Theories of perception between semiophilia and semiophobia

Bibliographic Data

ID4358558
AuthorsAdrian Pablé (0000-0002-7986-4746, University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland, corresponding author)
Year2025
Volume103
Pages150-158
Publication date2025-07-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueLanguage & Communication (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0271-5309 • E-ISSN: 1873-3395
PublisherElsevier BV (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1016/j.langcom.2025.05.002
OpenAlexW4410968216
LanguageEN
References cited14

This paper argues that there exist philosophical disagreements over the nature and function of signs when it comes to theorizing perception. For this purpose, the paper compares three thinkers in terms of how they position themselves towards the thesis of perception as sign-mediated, namely Uexküll's semiotic biology, Gibson's ecological psychology, and Harris' integrationism. While Gibson stresses that perception is direct and unmediated, Harris suggests that perceptions are semiologically complex. In the final part, the paper introduces Tim Ingold's concepts of ‘semiophilia’ and ‘semiophobia’ within the context of a philosophy of semiotics and applies them to the theories of perception discussed. The conclusion that the paper draws is that the three thinkers subscribe to incompatible views on human-animal and human-world relations

Cognitive psychology · Epistemology · Linguistics · Perception · Literature, Culture, and Aesthetics · Philosophy · Psychology

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access