From Signs to Minds: Why Peirce and Vygotsky Don’t Speak the Same Semiotic Language
How does meaning emerge—from the solitary reflections of the mind, or the shared rhythms of social life? This question sits at the heart of two powerful, but profoundly different, accounts of sign and thought: Charles Sanders Peirce’s semiotics and Lev Vygotsky’s cultural-historical theory of development.
Peirce gives us a logic of signs rooted in individual cognition. Vygotsky gives us a developmental arc rooted in social interaction. Each offers deep insight into meaning-making—but they pull in opposite directions.
Let’s explore why.
Where Meaning Begins: In the Mind or in the Crowd?
For Peirce, semiosis begins inside the mind. A sign triggers an interpretant—a mental response that creates meaning by referring to an object. This process is recursive: each interpretant can become a new sign in an unending mental chain.
Vygotsky starts elsewhere. For him, meaning emerges first between people, not within them. Signs and tools mediate social action. Through interaction—especially linguistic interaction—these external signs are gradually internalised and refunctioned as thought.
So where Peirce starts with logic and cognition, Vygotsky starts with history and social mediation.
What Is a Sign, Really?
Peirce’s triadic model defines a sign in relation to an object and its interpretant. This model covers everything from smoke signalling fire to complex scientific reasoning. It’s general, flexible, and philosophical.
Vygotsky narrows the focus. He’s not concerned with all signs, but with culturally produced symbols—especially language—and their role in mental development. For him, the power of signs lies in their ability to transform behaviour, memory, and reasoning.
In short: Peirce theorises semiosis; Vygotsky theorises how semiotic systems shape minds.
Signs That Shape Us
Here, the divergence deepens.
For Peirce, the interpretant is a mental effect—a thought or habit of thought. It unfolds logically, within the mind of an individual interpreter.
For Vygotsky, the power of the sign lies in how it mediates action. Children first use signs to regulate others’ behaviour (e.g., "No!") before using them to regulate their own ("Don’t touch!"). These signs, initially social, become psychological tools.
Internalisation is the key mechanism here. Vygotsky doesn’t just want to explain signs—he wants to explain development.
Meaning: Made or Inherited?
Peirce’s model treats meaning as something constructed anew by each interpreter, moment by moment. The interpretant emerges from a dynamic mental process.
Vygotsky sees meaning as something handed down—a product of cultural history. Signs are inherited, shaped by collective practices, and only gradually internalised. Meaning isn’t made from scratch—it’s made possible by participation in a social-linguistic world.
This leads to an important tension: Peirce's model assumes a ready-made interpreter; Vygotsky explains how such an interpreter comes to be.
Why It Matters: Two Futures for Semiotics
The contrast is more than academic. It shapes how we think about everything from learning and language to artificial intelligence.
-
Peirce offers a powerful account of how signs function logically—but it’s rooted in individual minds.
-
Vygotsky offers a powerful account of how minds are formed—but it’s rooted in social practice.
If meaning is a living process, perhaps we need both perspectives. Peirce reminds us that signs unfold with logical precision. Vygotsky reminds us that this unfolding is only possible because we are already caught up in social webs of meaning.
Conclusion: Learning to Speak Two Languages
Peirce gives us a timeless logic of signs. Vygotsky gives us a biography of how signs grow with us. The difference isn’t just philosophical—it reflects two ways of imagining what meaning is, and how it matters.
One sees meaning as the output of the solitary mind. The other as a social inheritance, shaping minds before they know they’re thinking.
Perhaps the richest semiotics will be the one that can speak both their languages.
No comments:
Post a Comment