Let sleeping signs lie: On signs, objects, and communication

Peircean semiotics and transmedia dynamics. Communicational potentiality of the model of Semiosis

“…Narrative coherence is provided by the communicative intention related to the immediate interpretant in consonance with the effective communication expressed through the interpretant. The common interpretation is the result of a regulatory instance that coexists as an ideal (final interpretant), as suggested by Johansen (1993). However, as this ideal is pragmatic, the effective occurrences are also divergent (Bergman, 2007), which may arise in order to motivate the communicational activity in subsequent triadic relations within transmedia narratives.…”

“…Peirce identified the logical interpretant within the sphere of habits. "Therefore, there remains only habit, as the essence of the logical interpretant" (MS 318) and this, according to Peirce, participates vigorously in communicative processes (see Johansen, 1993). According to Santaella (2004), it is the identification of the logical interpretant with habit, in the light of Peircean late pragmatism, which makes the semiosis no longer an infinite abstract process, but places it in pragmatic connection with human action.…”

The Sarkar challenge to biosemiotics: Is there any information in a cell?

“…This is a general semiotic point: the sign, apart from its relational triadic semiotic properties, may also be studied in its non-semiotic physical aspects. Compare Johansen (1993).…”

Experience, Purpose, and the Value of Vagueness: On C. S. Peirce's Contribution to the Philosophy of Communication

“…This may appear to be a rather uncontroversial claim, but a demand for referential identity can open up the gates for certain kind of scepticism, even nihilism (cf. Johansen, 1993b). Setting out from the fact that the experiences of two people never are absolutely identical, one could claim that communication is actually an illusion.…”

“…This is not to deny the existence of Peircean influences in the field, albeit they are mostly connected to a somewhat distorted semiotic appropriation (in Fiske, 1990; Pietilä, 2005, for instance). Moreover, while a number of philosophers (such as Colapietro, 1995; Habermas, 1995; Liszka, 1996, 2000), semioticians (such as Johansen, 1993a, 1993b), and rhetoricians (such as Braun, 1981; Lyne, 1980, 1982) have in various ways tried to expound Peirce's view of communication, the only all‐out attempt to introduce Peircean approaches to the field of communication studies seems to be Klaus Bruhn Jensen's social semiotics of mass communication (Jensen, 1991, 1995; but see also Moriarty, 1996; Schrøder, 1994a, 1994b). However, albeit Jensen's effort is laudable and his employment of Peircean sign theory as a criticism of traditional dualisms (still prevalent in the semiological tradition stemming from Ferdinand de Saussure) is highly commendable, but he does not utilize all the resources of Peirce's philosophy.…”