THE ESSENCE OF SEMIOTICS AS A MEDIATOR OF COMMUNICATION AND COGNITION
Studies in modern linguistic theory to determine the scope and vision of human communication have shifted their attention to semiotics, in which actions speak louder than words as some say. The semiotic capacity of an individual reflects the effective and efficient usage of pragmatic competence in which the language user has the awareness of sociocultural and anthropological conventions processed and produced in the course of communication. Such a capacity also enables a systematic usage of cognitive skills, thereby developing the value of the communicative context and the perception of the individuals in various discourses. This paper attempts to identify, decode, and proceed utterances in a systematic mixture of psychological, physiological, sociological and anthropological procedures, in which non-verbal expressions appear as signs and symbols to communicate information. It is also argued that not only do individuals attain semiotic information naturally, they also do so with proper semiotic training and research. In this respect, studies in biosemiotics explore the micro and the macro cosmos of human nature which are in a continuous cycle of interaction to process language. It is further established that the curiosity to discover the value systems in human communication through semiotic decoding means more than the mere study of language and its linguistic properties.
Keywords: Pragmatics, Competence, Semiotics, Cognitive Theory, Communication, Cognition, Biosemiotics
Cognitive Theory Psychology. (2002). Dictionary of Theories, 98.
Adler, Nancy J. (1991). International Dimensions of Organizational
Behaviour (2nd ed.) Boston, MA: PWS-KENT Publishing Company.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barley, S. R. (1983). Semiotics and the Study of Occupational and Organizational Cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3), 393-413.
Brier, S. (2015). Can biosemiotics be a "science" if its purpose is to be a bridge between the natural, social and human sciences?. Progress In Biophysics And Molecular Biology, 119(3), 576-587. doi:10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2015.08.001
Canale, M. (1983). From Communicative Competence to Communicative Language Pedagogy. In J.C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication (pp. 2-27). London: Longman.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Massachusetts: M.I.T.
Choraih, M. et al. (2016). The Importance of Pragmatic Competence in the EFL Curriculum: Application and Implications. Arab World English Journal, 7(4), 183-195.
Crystal, D. (2008). Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Fodor, J. & Merill G. (1996). Psycholinguistics Papers: The Proceedings of the 1966 Edinburgh Conference. In J. Lyons, & R. J. Wales (Eds.), Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Goodman, N. (1968). Languages of Art. The Approach to a theory of Symbols. Indianapolis. IN: Bobbs-Merill Comp.
Gumperz, J. J., & Dell H. H. (1989). Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Hoffmeyer, J. (1999). The Vague Boundaries of Life. In: Edwina Taborsky (Ed.), Semiosis. Evolution. Energy. Towards a Reconceptualization of the Sign. Aachen: Shaker Verlag.
Hofstadter, D.R., (1983). Artificial intelligence: subcognition as computation. In: Machlup, F., & Mansfield, U. (Eds.), The Study of Information (pp. 263-285) Wiley: New York.
Hymes, D. H. (1972). On Communicative Competence. In: J.B. Pride and J. Holmes (Eds). Sociolinguistics. Selected Readings (pp. 269-293) Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Kattsoff, L. O., & Thibaut, J. (1942). Semiotic and Psychological Concepts. Psychological Review, 49, 475-485.
Kravchenko, A. (2006). Cognitive linguistics, biology of cognition and biosemiotics: Bridging the gaps. Language Sciences, 28(1), 51-75. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2005.02.002
Kress, G. (2012). Thinking about the Notion of "Cross-Cultural" from a Social Semiotic Perspective. Language and Intercultural Communication, 12(4), 369-385.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Mey, L. J. (1993). Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Morris, C. (1974). Fondements de la theorie des signes (Foundations of the Theory of Signs). Languages.
Parent, R., & Varnhagen, S. (2011). Designing a semiotic-based approach to intercultural training. Sign Systems Studies, 39(1), 145-182.
Pikkarainen, E. (2014). Competence as a Key Concept of Educational Theory: A Semiotic Point of View. Journal Of Philosophy Of Education, 48(4), 621-636. doi:10.1111/1467-9752.12080
Seel, N. M. (1999). Semiotics and Structural Learning Theory. Journal of Structural Learning & Intelligent Systems, 14(1), 1.
Sharov, A. A. (1992). Biosemiotics: Functional-evolutionary approach to the analysis of the sense of information. In: Sebeok, T.A., & Umiker-Sebeok, J. (Eds.), Biosemiotics: the Semiotic Web (pp. 345-373) Mouton de Gruyter, New York.
Shaumyan, S. (1987). A Semiotic Theory of Language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Context and Cognition: Knowledge Frames and Speech Act Comprehension. Journal of Pragmatics, 1(3), 211-231.
Wales, R. & John M. (1996). Psycholinguistics Papers: The Proceedings of the 1966 Edinburgh Conference. In J. Lyons, & R. J. Wales (Eds.), Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (1983). Learning Purpose and Language Use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Prof. Dr. İsmail Hakkı Mirici
Editor in Chief
Near East University
Ataturk Faculty of Education
Near East Boulevard, 99138
Mersin 10 - Turkey