Modularity (Atomism) of the Classical Sign as a Hindrance. On the Fundamental Difference between Cognitive and Sign Processes

Abstract

The classical understanding of a sign is based on its atomizing perception as a “module” – a unity of form and meaning. A sign is actually considered as an object endowed with autonomous meaning-generating properties, the abi­lity to produce an autonomous action. The danger of a modular (“atomizing”) approach to the analysis of sign-containing processes is that, in order to confirm (justify) it, a seemingly autonomous (“magic”) sign takes root in consciousness and is integrated into the mechanisms of its operation. On the basis of the postu­lated identity of thought and sign form, the concepts of “language”, linguistic picture of the world, “some kind of linguistic” consciousness, semantics of an in­dividual sign (word), etc. arise. Meanwhile, the only possible source of meaning formation in a sign-containing, including word-containing, act is a semiotic actor attempting to make changes (innovations) in the external cognitive state.
At the basis of his conscious (including semiotic) actions lie personal cognitive states unrelated to signs (cf. qualia). The concept of actional (“influencing”) semiosis makes adjustments to the understanding of language, sign, text.