Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Language Structure and Language Change: Studies in honor of Henning Andersen
Edited by Lars Heltoft, Iván Igartua, Brian D. Joseph, Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh and Lene Schøsler
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 345] 2019
► pp. 35–79

Induction and tradition

“As time goes by …” – Play it again!

This contribution takes Henning Andersen’s model of linguistic change as a logical starting point. In addition to his use of Abduction and Deduction, I suggest that Induction plays an important role as well, since it represents Conventionalization. All three types of reasoning are subsumed under Tradition, which itself represents the final of three aspects simultaneously performed in each and every instance of Language Gaming, the first two being the communicative tandem of Communion and Practice. The logical inference types profiled on this meta-communicative level of Tradition are operative on all three levels of Language Gaming. The Competence targeted in Tradition occurs in three modes of being, according to the inference type: hypothetical (Result, in Abduction), procedural (Case, in Deduction), and declarative (Law, in Induction). It is the procedural-effectual variant that is applied in the communicative tandem. An idio-poietic process operationalizes the declarative Convention so that it may be applied in individual use. A triune Universal Competence is presupposed by – and functions as major premise in – communicative tandem and meta-communicative Tradition. It is procedural (genotoken) and likewise occurs in the three aspects, viz. panchronic (Communion), synchronic (Practice), and diachronic (Tradition).
Keywords: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Communion, Practice, Tradition, Conventionalization, Universals, Evolution, Change, Semiotics, Cybersemiotics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Language acquisition and change in the context of Total Human Evolutionary Communication
    • 2.1Cognitive Consciousness and Communicative Consciousness
    • 2.2Perception vs. Communication
    • 2.3The same old story: The trivium of Communion, Practice, and Tradition
  • 3.The architectonic of languaging: Total Human Evolutionary Communication
    • 3.1 The levels of Total Human Evolutionary Cognition and Communication (THECC)
    • 3.2The evolution of Languaging Semiosis into Language Gaming
    • 3.3The evolution of Language Gaming
    • 3.4Language Gaming as a teleological process: Energeia – entelechy and syntaxis
    • 3.5The social deontology of Language Gaming
    • 3.6The two peripheral phases of Language Gaming: Dynamis and ergon – paradeigma and syntagma
  • 4.Communication, meta-communication, and Universals of Language Gaming (the ‘three-in-one’)
    • 4.1Communion (panchronic)
    • 4.2Practice (synchronic)
    • 4.3Tradition (diachronic)
      • 4.3.1Abduction – discovery: Linguistic experiences as surprising facts to be explained by a linguistic competence (G1)
      • 4.3.2Deduction – experimentation: The trial and error testing of the predicted consequences of the hypothesized linguistic competence (G1) as put to Practice (G2)
      • 4.3.3Induction – confirmation: The Conventionalization of the Communicative Competence (G3)
  • 5.“As time goes by …” – Play it again! – Induction and Tradition
    • 5.1The semiotics of Tradition – the Competence and its stratal architectonic
    • 5.2 The evolution of the Human Language Faculty and the deontological Linguistic Institution
    • 5.3Language change, phylo-, onto-, and glosso-genetically
  • 6.Conclusion
  • As time goes by: For HA
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 June 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.345.02tho
References (104)
References
Adami, Rebecca. 2015. Paideia and cosmopolitan education: On subjectification, politics and justice. Studier i Pædagogisk Filosofi 4(2). 68–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 1973. Abductive and deductive change. Language 49. 765–793.Google Scholar
. 1974. Towards a typology of change: Bifurcating changes and binary relations. In J. M. Anderson & C. Jones (eds.), Historical linguistics. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Historical Linguistics , vol. II, 17–60. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
. 1984. Language structure and semiotic processes. In: Arbejdspapirer fra Institut for Lingvistik ved Københavns Universitet 3. 33–54.Google Scholar
. 1988. Center and periphery: adoption, diffusion, and spread. In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical Dialectology, Regional and Social, 39–83. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989. Understanding linguistic innovations. In Leiv Erik Breivik & Ernst Hakon Jahr (eds.), Language Change: Contributions to the Study of its Causes [Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs 43], 5–28. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1990. The structure of drift. In H. Andersen & K. Koerner (eds.), Historical Linguistics 1987: Papers from the 8th International Conference on Historical Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 66], 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Review ofM. Shapiro (ed.), The Peirce seminar papers: Essays in semiotic analysis, vol. 4. Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Language and Peircean Sign Theory, Duke University (June 19-21, 1997). New York: Berghahn, 1999. Language 77 (2). 373–376.Google Scholar
. 2005. The plasticity of universal grammar. In W. Østreng (ed.), Convergence. Interdisciplinary Communications 2004/2005, 21–26. Oslo: Centre for Advanced Studies at the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters.Google Scholar
. 2006. Synchrony, diachrony, and evolution. In O. N. Thomsen (ed.), Competing models of linguistic change. Evolution and beyond [Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science 279], 59–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017 Abduction. In I. Roberts & A. Ledgeway (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax, 301–321. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atkin, Albert. 2004. Charles Sanders Peirce: Architectonic philosophy. In J. Fieser & B. Dowdy (eds,), The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 2161-0002, [URL]. (Accessed 09.10.2017)Google Scholar
Bellucci, Francesco & Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen. N.d. Charles Sanders Peirce: Logic. In J. Fieser & B. Dowdy (eds.), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 2161-0002, [URL] (accessed 09.10.2017)
Bergman, Mats. 2014. Capturing Cerberus: The Rhetorical Path to General Semiotics. The Commens Working Papers 1. Retrieved from Commens: Digital Companion to C. S. Peirce ([URL]).Google Scholar
Brier, Søren. 2001. Cybersemiotics and Umweltslehre. Semiotica 134 (1/4). 779–814.Google Scholar
. 2008. Cybersemiotics: Why Information is not enough. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
. 2009. Levels of Cybersemiotics: Possible ontologies of signification. Cognitive Semiotics 4. 28–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brunson, Daniel J. 2010. Pragmatism and the past – Charles Peirce and the conduct of memory and history. Ph.D. Dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.
Chiara, Ambrosio. 2016. The Historicity of Peirce’s Classification of the Sciences. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy 8 (2). 9–43.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1974. [Herman Parret Discussing language with:] Noam Chomsky. In H. Parret (ed.), Discussing Language, 27–54. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use, New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
. 2000. The Architecture of Language. The Delhi Lectures, January 1996. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1952. Sistema, norma y habla. Revista de la Facutad de Humanidades y Ciencias 9. 113–181.Google Scholar
. 1957. Sincronía, diacronía e historia. El problema del cambio lingüístico. Revista de la Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias 15. 201–355. (3rd edn., 1978. Madrid: Editorial Gredos.)Google Scholar
. 1968. Sincronía, diacronía y tipología. In Actas del XI Congreso Internacional de Lingüística y Filología Románicas, Madrid 1965, vol. 1. 269–281.Google Scholar
. 1977 Linguistic (and other) Universals. In A. Makkai, V. Becker Makkai & L. Heilmann (eds.), Linguistics at the Crossroads, 317–346. Padua and Lake Bluff: Liviana Editrice and Jupiter Press.Google Scholar
. 1980. Der Sinn der Sprachtypologie. In T. Thrane, M. Winge, L. Mackenzie, U. Canger & N. Ege (eds.), Typology and Genetics of Language [Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 20], 150–170. Copenhagen: The Linguistic Circle of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
. 1983. Linguistic change does not exist. Linguistica Nuova ed Antica 1. 51–63.Google Scholar
. 1985. Linguistic competence. What is it really? The Modern Language Review 80 (Section 4). 25–35.Google Scholar
. 1988. Die Ebenen des sprachlichen Wissens. Der Ort des “Korrekten” in der Bewertungsskala des Gesprochenen. In J. Albrecht, J. Lüdtke & H. Thun (eds.), Energeia und Ergon: Sprachliche Variation – Sprachgeschichte – Sproachtypologie, vol. 1: 327–364. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Darwin, Charles. 1871. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (1st edn). London: John Murray.Google Scholar
De Tienne, André. 1989. Peirce est-il un phénoménologue? Études Phénoménologiques 9-10. 51–75.Google Scholar
Deutscher, Guy. 2002. On the Misuse of the Notion of ‘Abduction’ in Linguistics. Journal of Linguistics 38. 469–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Stephen C. Levinson. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32. 429–492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fitch, William. Tecumseh. 2006. The biology and evolution of music: A comparative perspective” Cognition 100. 173–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fitch, William Tecumseh. 2007. Evolving Meaning: The roles of Kin Selection, Allomothering and Paternal Care in language evolution. In C. Lyon, C. Nehaniv & A. Cangelosi (eds.), Emergence of Communication and Language, 29–51. New York NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. The Evolution of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guardiano, Nicholas. 2011. The Intelligibility of Peirce’s Metaphysics of Objective Idealism. Cognitio 12 (2). 187–204.Google Scholar
Harder, Peter. 2014. Variation, structure and norms. In M. Pütz, J. Robinson & M. Reif (eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics: Social and cultural variation in cognition and language use [Benjamins Current Topics, vol. 59], 53–73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Roy. 1988. Language, Saussure and Wittgenstein. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hatfield, Elaine, Lisamarie Bensman, Paul D. Thornton & Richard L. Rapson. 2014. New perspectives on emotional contagion: A review of classic and recent research on facial mimicry and contagion. Interpersona 8(2): 159–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hurford, James R. 1991. The evolution of the critical period for language acquisition. Cognition 40. 159–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Itkonen, Esa. 2011. On Coseriu’s legacy. Energeia III. 1–29.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2010. Your theory of language evolution depends on your theory of language. In R. Larson, V. Déprez & H. Yamakido (eds.), The Evolution of Human Language: Biolinguistic Perspectives, 63–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. What is the human language faculty? Two views. Language 87. 586–624. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray & Steven Pinker. 2005. The nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language (Reply to Fitch, Hauser & Chomsky). Cognition 97. 211–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray & Eva Wittenberg. 2017. Linear Grammar as a possible stepping stone in the evolution of language. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 24. 219–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Linguistics and poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in language, 350–377. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard D. & Joseph. Brian D. 2003 “On language, change, and language change – or, of history, linguistics, and historical linguistics”. In B. D. Joseph & R. D. Janda (eds.), Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 3–180. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1922. Language: its Nature, Development and Origin. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Krausser, Peter. 1977. The three fundamental structural categories of Charles S. Peirce. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 13 (3). 189–215.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, Eric H. 1967. Biological Foundations of Language. New York, NY: John Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2016. Turn-taking in Human Communication – Origins and Implications for Language Processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20 (1). 6–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas. 1995. Social Systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Ma, Minghui & Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen. 2016. A dynamic approach to Peirce’s interrogative construal of abductive logic. IFCoLog Journal of Logic and its Applications 3 (1). 74–104.Google Scholar
Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1923. The problem of meaning in primitive languages. Supplement to C. K. Ogden & A. I. Richards, The meaning of meaning, 296–336. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Marraffa, Massimo. N.d. Theory of Mind. In J. Fieser & B. Dowdy (eds.), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ISSN 2161-0002, [URL] (accessed 09.10.2017)
Maturana, Humberto R. 2002. Autopoiesis, structural coupling and cognition: A history of these and other notions in the biology of cognition. Cybernetics & Human Knowing 9 (3–4). 5–34.Google Scholar
(Available at [URL])
Maturana, Humberto R. & Francisco G. Varela. 1972. De máquinas y seres vivos. Autopoiesis: La organización de lo vivo. Santiago de Chile: Editorial Universitaria.Google Scholar
Mayo, Deborah G. 2005. Peircean induction and the error-correcting thesis. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society: A Quarterly Journal in American Philosophy 41 (2). 299–319.Google Scholar
Mead, George Herbert. 1934. In C. W. Morris (ed.), Mind, Self, and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Nikolić, Danko. 2015. Practopoiesis: Or how life fosters a mind. Journal of Theoretical Biology 373. 40–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paavola, Sami. 2005. Peircean abduction: instinct or inference? Semiotica 153–1/4):131–154.Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. [1992–1998] The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings. N. Houser & C. Kloesel (vol. 1: 1867–1893) and The Peirce Edition Project (vol. 2: 1893–1913). Bloomington, Ind: Indiana University Press.
Peirce, Charles S. 1893. Evolutionary Love. The Monist III (1). 176–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[1902]. MS 530Google Scholar
[1905]. Letters to Lady Welby, July 16, 1905.
[1906]. Letters to Lady Welby. MS [R] L463.
[1907]. MS 293.
[1908]. Letters to Lady Welby. MS 843.
Pietarinen, Ahti-Veikko. 2005. Cultivating habits of reason: Peirce and the logica utens versus logica docens distinction. History of Philosophy Quarterly 22 (4). 357–372.Google Scholar
. 2014. Logical and linguistic games from Peirce to Grice to Hintikka. Teorema 33 (2). 121–136.Google Scholar
Pietarinen, Ahti-Veikko & Francesco Bellucci. 2014. New Light on Peirce's Conceptions of Retroduction, Deduction, and Scientific Reasoning. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 28 (4). 353–373. (doi: DOI logo)Google Scholar
Psillos, Stathis. 2011. An explorer upon untrodden ground: Peirce on Abduction. In S. Hartmann & J. Woods (eds.), Handbook of the History of Logic Vol. 10: Inductive Logic, 117–151. Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reddy, Michael. 1978. The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 284–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1989. How performatives work. Linguistics and Philosophy 12. 535–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1990. Collective intentions and actions. In P. Cohen, J. Morgan & M. E. Pollack (eds.), Intentions in Communications, 401–415. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1995. The Construction of Social Reality. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
2009. What is language? Some preliminary results. Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics 11 (1). 173–202.Google Scholar
Sebeok, Thomas A. & Marcel Danesi. 2000. The Forms of Meaning: Modeling Systems Theory and Semiotic Analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Senft, Gunter. 2009. Phatic communion. In G. Senft, J.-O. Östman & J. Verschueren (eds.), Culture and Language Use, 226–233. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 2014. From speech with others to speech for self. A case study of “externalized drama”. In I. Arnon, M. Casillas, C. Kurumada & B. Estigarribia (eds.), Language in Interaction. Studies in honor of Eve V. Clark, 315–331. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Staat, Wim. 1993. On Abduction, Deduction, Induction and the Categories. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 29 (2). 225–237.Google Scholar
Stephens, William O. n.d. Stoic ethics. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 2161-0002, [URL]. (Accessed 14.07.2018).Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Nick J. Enfield, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymanna, Federico Rossano, Jan Peter de Ruiter, Kyung-Eun Yoon & Stephen C. Levinson, 2009. Universals and Cultural Variation in Turn-taking in Conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106 (26). 10587–10592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tarde, Gabriel. 1903[1890]. The Laws of Imitation. (Translated by E. C. Parsons with introduction by F. Giddings). New York: Henry, Holt and Co.Google Scholar
Thomsen, Ole N. 2006. Towards an integrated Functional-Pragmatic theory of language and language change. In commemoration of Eugenio Coseriu (1921–2002)”. In O. N. Thomsen (ed.), Competing models of linguistic change. Evolution and beyond [Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science 279], 307–337. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. From Talking Heads to Communicating Bodies: Cybersemiotics and total communication. Entropy 12 (3). 390–419. (doi: DOI logo)Google Scholar
2017. Walking together we create the road – Linguistic conventions and conventionalisation from a Peircean perspective. In D. Duncker & B. Perregaard (eds.), Creativity and continuity. Perspectives on the dynamics of language conventionalisation, 379–414. Copenhagen: Copenhagen University Press.Google Scholar
2019. Prolegomena to Cybersemiotic Discourse Pragmatics. Total Human Evolutionary Cognition and Communication. In C. Vidales & S. Brier (eds.), Cybersemiotics. An International Perspective. In prep.Google Scholar
Thomsen, Ole N. & Søren Brier. 2014. Total integrative evolutionary communication. Towards a Cybersemiotics Discourse Pragmatics. Public Journal of Semiotics 6 (1). 22–57.Google Scholar
Thrane, Torben. 2004. Hvorfor er sproget så svært at forstå når det er så let at forstå?” Tidsskrift for Sprogforskning 2 (2). 37–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. The Language Faculty – Mind or Brain? Tidsskrift for Sprogforskning 7 (1/5). 1–42.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael, Malinda Carpenter, Josep Call, Tanya Behne & Henrike Moll, H. 2005. Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (5). 675–691. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trevarthen, Colwyn. 2002. Making sense of infants making sense. Intellectica 34(1). 161–188.Google Scholar
von Uexküll, Jakob. 1909. Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere. Berlin: Julius Springer.Google Scholar
Walkden, George. 2011. Abduction or inertia? The logic of syntactic change. In C. Cummins, C. -H. Elder, T. Godard, M. Macleod, E. Schmidt & G. Walkden (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Cambridge Postgraduate Conference in Language Research, 230–239. Cambridge: Cambridge Institute of Language Research.Google Scholar
Weigand, Hans. 1990. Linguistically motivated principles of knowledge base systems [Functional Grammar Series 12], Dordrecht, Holland; Providence, R.I., USA: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Wenger-Trayner, Etienne & Beverly. 2015. Communities of practice – a brief introduction. [URL] (Jan 10, 2019)Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 2001 [1953]. Philosophical Investigations. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zeman, Jay. 1986. Peirce’s philosophy of Logic. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 22. 1–22.Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan. 2014. Human uniqueness, bodily mimesis and the evolution of language. Humana.Mente Journal of Philosophical Studies 2014 (27). 197–219.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Thomsen, Ole Nedergaard
2021. Prolegomena to Cybersemiotic Discourse Pragmatics. Total Human Evolutionary Cognition and Communication. In Introduction to Cybersemiotics: A Transdisciplinary Perspective [Biosemiotics, 21], ► pp. 479 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.