Re-Thinking the Place of Semiotics in Psychology... 121semiosis is the fundamental basis of cognition is doomed to failure, because it is a
conceptually flawed project.
Thus, a realist semiotics-psychology integration allows us, within the context of a large
area of cognitive science, to extricate the legitimate concerns of representation in the
information sciences from the incoherent epistemological representationism with which they
are too often conflated. This move converges with recent ―extended mind‖ approaches by
correctly shifting mainstream psychology‘s attention beyond the brain, to more fruitful
questions and genuine problems concerning information representation for (rather than in)
humans and other cognising organisms. One such question is what type of signifier-signified
relation is best suited to presenting particular kinds of information within particular kinds of
environment. This takes us directly to the third contribution.
Applying the Peircean Distinctions between Different Types of Sign (Viz.
Icon, Index and Symbol) to Solve Problems in Information
Representation Research
The coherent (externalist) conception of representation is that which deals with forms of
information representation that are accessible to the person for whom they are
representations. In the recent discussions of semiotics-psychology convergence, much is
made of the fact that we are moving increasingly into the age of information representation in
digital, electronic and other forms. We are surrounded not only by the signs and symbols of
the natural environment but also by the steadily expanding field of signs and symbols in so-
called "artificial" environments comprised, typically, of human-machine interfaces in
purpose-built operating systems. There are many challenges and problems facing the
designers of signals in artificial environments. For example, in the field of auditory warning
design (e.g., for computer workspaces, aircraft cockpits, hospital alert systems, automotive
safety, and equipment for users with disabilities), according to Edworthy (1994), the acoustic
and psychoacoustic problems are largely solved, but the psychological issues are proving to
be more difficult. For example, there is a common complaint that warning design research
success in the auditory domain lags frustratingly behind that in the visual domain. It is also
the case that research results concerning which types of signifier-signified relation are most
effective in the auditory domain are confusingly inconsistent. Here, again, a realist semiotics-
psychology integration can offer valuable contributions.^14
To sketch in the background to this area of research, in the field of auditory warning
design, auditory signals have been grouped into three basic categories: (a) speech, (b)
abstract sounds (e.g., simple tones or tone combinations), and (c) auditory icons (i.e.,
everyday environmental sounds which rely on already-made associations). In these systems,
the association between sound and its referent (the so-called signal-referent relation) has been
considered to be the pivotal factor in the success or otherwise of the selected warning signal.
Accordingly, over the last couple of decades, there is a large body of research in this area, in
which the standard method has been to construct various classification systems of signal-
referent relation strength, and then test predictions regarding ease of learning of different
levels of signal-referent relation strength across and within different types of auditory signal
(^14) The material that follows is given a more extended and thorough discussion in Petocz, Keller & Stevens (2008).