This chapter situates the conception of language (and communication) in enaction in the context of the research program of the cognitive sciences. It focuses on the formulation of the synthesis of hermeneutics and speech acts and the vision of language according to the metaphor of structural coupling. The exclusion of expressive speech acts in this design is problematized. An examination is offered of the critical steps to the theory of language as a reflection and the linguistic correspondence of cognitivism. We examine the foundations of the proposal in the line of language and social enaction as emergent phenomena which are not reducible to autopoiesis but which constitute a new neurophenomenological position in the pragmatic language dimension. A proposal is made for the integration of hermeneutic phenomenology with genetic and generative phenomenology in social semiotics. The inclusion of expressive speech acts based on the functions of language in the Habermas–Bühler line is also addressed. An opening is proposed of enaction to the expressive dimension of language and meaning holism with the referential use of language.

Key words: enaction, neurophenomenology, performative speech acts, expressive speech acts, background, meaning holism.

Excerpt: Die hier vorgelegte Studie befasst sich mit dem Problem des Begriffsrealismus und seiner Relevanz für die linguistische Terminologieforschung. Dies heute bisweilen ein wenig stiefmütterlich behandelte Teilgebiet der Sprachwissenschaft – es wird für gewöhnlich unter die Fachsprachenforschung rubriziert – verdient in Zeiten, da jene Disziplin sowohl ihren Gegenstand als auch die sie kennzeichnenden Prozeduren der Theoriebildung in einen ideen- und kulturgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang einzurücken sucht und zudem das Bedürfnis verspürt, sich in aktuelle Debatten um die Voraussetzungen menschlicher Erkenntnis und das Wesen des Erkannten einzuschalten, wie jüngst wieder Gabriel mit seinem Paradigma des Neuen Realismus sie angestoßen hat, verstärktes Interesse: Mag sie auch nicht von vornherein als eine solche angelegt sein, so kann man der Begriffslehre gleichwohl Merkmale einer transdisziplinären Metawissenschaft attestieren, insofern sie eine Vorstellung oder zumindest eine Ahnung davon gibt, wie sich das formale Inventar, insbesondere aber die Lexik von Fachsprachen – nota bene auch der linguistischen – systematisch und analytisch stringent an ideologisch-weltanschauliche und institutionelle Kontextfaktoren rückkoppeln lässt. Zum Zweiten hat sich die linguistische Analyse von Termini bei der Bestimmung von deren gnoseologischer Funktion dem Antagonismus zwischen konstruktivistischen und (neo-)realistischen Positionen exponiert, wie er derzeit den akademischen Diskurs durchzieht und in dem der antike Universalienstreit wieder aufzuleben scheint. Auch wenn sie die Frontlinie bloß selten deutlich konturiert, so darf man doch von ihr einige Winke erwarten, wie man einen Ausgleich zwischen den gegensätzlichen Haltungen erzielen und damit ihrer wechselseitigen Bedingtheit, die für ihre jeweilige Ausformung strukturelle Bedeutung besitzt, Rechnung tragen könnte. Die Begriffswissenschaft darf so mit Blick auf die durch Polarisierung charakterisierte Diskussion, wie sie heute geführt wird und die doch einer langen, niemals abgerissenen Tradition entspringt, als eine Art Korrektiv ante rem gelten. Inwieweit und unter welchen Gesichtspunkten eine solche Einschätzung gerechtfertigt ist, sollen die nachfolgenden Überlegungen

Open peer commentary on the target article “From Objects to Processes: A Proposal to Rewrite Radical Constructivism” by Siegfried J. Schmidt. Upshot: Schmidt’s “philosophical argumentation” in favor of an action orientation for communication rewrites constructivism in terms of process. Though in support of his proposal, a philosophical argumentation about process works best for illuminating the writer’s own process and orienting readers to his own argument. I propose that arguments about the communication of social actors should make visible the social processes about which they argue.

In this article, the author provides a brief introduction to a completely new theory in Semantics, Operational Semantics (OS), which concerns the meaning of the basic linguistic elements that are indispensable for any linguistic expression, i.e., the fundamental “grammatical” words and morphemes. Even if in the text there is no explicit reference to constructivism, OS could be relevant for constructivist approaches, since its fundamental presupposition is that the meanings of these linguistic elements are mainly sequences of elemental mental operations (amongst which those of attention play a key role) that are actively carried out by the subject.

Context: The constructivist approach to the definition (or analysis) of the fundamental meanings of language in Ernst von Glasersfeld’s work. Problem: Has this approach achieved better results than other approaches? Method: Review of a book chapter by von Glasersfeld that is devoted to the analysis of the concepts of “unity,” “plurality” and “number.” Results: The constructivist approach to the semantics of the fundamental elements of language (some of which are fundamental for sciences too) seems to have produced positive results; moreover these are in a field where other approaches have produced results that do not objectively seem satisfactory.

Key words: semantics, numbers, mental operations, attention, language

Functional and pragmatic approaches to grammar, and to language more broadly, are well known. All of these approaches, however, accept a core aspect of sentences, or utterances, as consisting of encodings of propositions. They proceed on their functional and pragmatic explorations with this much, at least, taken for granted. I wish to argue, to the contrary, that the functional characteristics of utterances penetrate even to the level of the structure – the grammar – of supposed propositional encodings. More specifically, I argue that the structure that is taken as a structure of propositional encodings is not that at all, but is instead a structure of functionally organized action. Constraints on such structures, in turn – constraints on grammars – emerge as intrinsic constraints on that functional organization. My point will of necessity be made programmatically, since to fill it out completely would be to complete a functional version of universal grammar. The mere logical possibility of intrinsic constraints on the grammatical possibilities of language refutes attempts to construe grammatical constraints as logically arbitrary. Typically, because grammatical constraints are construed as being (logically) arbitrary, some additional explanation of the constraints is required should those constraints be shown or argued to be universal. That additional explanation is usually some equally logically arbitrary innateness postulate. I will show that the possibility of intrinsic grammatical constraints invalidates standard arguments for such innateness – specifically, that such a possibility invalidates the poverty of the stimulus argument. Grammatical constraints are not the only characteristics of language that are intrinsic to its nature. I also show how phenomena of implicature, the hermeneutic circle, and forms of creative language can be understood as being naturally emergent in the functional nature of language. Most broadly, then, intrinsic constraints constitute a rich realm for exploration in attempting to understand language.

This paper discusses how the second order cybernetics of von Foerster, Maturana, Varela and Luhmann, can be fruitfully integrated with Peirce’s semiotics through the bio-semiotics of Hoffmeyer. The conclusion is that what distinguish animals from machines is that they are autopoietic, have code-duality and through their living organization constitutes a biological interpretant. Through this they come to inhabit a new life world: their games of life take place in their own semiotic Umwelt (von Uexküll). It is the biological context and the history of the species and the individual the determine the meaning of signs in the structural couplings that constitutes the channels of communication. Inspired by Wittgenstein’s theory of language games as the context that determines semantic content of the expressions of sentences, we suggest that animals participate in sign games.

Excerpt: The concept of constraints enabling action is not at all new. Games have rules that enable the play. Focus on any one thing enables effective action through excluding what we might consider distractions or irrelevancies. Creating a computer simulation model enabled us to consider the implications of some relations by explicitly choosing them and not others. However, on thinking about uceps as enabling constraints I came to see them as a way of pointing at something fundamental to us as biological beings living in language and embedded in a culture. I wish to address the idea of constraints that serve as possibilities in this paper. I will discuss how cognition, language, and culture all serve as constraints that enable action in given contexts, while at the same time obscuring other possibilities that we could be dancing with.