Immanence of Performance in Medieval Song ........................... 1 19

SEMIOTICS OF CULTURE

StefillJia Gllm-a Lisi and Gillo Stefillli

SemioSynaesrhesiAru .............................................................................. ISS

jt411-A14rit j4COllO

Une cnange absence - Jean-Jacques Naniu hce a la stnliOlique d'EeTo Tarasci .................................................... ......................... ... 16,

Piry'o KUNNonm

Silence, Language, and Experience ............................ ............................ 168 Alrli KmHamo

The Surplus Value of the Mythic in Iconography _ and in Style .... 187

PeNNa PeJonm Eric Lmdowlki

Does Imatra Represent All of Finland? ................................. .............. 190 Fa~ons de faire ..................................................................... .. • .... }01

H. K. RiiNollm Dario M4rtint"i

In [he Fomsups of Matias Alexander Castrc:n .................................. 2.0

4 The Ethic Imperative in Eero Tarasti's Semiotic Path... .. ................. }11

Peeter Torop Jlkka Niinilllolo

Identity of C ultural Tuts and Creolization of C ultural Languages ... 2.1

3 Semiotics and Philosophy - Comments on John Dedy ................... 338

Vi/mOl VOigt S,uan Puri"i and AuguJIO POll zio

Icons of the Mind (16/ 4) ......................................................................... 2.37 Ex istential Semiotics as the Basis of General Semiotics

and Special Semiotics ..................................................................... 1+7

SEMIOTIC THEORY AND PHILOSOPHY Sami Pihlslriim

The Transcendental Method in MetaphYSiCS .................................. 3S4 Kn'stiall BanNov

A Socioscm imic Model of the Standards for Contributors ......... ......... 371

Discursive Validation ......................................... .. .. ...................... · .. 2.S 3 A Selected Bibliography ofEeTo l arast i's Publications

Amle Hblault through 2.007 ............................ . ..... l71

~c1ques titres de problc!llles en scm io tique existentidle ............ .... 2.7S

Kristian Bankov

A Sociosemiotic Model of the Standards for Discursive Validation

The Sociosemiotic Model

In recent debates I have tried to clarify some methodological observations,

concerning the theoretical status of biosemiotics. I have introduced the

expression ~standards for discursive validation" (although there arc some

common aspects, it should not be confused with Habermas' use of~dis­

cursive validation"). which I now shall try to develop further into agenrrai sociosemiotic account regarding some principle requirements for different

kinds of intellectual work.

TIle first step is ro show how. from a human being's inner perspec­

tive, the confrontation of a researcher/author is lived our in accordance

with diffirem stalldardJ for discursive validation. Far from imposing any

methodological dualism in Di1chey's sense I insist that the whole pluraliS­

tic multitude of communities of inquirers could be positioned in a virtual

space. at two polar extremes. On the one extreme position, the emblem­

atic situation would be the following: Aristorle and Galileo arc disputing

rhe speed of fa lling bodies. Aristotle insists that the heavier the body is,

the higher its acceleration. O n the contrary. Galileo insists that all bodies

fall with the same acceleration. The bet is made. and we all know that the

experiments proved themselves. in an irrefutable way. that is, with a "yes"

~r "no." according ro the evidence. as to who was right. So, on this extre~l­lty regarding the validation standards of rhe theoretical discourses bes

the empiricist ideal tif sciemijicity. It works like a pole of attraction. The

enlpiricist, positivist ideal of scientincit y. from rhe Enlightenment on, has

aSsumed the monopoly over truth and much science today is still produced under its inAuence.

254 - Kristilln BIlIlkOf)

At the:: polar opposite:: of tI . f ,. d . liS space:: regarding h

o va I atJon, the o n e:: rowards which would 1.. . t C various Stand

Ph ·1 I · I .. vc reasonabl lrd. I osop uca o r se::mlotlC or li terary cr· . . C to po,j';

d·. mCISIll papcr, We . ..on l ISCourscs, wh ich do not presuppOse d d · . call 1Il1agineth

. le Ireet sanction th 0Sc eratlon, or the rtsis/anu' of exte::rnal f.1.crs A bl 'C Strict {Onlid. A f h' I • , . n cm Clllatic cand·d

ag 0 t IS po e would b e:: Plato's metaphy " All ' I atefOrth( , SIC S. [ lough he b

abetwith Aristode over the validityofh ' d. pro ablymadc IS Octnne - and I think .

t he very moment when Raphael pictured the 1- h th' i W11 r n t ere were no ro r, or at least no objective cerrai nry and evidence to d . ground. I · ' etcrnune which of

t lem was rhe wmne::r. Thro ughout the whole history r h'l h . 0 P I orop y th«e

have bc:en armies of followers of t hc:m both since the n" rho., . , ureot atund of di scourse allows para"~l lxis/mu, whereas me::r Galil,o', "~ , c·nmems thc:r~ are not very many, who still bd icve Aristotle's hypothesis on falling

bodlC:s. \Vc can refer to thc one cxtrcm ity regarding the standards of di l.

cursive validations 100ft, and the other rigid.

What is importam to stress hc: rc is that the standards for discursive u!·

idation always depend, although to a different degree, on the community

of inquirers, on their social relations and communication. Trurhscan exiSl

within a single mind, at Ic:ast tc:mporari ly, uncommunicated to theOlhers.

but the: standards are: social and convcntio nal, like languages and codes.

The other thing is that , a lthough I havc mentioned only leading figures of

\Vestern culture until now, [he standards apply to anyone aspiring t.o con-f · . We can imagmc the tribute in an acceptable way in a given area 0 InqUiry. d '

I I·· .. r " d h ' 'pecrive standards for IS p ura .IStIC commulUtles 0 mqUlrers, an t elr res . h

d h h not statiC, but Wit cursive validation , organized as leopar, spots, t oug to

. .. . ·nuously, to mage or changmg dimensions and (endmg to move con(1 destto)'

d d · appear and even to subdivide into smalJer groups, to appear an IS . d I" king1he

r h Id be imagllle , III each other (Fig. I ). Networks 0 synapses s OU. . ~ Or ursc,asing!e

h 11 "· d · ·phnanry. co ",n. sponand represemingw arweca UHer ISO . r . uircrs. w"at

h nUllity 0 Inq . researcher could be part of more [ an onc COI1 I1 . ~ 01 a semiotiC

) h potheS1S - ro d" 1 developed elsewhere (Bankov 1.00 4 as ay . I I e different IS·

0., d r h vith whlc I t I a'"~ point of view, of the different /Un so reut \ .. ' which pro t ohhe elltl(!e~

courses operate - was focused on an aCCOUI1 · ·e J b· ·uch a dlscoun . !ainl'

discourse and those which are su Ject to) h reAections c J c. " I · oft o)e I .,..

The kind of "ami-dualislic conc uStons . for truth c OU , . aspirations who ar

that theorctical discourse and consoOUS b 'ogs: persons, 11

M • d~ human el _ ___ cl",~o~d'"uccd only by cuhura y [fame

A SodoJtmiotic Moa(/ J5J -

• . CO"""""";" ~f i~'I"I« .. • _ Olh,·r d;""r, i.~ <ou,n,",,"'"

introduced within well-determined practices, through long-lasting school­

ingand education, acquisition of knowledge and skills, which arc commu­

nicated in a context of cuirural conventions, mainly languages: that is (Q

say, a hypotheSiS, which could be im mcdiately refuted if someone demon­

strates a reliable record of rheon:tical discourse produced by another kind of being.

Thus it seems that there could not be theoretical discourse at all with­

OU t human being(s) behind it, without a community (society), provided

with languages and mher cultural conventions. The simple proposition

ii Ihu when objects of theorerical discourse (description or modeling, or

explanation) serve also as a constituent of some of rhe entities that arc nec­

cnary for the production of discourse itSelf (mind, society, language, cui­

~ure .lllemory, etc.). the kind of truth achieved is not independent of this

-~~ ' I hA r d " ' f . reuca approac in ucnces thc objcct 0 its eSC Clptlon, mso-aras ltpartiU · . r ' 11"1 . a y construCts It. The eye;: ca nnor sce ItSe! seemg. le (lea-f(hea! c c~ i . . .. " h y. 5constltuted by elcments which deprive it of rhe posslblltty to

ttcn1llldep d I h ' d {ould . en cm y. Moreoyer, the outpur of a theory about t e !lun mRuence rh . d' I., . Id h that . e nun s worlUng. a theory about society cou c ange ~Icty wh h ' ere a ( eory about culture is parr of the culture itself.

zS6 - KriJ(illll BlmNOfJ

By ch(' way, Hit!('r's minister for pmp " cl '. ag,1Il .1, Jos(' h G

tillS pragmatic asp('ct of trurh concernin .' I P oebbc.-Is L_

I . " g SOua phenOlllell . ' "-"Cl\< lc('mployedh ls 100o ti m(' rep('tition" p ' ' I aqultcllteU d

flllCIP e on nla' an structcd ffuths. which wef(, then spread and b I' IlYlssUcs. Hceon

c levcd to bc . connfucted truths. 111is is because socic[" . cl I rcal and nOt

• I' Il II Il ,eu CUre I the IIk(' , do not represent il genuine resistlll/ce [h ' anguagc, ant!

« 0 a uman ~ing' d eive eITons in the same way as factual ly p hysical b'. f S C5(rip.

. . 0 )eus 0 the enviro muse and do. These cultural emltles exercise 11 rel ' . nment

. IUlVe rtJlsl4llct(whic . the samc as saylllg that thcsc phcnomena soc iet I . his

. . .. ' y, cu ture, llIlpose so cntenon oftrurhfulness). which IS the r('sisrancc ofh b ' f ""

fait, 0 convention

o common s('nse. of common usage, of idcolog" f . ' • I' 0 power rdanons of

logIC, of rhetoric. of I('gis lation, and so on. All ril(:se en," h' . . .. mes, at t (' same

[1111 (' ( 111 principle). ar(' also discursivel" constituted and b' • I, su Ject to trans.

fo rmation, du(' ro the di scursiv(' (including social interaction) activity of the imerested community.

Nothing of this kind happens to rocks, planets, light, molecules and

other "i nanimatc" entitics. Indeed, the principles. which govern their exis.

tence, are independent of mind, society, language, culture. etc. Theories, in

any case:. are made of human discourse. languages. symbols, etc., and ar~

mind and culture dependcIH , but th is does not influence "the things in

rh e:: mselves," the obje::cu of description. Natural limits exist. that is to Sly,

natural obj('cu' rcsiStanc(' is genuin(' ; nature gives constant (re::gular, penis·

t('nt) answcrs to our int('mions. Goebbds cou ld nOt influence:: the course

of nature. Ne::w the::ories could reve::al new aspects of re::a li ty and change our

minds, but not th e r('gulari tie::s and the persistence of their phenomenolog­

ical appearanc(' and concreteness. Th e:: inanimate things of this world and

their COurse: neither car(' what w(' ar(' thinking about them, nor about our

desire::s, ideologies, battlcs, quarrels, o r congresses. What resuln is that ~ht rigid pole or the standards of discursive:: validat ion is dominated by thcon

t S,

concern('d with the ge::nu ine:: rcsistance of reality and the lome pOll of the

d d ' ' y culwre,

nan ar s Lsdominate::d by theorics abom min d. languagcs, soeLet ,

and th(' like::.

I ' , d ' , to the present t IS Lmportam to remind ourselves agai n that accor IIlg ._

ki d of dL SCUf

model t here:: arc no pure distlmrsts. prcsllppo~ i ng only one n . 'vc , I' . . ' f d finircobJc Ctl $IVe va Ldatlon. Such a model dellles th(' eXlscence 0 [wo e . ' 1ht

d d e cl r I humanities. stan ar s - one lo r the natu ral sciences an onc or r lC I . rcr' . .. . h avoidab e III

SOClose::nUOtlc prctence of th is approach underlines t e un

'/ SotioJtmiolie Modt:l Jj1 - ,.

. f he community of inquirers and the gradation of thc Weight ediattOIl 0 t

fIl ble filcts for various discourses. In the same way, the nature of f the obscrva

o I r. IneS5 of our theories gradually changes. It conecrns the human the {fut "u .

f I whole model. Truth IS a human matter - it is not pan of factor 0 t le ... .

. . hemsclves. Truth requlfcs assertion, which IS a discourse.' Only, thmgS1nt . .

(assertion) can open th e human entcrprlSe of grasplllg obl'cctiv­.tarcUle(lt " ,lie external world. The closer a theoretical discourse is located to Ity IrOnl . .

h " d pole of th(' standards of validation, the more the community of , e ngl

, ' '" is able to basc its reasons fo r thc acceptancc or lack of acceptance lllquLr . of it on mind, society, and culture - mdependent offacts.

Is ,here truth without human beings?

And here is the crucia l point. The community of inqu irers is not an idcal

entity. It is made of real people with relatively sufficient competence. which

enables ,hem to be the main point of rcfcrcnce for truthfulness. Positivists

like to dwell on the example that "Th(' Earth revolvcs around the Sun~ as

a fact , whether or not peoplc believe it. and that it is an absolute truth.

Bm with this example. we have a tacit shift concerning the community of

inquirers. In Singular cases like thc question of th(' Earth revolving around

,he Sun. the communi ty of inquircrs is expanded to all of humankind. It

is a matter which concerns all humans, and today it req uires a very basic

competencc to enable anyone to realize it. But would this be truth without

the extended "community of inquirers"? Would rhis be truth without the

existence of humankind? Wc can thin k that it has been and will be truth,

whethcr or nO( humans inhabi t the univers('. But this is a wrongly formu­

lated Scenario. In rhe case that humans did nOt exist , [futh, as such, would

notexiS[ either. I have no doubts that what we humans now call Earth and Suneould e ' . h d h

XIS[ Wit OUt us. that one would conrinue to revolve aroun t c other but 's' h

. ' I It t e same with rhc truthfulness? What would the situation be Without the . h 'XI ' enruy t at accoums fo r the movement of the celestial bodi('s?

eSltllplydo n kn b . . Ot ow ecaus(' what we are doing now is a discursive pro-Jeeuon or con . f th' strUCtlon 0 possible worlds with claims for ttuth fulness. Bur

IS truth will d ' . h d,~ cl u: fig f along with the last of the humans. and this will no t

.. ~n onthc cou f h ' ( f I which ' rse 0 t IIlgs Earth and Sun). but on the Status 0 trut I ,

the su 15 a product of the human way in which to accollnt discursively for HOunding Wo Id I I r . 11 t IC case that humans no longer exist, there will

~ no truth Mconsullleu," whae the truthfulness of rh c statement tI

Earth revolves around the Sun will be as useless as a si I r lat the gna IrOm rh tJ

prolx Pioncc=r 10 . reaching Earth aner [he cnd ofhumanki d 'S n , So, the claim that certain truths arC' e ternal inrroducu '11 ' ,

' h k r · an I cg1t1mat( passc:ngcr In [ c roe et ro r eternity - rhe discursive P'" f '

o truth II I unavoidable dCIXndcncc on someone asscningsomcthing. And h' '

. '" t ISSC'Cfll5 to me [he only way [ 0 ra l ~ obJections against rhe posit ivistic "<. f' h

.... 0 [rUt '

and "facr," with all due respect to val id scientific d \corics. C laim ing that

truth is discursive.' is no t a social construcrivism or relativism, bccauS(' it

assumes [hat the theories arc subject to infin ite rcsisranccs and the sanc.

tion of a m ind-indc=pc=ndc=nt rc=ality, but at the same time it avoids the

nalvc= t~ of consid c= ring facts and truths as being totaUy independcllt of any

community of inqu irc= rs.

But the Earth revolving around the Sun is a limit case. No other sci­

entific asserrion could involve humankind in such a way. The enormous

numbers of scientific theories does no t benefit from such a fundamental

condition of incontestable acceptance. On a primary level, their trluh·

fulness o r validity Starts being decidablc within a more remicted corn·

mun ity of inquirers. And t hose com munities are specialized. Nowada)'s

the quantity of scientific knowledge is beyond the capacity of any single

individual, wh ich is something new with respect to the first tWO centuries

of the history of science, wlll~n certain idealizarions were launched on iu

homogeneity of method. To be an expert in a g iven field means that you

have dedicated your intellectual capacity (Q a certain man er, and in such a

h k ' h 'nted wi th way t at ma cs you better at It than many o thers w 0 arc acqual ,

the problelll , but dependent on people like you and me to carry the inqUiry f h 1" 'b'l' r . 11 'enees sefl'C! un er. lie ImpoSSl I Ity rOT anyone to be the expert 10 a ScI

, .c. . r h "1 • f nrationofthe as Justlncauon lor t e eopard spot structure 0 my represe .

'0 .. f ' , Th ' I ' I f h ' ,own set of CpIS' mmunltles 0 Inqul rc= rs IS socio oglca act as It I ' ' f " d ' nce· What

telllO ogICa! comequenees known as Mthe loss 0 unlOe sCle . h' I ' 'fi ' w le I

remains Common fo r scientists is probably the idc=al of scienn City, liz' ' cl 11 b h 'chis notrca IS reprc=se ntc= as a polc= of attraction in the mo( c, ut W I 'Oll ' bl ' , f . ltihc contTl

a e m practice. Wc can imagine exceptional cases 0 sClel . nofa , f I' ll ' I d I . h the inventlO

[jon, u n lngt le i eal of scie ntificity, fo r examp e. Wit . ' n of red1CtlO

procedure which arrests aging. valid for anyone, or the exaCl P ra1ld •

h bl (as unders cart quakes. Why ? Because it is interculwrally acceSSI e al sci· bl ) , hf Iness. But re a e to anyone and ( ifit works) univc=rsalizes u s trut u

'SocioSt'miotic Mod,' 25fi - /I

f such levcls of omnicomprehen siblc= revelation . Evc=n the e is far ronl

enC , ' nc= rs' contributions arc difficult to b c= realized and accepted Noocl pnz c= WIl1 ,

, I 'quiring high levels of theoretical competence. lInaJl1l110US y, r

The standards of theory-making gradually vary from community to

. Within the sociosemioric modd, the incommc= nsurability community. , , ~

rwccn theori c=s can assumc= far less dramatic Impact than the Kuhnian

b<'L L. wec=n paradigms. It is a questio n of the impoSSibility of univer-shiftS IJ<. t . sal expc:rt isc, combined with the unaVOidable element of creativi ty in the

scicndst's approach to problc=m solving. Now this account of rhe standards o f discursive validation could bc=

summarized in a fc=w points. In our considc=ration of the manc=r, the valid ity

(tMhfulness) of a rhc=ory is madc= up of two components - discursive and

empirical. The discursive part is dependent on th c= social Structure of the

community of inquirers and the (flouri shing) debate with in the contem­

porary philosophy of sciencc= reRects this aspect . But the empirical pan .

which is subj c= cred to the objectivc= resisrancc=s of the surrounding world,

keeps the whok scientific enterprise flrm ly grounded. And th is grounded

'stabilityon earth ~ is thc= crirc= rion which dc=rerm ines the horizontal posi­

tioning of th c= various communitic=s of inquirers in our modd . As men­

tioned earl ier, the dc=pc=ndence o n c=mpirical and c=xperimc=nral observations

varies among different communiric=s. Communities of inquirers concunc=d

mainly with phYSical problc=ms arc= likdy to rdy, on a general level, more

firm ly on mc=asurable and observable facts, rhan, say, immunologiSts or

economistS. My suggestion is that this gradually varying rd iance on facts

provokes an increasing pluralisation ofhypothc=sc=s and the penc=trat ion of

Ihe social dynamics in t hosc= com mu nit ic=s of inquiretS, where the rdiance on faets is we k Th ' h od I ' h

' a er, IS means r at rhe sociosem io tic III e goes against t e Idea of 'r ' I' , b d h s ncr murs ctwc=en nat ural sc ic= ncc=s, social sciencc=s an ulllanities . I ,prc=servmg t le relativc= autonomy of rhc various communities

to establish th . ,bl f elr own standard s, wh ich arc ncverrhcless objecrivd y deriv-

e rom the d 'ff. ' illlpo I erenr kinds of resistance, which their o bjc=crs of study

seonrhem I h ' , , . , fewer h ' n or er words, SOCial consrructl Vlsm and relativISm have

( ancl.'S for b ' I q rned ' h elngclllp oyed wherc= the theorc= rical di scourses are con-

Wit cm " I they pia pmca cvidencc=, and thc=y nOt only have more chances, but

ya predom in I ' I ny. and rh I 'k ant ro e 111 t le theoretical discoursc=s on culture. soci-is never an e 1 e. We can add that. in a Single cOllUllunity ofinquirers. therc=

Ycomp[ere a grecmc=nr and the Ic=vds of depc=ndencc=on empi rical

obse rvation vary to a cenai n extent, in aeeD d . . ranee Wit h inter

of power, competence, and external inRucnc, 11 ' /la.l telalio s. liS variet f nl

within a single commun ity is mo re typical fo d · . I" Y 0 standard r ISCIP mes of h S

areas of the m odel , some social sciences. and econ '. [ e central OIll ICS In particular.

7he Science J.11lrs issue

And here we come to a point of departure. Different the . Id. . . . . orctlca ISCOUt S(i Impose on their authors dlffC' rC'nt standards of thcoriz3rio h· h . . .. n W le are deci.

slve for their acceptance III a parti cular communi ty of inn · 0 , ulrcrs. ne of the inspirations to write these lines was th e story of the so-call d S . c (I(nee Wars (Ro ss 1996; Sokal, A . & Bricmon r, j. 1998), where, according to the

socioscmiotic model, from a theoretical (and not from an ideological)

point of view, the controversy comes across as a mutual misundmund.

ing. Indeed, after t he passionate phase of attacks between ~hard scientists'

and ~poS(modernists," t he 6nal accounts (as it is represemed in various

encyclopedias) note th at there was a mutual inability and unwillingness

to undemand the point of the o ther. Actually it was a political confronta·

tion between the academic left and conservative scie ntists, and it may lK assumed that the positions arc even mo re polarized and irreconcilable afier

the ~war" than before it occurred .

But what is relevant in thi s example for rhe sociosemiotiC account ,of t he matter is tbe iglloranct oftbe exiJltllct of diflerelll JlandardJfordiJ{unTl't

'·d · 0 h f I . .. del is accepted, va, aNOll. nce t is consequen ce 0 t le sOClOSen1l0UC mo

. L If · I · I pect of the con· It uccomes c car t hat a great deal 0 the eplS[elllo oglca as h

... " . dards ontO t C rroversy was due to intr usive projections of rhe lr own stan d U

cl was (an st! standard s of~others'M fields o f research. The ge neral ten ency f sei.

l I h d " r~ i ve part 0 is to have the posrmodernisrs considering on y t e ISCU h the

. . . f the fact [ at ence (rhe text), and to draw co nclusIOn s trrespcctlve o. hich make5

"hard" scientific discourse is subject to empirical consrralOtS, w d' lension . portan[ III

this discourse secondary with respect ro rhe more 1111 ,ions to I h aCCusa

of experimental practice. In this way it was easy to aunc ali tyalld

h « h h . ·fi d · . h . , pretended neuer

'}' t e eITect t at t c SClelHI c Iscourse. Wit I f) . in sOCler f dorninauon ks

objectivity. was treacherously affirming patterns 0 fkfti5( a(t~

O h I . . f ' lsisrcncy,O ther

n t e Ot ler Side, wc have accusatio ns 0 In COI . nlong 0 scrvlng a

hidden behind senseless and irrational word games,

JOl - A SociosemiQI;c Model

things to fasc inate and (in the process) to divert swdenn from honest aca.

delllic work. Onc of [he main re asons underlying this misunderstanding i$ the grad.

ualness in rhe changing dependence on the "brute facts" of various COrn.

munities of inquirers in thc huge field of academic resurch. Awarenus

of the differ(llt nature of our disc iplines is compensated by the common

denominator of the word Mscie nce" and thc idea of scientificity. But, as

mentioned earlier, sCienrincity is a pole of attraction and a large part of

[he discourses arc quite a distance from it. Another factor which encour.

ages the use of a common term for entirely different standards of intel.

lectual work is the basic requiremelll for whatever research to correJpolld to

certai" general JltmdardJ of argumentation, mch as rationlllily, prose, log;c

Ilnd other. An academic research paper cannot be expressed in poetic form

and cannot contrad ict itself But thi s is highly insufficient for guarantee·

ing scientificity. O ne of postmodern authors' favori te objects of attack is

exacdy this tacit requirement, identified with the onto·theological order

of accomplished metaphysics, i.e .• the contemporary technological West·

ern world. But, as it is noted more than once, authors such as Derrida use

complicarcd lines of argumentation, which, in order to be understood in

the deconstructing of rationality. requires an extremely rational and sharp

interprctative attitude on the part of the reader.

Thesc two tendencies of putring different kinds of intellectual work

under the same common denom inator arc incorporated into the academic

institution itself, in its h isrorical foundation. When the first universities

were founded there was no differentiation - this was [he place for the

learned people. Many ce muries wcre to pass before rhe institution was

to improve and , although the specializations were proceeding, the sharp

distinction between the work of learned people and those outside the

universi ty was great. But today it is not so and it seems that the label of

scientificity is used for the institutional distinction and idenrificacion of

cerrain realities, rather t han as a reAection of their real difference. No. hi ' . oC, ·,y or a scientific en Cess, when the question concerns scleorm I

at titude . . f s,andard of rheo· . ' I[ seems that rhe presumption 0 a common .

reucal validation is generalJy accepted. l 'his could be ilIusrrated ~vlt.h two exam Id · . ·d f {he sociosemlOUC

pes, enving from the tWO oppOStng SI es 0 Illodel _ Al ·d have the basic an Sobl and Umberto Eco. On rhc one SI c, wc aSSUlllption of Sob I, with which he legitimizes his artack on a cer.'.';.n. ". '.'Y ___ -I

of producing theory, the "fashio nable ' " . .. non sense," irre . eVidence and logic: spectlve of" r~;llQn ,

\'(/~ believe thar rh e scientific anirud,' J ~. Ul! ersrood respect for the darity and logical coherenc f h ~e ry bro;luly -

fo '. r I COt cones dfi ."

OlllnfltUl Oj f 1ron"rJ wifh rm"irkal evidrllu _ " 1 • "" or th~ . " _ r IS as re CV;lnt in h ((Ill·

ences as It IS In the natural sciences (Sok,1 & U . t esoci;lt " " ncmont I !:I 111:1· added ). 99 ; 19J. cmph~sis

O n the othcr side, wc have Eco's very systemat! d "" .r " " . . c cscn pnons of " "

nnclry In his book dedicated to academic research (E SClcn_

I" co 1977) Ac d"

[Q 11111, there arc four rules, wh ich. if applied ca n "d ". Cor Ing . ' provl c sClemifici ~

any obJect of study. They are as follows: ry or

I) The research should rcferto a recognizable ob/"cct h' 'h ' d fi h

.WKISe ncd i suc a way that also cou ld be recogn izable for others" 11

2) The research should say things about this ob/'ect that h · b -d h Id ~ aVI; nOl yet CCII sa l or S ou , rom a new poim of view. rc-exami ne things that have already been said. J) The research should be useful to others. 4,) 111e mearth Jbollld provide ,br rlmwlIJ jor,br vrrijiClltioll a"d falsifica­tIOn. oftlu prtJUlud hypIJtlJtJiJ. and should therefore provide the dcmcllts for Its publ ic continuation. (op_ cir. }7-.... 1, emphaSiS added).

The fi rst three points provide the necessary basis for any theoretical

research and arc complementary to what I have called above ~tbe btUi(

reqlliremem for (wy resrarch wbatsoever," which means thar they do not

conCern the essence of the object. But even [he founh point, which Eco

himself calls -a fundamental requi rement " ( ib id.), does not introduce any

distinction in th, f h ' cl ' h E " nature 0 t e exam me object" On t e contrary. co

exp ~ :;lln s this requirement exactly in the way o ne would need to argu(

against a presumed diversificatio n of the modali ric:s of theory-making. He

funher claims that it is up to the methodological choices of the researcher

to attribute scientincity to his or her researc h and the 14 pages that folloW

arc dedicated to some exam ples, none of which concerns the so_called his­

torico-theoretical objects which. according to ou r socioselll ioric nlodel.

would regard standards of discursive validation closer to the IU(JIe pole. The mention of h b ' f h h le book. suc 0 }ects 0 slUdy is domin ant thro ughout t e w 0 cl except in the pan where rheir sc ientific treatment should be delllonsrrac; concretely The ' d cl h f, rlllation 0 a _ most exte n e example conce rns t e trans 0

J6; _ A SociIJu miofj{ MIJdel

. f current affairs - Fret radios from 1975 tu 1976 in Italy - into a topic IOPleo h Th h ' f b' f If . nri fic researc. cC olce 0 an 0 )eet rom current a airs immedi-ofsCle f' h ' ' f" " I • , I"se ront lor t e proVISion 0 emplflca cVidenceWalthougl, 31cly open~' .." ."' s out the cmenon of chOice of the patterns of claSSification of as it turn ' " _ bservabJc and measurable parameters arc stili located entirely on V;lrlOUS 0 " - - . -

b" "vc level . In thiS way, the sClennficlty IS achieved only on a sup"­

a S(I )ectl fi.ciallcvel. behind which there is the possibility for an infinity of arbitrary

, hoices

_ sOnlething which becomes more and more problematic, if the

((scarch

regards genuinely resistant facts (sce above). which determine the

whole theoretical construction, according to easily determinable stand­

ards of validation- We cannot blame Eco fo r coming to such conclusions,

because his methodological co nsiderations completely fulfill the purposes

of his book. but wc can underli ne that even for such a seminal author it is

oot easy to provide criteria of scientific rigor fo r research in philosophy,

s(ol;orics, literary critic ism. cultural anthropology and the like. Indeed, even Alan Sokal. whose entire critical approach would make

5(nsc if there were commensurable cri teria for confrontation with the

,ropirical evidence both in the social and the natufal sciences, makes an

·unexpeCted" turn when it is time to provide analogous examples:

We shall Start by sketching our anirude toward scientific knowledge (note ~I ) limiting ourselves to the natural sciences and taking most of me enm­pi,s from our own field . physics. We shall not deal with tlu delicau qutS­tioll oftbe scitmiftcity Of the various social sciences_ (Sobl & Bricmont 1998:

~l, emphasis added )

So it turns out that this presumably possible general scie nrific ity is con­

standy used as an argument agai nst certain authors who, irrespective of

the potential exigencies for em pirical evidence, arc producing fashionable

nonsenSe. But at the same time, when Sokal's own accusation needs some

$Upportive evidence. he o nly gives concrete examples from his own field .

~od when he is asked (by Mic hacl Berube) a question of principle pre­

~ I~ly about thi s contradiction, "is the distinction betwecn 'brute fact' and Social rcalit .. If ) k 1 is ~ y USe a brute fact or soc ial reality ?" (SokaI1 996; ' .... 1. • So -a

orced to ans\ h"1 . ' I'" h 'b I' , ha vcr t at assume SOCIal rea a y relefS to umans c Icr$ a. Ut variou h" -Ilie st ings. These beliefs are the proper subject of empincal state-

nu, and thus " " h • ( ) A.nd" consmute facts (of sociology) in rheir own ng t IH· Instead of " . COntinuing thi s line of thought and admitti ng that we arc

facing emirdy diRerenr standards fa d ', ' fi . . r ISC urSlVe valid .

rrns hiS baSIC assumption: ~Nor it se . arJOIl , Sokal r

I . . ems to me Intrinsic i (:con· (H~ soc ial $CII: nces and hum ani fi c=s that the ' 11 n the natllre r

!nre ectual d ' be lower" (1.43). Stan ards should

I would not insisr o n th e " Jowcr/ h igher~ e I . . va uatlOn SchenlC b

try to g u.'e som e examples wh ich should illust I . Ut I wi ll ratt: t lat the stand d

vuy different and that the ben way to aCCOUnt fo I ' d'tr ar 5 art . . r [li S mc: renc(: is{

slder the Instance: of the resiStance ofbrure facts as rh . I Dean· , I" ". c malll e ( ment of the Imp IClt agreement WlthlO van o us comnlUnirics of ,'n ' qUlrcrs.

Let us cake- the case of Professor \Voo Suk H wang hi ' , ,W Ocalmedln a

brcahhrough 2.00+ 5rimct magllzint p'per to have bee n th ' c mu to suc­

ceed in the cr~ation of a S[eOl cdlline from a cloned human bl . . asrocyst.

Thi s claim t urned Out to be fraudu lent. Of course this fraudulence was nOl

ascertained following a textual analysis by som e postmodt rn literarycriric,

but was d iscovered by way of a very conc rete series o f actions, prescrilxd

b y th e existing standards within the sp ecific community of interested sri.

emistS. Let us look at an excerpt o f the [eX{, illustrating the nature of the

procedure:

To check the veracity of the 1.00 4 paper, the comm ittee collwed 1;

samples of the ccllline supposedly described in the work, which the telnl

called NT - I. T weney samples came from Hwang's tab, and onc each from

the Ko rean Cell Line Bank ; MizMcdi H ospital in Seoul, where S(vwl

collaborators worked ; and the lab o f H wang's collaborator at SNU (Seoul . . d ' t asked three

Nnional Un iversity), Sh in Yong Moon . 1ne committee sal I b , I I daJl th rcelas Independent labs to teS[ the DNA fro m aI 2.~ samp cs, an

repo rted identical resultS. .~ d "h d h' 1I ueS fa lslne nJ Those results sugg'est that H wang an IS co eag 1(1

, ' h NT- I was all Cl of the data in the paper. H wangs [cam ciallTIed t at d h the line

. . ' fo un t at genetic mnch with cells of d o no r A, but the comlllln ec . I ' The cam' " ' d' ' h d ' I cStienc(aruc e. U IS qUite Istinct rrom w at was reporte to t 1 DNA of a cc

, d If' I matched the ·1 nu[[ee reporte t l at 11 0 Hwang s 2. 0 samp es . . ofer lUilJ' b d through In vltr I

line derived at MizMedi from an cm ryo create I hree S~fllP cs ' I b a ' wdl~s tle t y lion. The other nine samples fro m Hwang s a ,s d b tuccd tO an

. cl t coul not e from o utside sources, all shared a signature 13

o ther known cell line. I' It is a vcrydoSC f I · wh~t pUJ.."l mg· J oO'ytci The signature 0 those salllp cs IS some h donate .1-

... ,. . ... h ...,; .. h rh .. n N A hn" .. rnrinr..of a second woman w ~ .. <II~eSIS I.",r

z6S - A Sodoumiot;c Moda

it could nOI hav," come fro m nuclear transfer. For ,*0 of 48 nuclear DNA markers tested, dono r 11 and the NT - I samples m~tchcd. But for eight markers, donor ~ was heu:rozygous whe~eas the cdlline was homozygous. The miwchondnal DNA of the woman IS a perfect match with that of the ccllline. I .. ·]

At SNV, the report will now be taken up by a disciplinary commit. tee. Korean med ia have also reponed that public proseCUtors cou ld b<gin an investigation as early as this weekend into Hwang's allegation that his team's stcm cells were deliberately swapped with. (Normilc et aJ. 1006:

IS6-IS7).

Now, can we say that theory-making in natural sciences is the same kind

of intellectual work as theory-making in social sciences and humanities? If

I write a paper, claiming that I have discovered that Plato is an empirio·

criticist, could there be grounds for a committee to investigate the possibil·

ity of fraud on my part? Could I have troubles with the public prosecutor

ovn it? My lo ng experie nce in ed iting and publishing papers wi thin the

humanities suggestS to me that such a paper could ei ther be accepted or

rejected , according to the leve l of itS discursive qualities, or to my capacity

to invoke well-known authors, as well as the exactness of the quotations

and my preparatio n and abili ty to suggest that I know the major conrri·

butions in that matter. This is no t an easy task and could be seen as an

effort to overcome a resistance, but this resistance has a completely differ·

ene Structure from rhat which betrayed Professor HW3ng's claim.' Maybe

Peirce expressed beHer rhan anyone else what ehe resiStance of the brute

fan means;

A COUrt may issue illjlmcliollJ and jlldgmm/J ag~inst me and I not nTC a snap of my finger for them. I ll1:;1Y think them idle vapor. l1ut when I ~ecl the sheriff's hand on my sho ulder, I shail begin [0 have a SCllse of acruallry.

Actuality is something brute. (Lowelllcctures, C P l.l", I~OJ).

A 1 ' , d b heory·making wirhin s mentioned above, the resistance: race Y t . hum " . d ' ~ b' (PI 'e llpirio-criticism for alllUes IS lIIerene because the 0 Jcct a(O S I . inst ) . . h rhat the theoreo-ance IS not indcpend enr of the discursive approac . cian h . d their shcnff aner c ooses. In this case the empirical fans cannot sen Us, because we belong to a d iffere!l[ body of legislat ion. Continuing with this fi . . h I anitieS wc benefit

gurauve analogy, wc can imagine that In t e lUlll ..

from th d G k "'eCSltleS where, by e a vantage o f people studying at rcc unl '

law. no policeman can step in . In the words of R' h d le ar Rart _

losophcrs) should rdax and say. with Our collcagu . h ' Y, Wc: (phi. cs III IStOr d '

(ure, that wc in the humanities diRer (rom natur J • . yan litera. a SCie ntISts pt .

nor knowing in advance what our problems afl~" ( '98. 8) CC1Sc:Jy ill ... . 2..2 1 ,rhe robl

(or objectIVe rcslStanccs) of wh ich for them include th e J . P Crru . . . . '-.~~ Ixmgs. pred lctmg earthquakes. Inventing new e nergy Illan

. .. . sources. amOn, a myriad of o ther empirical Issues.- And thi s "relaxed ar, · d ' (. b. g

mi c lid )' nor due to wrong intentions or self:deceptio n, as Sokal b I' b . "

.. ' . e ICVes, Ut to the complex Interrdatlon lxrwccn SOCiO logIcal, empirical and d. .

.• • • • ISCUrslVC parameters, which consti tutes a pluralml c network of an infin ,·, fd .u y 0 Illcr. ('nt standards o( discursive validation. Bu t what COUIltS to a greater degree

and what . (or rhetoricaJ reasons. was partially neglected in the last exam­

ples is the gradual change of dependence of the va rio us theories on [he

sanction of empirical evidence. which makes it almost impossible to estab­

lish clear borders between such general fields as social sciences. humanities,

and natural sciences. although the compariso n of examples of the average

diSCipline withi n them shows. as we have seen. a profound d iverSity in the

standards for validation.

The American nmhematician And rew Odlyzko has pub lished a serks

of articles since 1995. in which he argues t hat the statistical g rowth of scien­

tiflc production (every 10 years the number of published scienti fic papers

doubles) will radically transform the whole system of scientific communi­

cation (Odlyzko 1995; 2.000). His model fo r t he future presupposes the

form;u io n o f ~i nternet forum-like" com munities, gathe ring people from

all over the world with similar research interests a nd competence and rhat

the paper publicatio n will be entirely subst ituted by the far better interac­

tive exchange of propositions and commenrs. which the decrronic forll1

allows.

lf this will be the case, then the sta ndards for di scursivc validation will

completely fit o ur sociosem ioric m odel w ith the " leopard spot~ srruc~ure d I . C I nsfonnano[l, an , w lac IS more important t he premiscs ror sue 1 a tfa

d· ' . 'd with the aecor Ing [Q Odlyzko, are soc io -eco no m ic. which also COlnCI e

sociosemiotic approach.

A Sociosemiotic MotJet :l~7-

Notes

. hich will be dcvcloped in the follOWing pages, follows 1h ' nOtion, w " E . (1.001) in the seC[ion "The rcsistances of being:

UIllb<rw'.(;o' d 11 I h Id d es no t speak, o nly wc 0 ... On y 0[ er human beings un

"1he wor 0

1. h ~ Rotty 1989: 6. do [at, . ss of the socioselll iotic model of Fig. / (Quid be achieved if More exactne ....

,. . d . also a vertical aXIS, on which to pro)C([ thc Ill tcrnallogical we Uluo ucc . . ".

. of the discoursc. For IIlstance, the mathematical discourse IS consrrallltS ·oned by empirical observations, but is strongly determined

not sancu .... . by the internal rules of its sy_moohc system. ~rc lmas lan senuotlcs. ~nd

h · p",ive semiotics of J:.co arc equally ( m)dependenr of empmul t e Ul[er ·d " but the former sho uld be situated closer to the mathematical eVI en .

(north) polc than the latte r. Gene~ally ~peakin.g ~ogn itive sciences arc not stricter terminologically th an Grellnaslan SemiOtiCS, but arc more depend­

ent on expc:rimcm al data, so they have to be positioned on the same width,

but ~west ~ of it. towards the rigid po le.

4 . Here I can add the obvious and easily observable fac t that in humanities.

compared to natural sciences, there is infinitely more freedom of choice

for the proper field of interest and also the freedom to shift from onc field

to another. And even more, in humanities very often wc have full over­

lap between research interests and ho bby or lifestyle. Wc (Quid say that in

natural sciences wc have more o r less the same kind of~scicntist's· identity.

whereas in humanities the choice of d iscipline and topic is in direct rda­

tion to the character and self- realization of the scholar. 111is is why the

phenomena of fa shion is very one n present in humanities (structuralism,

dcconsuuction, cognitivism ) and almost absent in natural sciences. For

instance, if I like pets and music, with in human ities it will be very easy to

establish a discip line like "zoomusicology," but if! like sunlight and moun­

tains very few in natural sciences will accept my ~quanrum Illountainol­

og( project.

Rrfirences

Bankov. Ktistian 2.004. Infinite Se miosis and Resistance. In: From Ntl/m·t to Psycht. Ecro Tarasti (cd.). [= Acta Semio tica Fennka XX.] Helsin ki:

E International Semiotics Institute. 175-181. :(0, Ulllbc L d

fto 2.001. Kant (md the PlalyplIJ: Essays Oil allK'lfIgeall _ I COgnition. l ram. A1astair McEwcn. New York : Harcourt Bract and Co.

977. Come si t: ·d · ' ' 1·1 D .. N . Ja una lest J lIl/H·t". IV I ana: omp/am. orrrlllt 0 . " · r 6 5 h K n . t On IS; vogcl. G retchcn and Couzi n.Jennuer 1.00 • out orea

26J' - Kristiall BtIllNOV

Team's Remaining HUIl1 ;)n Stcm Cdl C laim De 1--1 d mo I~ le In · Se · IJhhoo6. IS6- IS7. . . l~lIft) II ,

Odl)'zko, A. M. 1995· Tragic loss or good riddance ) 11, - - d-• t; unpen IIlg de .

of traditional scholarl ), journals. Ilium.] flllmilll -C , 'fJ S .mlse I) lIruttr tt/dus

(formerly Inftr1l. J. MlllI -A1f1chill~ Sllldi~s) 42.. 71- 1 U.

- 1000. The future of scientific communication. Access 10 PI 1., - , J--W "ry ·m1mud

Rmlmb: 71J~ Glob,,1 Rm ll,.ciJ Village Ill. Eds. P. Wauters and P. Schroeder. Amsterdam : N I\'(I1 . 173-178.

Peircc, C. S. 1934- 1948. ColltCl~d P"ptrs. Cam bridge, Mass.: Harvard Universi ty Press.

Ron, A. 1996. SdtTIu ~ffin. London : Duke University Press

Rort)', Richard 1981. ComtqllellceJ o!Pmgmflt;sm. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

- 1989. COllfingmcy, Irony, ,Old Solidarity. Cambridge : Ca mbridge University Press.

Sokal, A. & Bricmont,j. 1998. Fashio!lfIbll! NollSwst: Poslmodtnl /lJltlltclllals Ab/1St ojScimu. New York : Picador.

Sobl, AJan 1996. 11lt SON"I HOIIx: 71u S/;"'1I (h,lI SbOON tiJt ACltdtmy. Edited by Lingua Franca. Lincoln ; London: The University of Nebraska Press.

Anne Htfnaltlt

~elques titres de problemes en semiotique existentielle

fero Tarasti ne s'est jamais contente d'une semiotiquejonutllt, au sens un

!XU caricatural qu'ont confere a cet adjcctif « formd » bien des applica­

dons aveugles et mecanique:s des vues theoriques de Saussure, Hjelmslev,

Benveniste et Greimas. En tant que musicien, musicologue, et semioticien

de la musique, il n'a jamais perdu de: vue le fait que « Behind people 's 'offi·

cial' biographies loom the stream of daily emotions and inner experiences

that guide their choices» (Ta rasti 1000 : 58). En cda , sa Simio/iqllt txis­

/twit"t est en harmonic avec la Sim;otiqu~ dts PaHiollS (Gre imas & Fon­

tanille 1991)' que l'Ecole de Paris devdoppe activement depuis 1977· C 'est

pourquoi nous voudrions offrir a Eero Tarasti, ami si remarquable et si cha­

lcureux, ces quclques questionnemc::nts concernam ce que la semiotique

des passions et ceUe de I'eprouver sont suscepribles de retenir des cnquhes

admirables menees par I'illustre pot:[C Yves Bonnefoy It propos des grands

pallers existemids qui Ont marque la progression creative de Giacometti,

d'une part, et de Coya, de I'autre. La vertu de l'exemple du vrai po(te n'esr­

~Ile pas de naus mettre en comact immediat avec nmre experience sensible IIlterieure} L' Id ' h - d-. exemp e u pohe pade a c acun, evoque ,rectement pour

ch~un Un vec u et lui permer ainsi de le recategoriser comme un invariant umversel de I' ,. d' T - I-K. expenence. La semiotique existentielle Eero arast! re Isant

lerkegaard ( ). , .' I- d ['. 2.000: 79-81 qUI est la pensee de ce qUI se t!ent a, ans

Instant re·· I (Bonner.' JOll1t a poeriquc du Bonnefo), des « Tombeaux de Ravenne » rc" oy 19~9: 2 1 -:z.~). La quasi-pratiquc scmiotiquc d 'Yves Bonnefoy

JOint la poe . , de . uque cl Eero Tarasti qui imerroge le gestc createur au contact

cc qUI est ve d _ , IJ a b. CUer ccequl syrcnouvdle.

~OlOtjY len plus que de I'esrhetisation du quotidien ou de la ryrhmisation onnellc du ' , .

80n" .. f_. vecu, dans la pensee linguistiQuc et dans Ics cruvrcs d \ ve5.