K O D I K A S / C O D E 44 (2021) · No. 1 - 3 Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen An infinite chain of signs Anna-Viktoria Eschbach From my earliest memories of my father, Prof. Dr. Achim Eschbach, Charles Sanders Peirce, Karl Bühler, Charles W. Morris, or Ferdinand de Saussure appeared in the stream of even everyday conversation. He discussed triadic sign relations at the breakfast table, and on the way to the bakery, he analyzed the manifestations of what he called the fundamental semiotization of the environment. No walk in the woods or expedition to a swimming lake in summer was free of semiotic insights. People think, speak, and act in signs. The human condition is to make sense of every process, and so, the “ chain of signs ” is nothing more than a synonym for mental activity viewed from a phenomenological perspective. But I would go one step further and say that for Achim Eschbach the meaningful interpretation of sign systems was his sine qua non; he lived and breathed semiotics. As a scholar, in addition to his original contributions to semiotic discourse, he saw his central task as identifying proto-traces of semiotics laid out by many thinkers in philosophy and other disciplines that could advance the theoretical development of semiotic science. He invested much energy in researching 19th and 20th-century thinkers to recover connections and insights largely ignored in contemporary semiotic discourse. Bernhard of Chartres ’ attribution nanos gigantum humeris insidentes - on the shoulders of giants - underscored his understanding of intellectual progress. For him, there was no fundamental difference between dialogue with his contemporaries and with predecessors such as Charles Morris or Charles S. Peirce. Perhaps his most important contribution in this regard was the role he played in reviving the international reputation of the Viennese psychologist Karl Bühler. With the help of the Bühler family and an international team of researchers, he reassembled the Bühler Archive. This collection was initially housed at the University of Essen and is today in Marbach and Vienna. This memorial volume contains a selection of Achim Eschbach ’ s semiotic writings, which are intended to provide insight into the development of his semiotic universe and to highlight certain leitmotifs in his understanding of semiotics. Peirce ’ s triadic model - where a representamen, the (not necessarily physical) form of the sign; an interpretant, the sense produced by the sign in the mind of the observer (this can be another sign); and an object, that to which the sign refers - underlies all acts of mediation and interpretation. Indeed, the triadic model identifies the conditions of sign constitution. Eschbach followed an immaterial understanding of the sign and process of interpretation and wanted to clearly distinguish himself from the dualistic, materialistic conception of the sign that is broadly accepted in communication theory. He follows the rebuttal of the “ Stoffdenkern ” (material thinkers) or “ Stoffentgleisung ” (material fallacy), the term coined by Karl Bühler for the attempt to infer a mind from a matter, or the erroneous endeavor to attribute material functions and fields to language that arises from a material understanding of signs. The triadic model also underpinned the “ Essen orientation ” in communication science. Communicative processes were analyzed and described as sign-mediated interactions where material and immaterial processes and performances are relevant to the explanation. This characteristic sets it apart from simplistic information and media theories that came to dominate media studies in Germany and the accompanying monoperspectival investigation of material, analogical conclusions. As well as the danger of an under-complex understanding of signs, Eschbach speaks at one point - mainly regarding formulations by Charles S. Peirce - of the danger in the attempt to declare the scientific research process completed at any point. However, continuous discussion within the research community is necessary for achieving an “ increase in concrete reasonableness ” within this process. In other words: following Peirce ’ s semiotics, if one assumes that all perception and cognition are to be characterized as a process of permanent sign interpretation, then such a position concerning the research process entails the realization that the promulgation of finally valid scientific truths must inevitably lead to intellectual stagnation and scientific impotence. This position has several consequences. Regarding the discussion of Peirce ’ s semiotics, it follows that the “ final interpreter ” of which Peirce speaks is to be regarded as a regulative ideal, not as a goal attainable within any research process, however limited. This is precisely the view Eschbach repeatedly takes in the texts reprinted here. For the practical procedure of the researcher, one of the questions that arise against this background is in what way he or she can contribute to this research process as effectively as possible and what kind of arguments he or she should use in this process. Already in his inaugural lecture in Essen, “ Ex occidente lux, ” one came to trace Bühler ’ s influence, even though he is mentioned by name only once in passing; the discussion there of various approaches to the “ reconstruction of ancient European writing, ” however, it is based essentially on the axiomatics of critical semiotics developed in conversation with Bühler. In his ‘ 84 axiomatic text, he still quoted Bühler ’ s discussion of “ taking up successful research ideas ” approvingly; the development of his argumentation shows the practical benefit resulting from the linking and continuation of Bühler ’ s approach. Two central texts that grew out of his Bühler research are intended to pay tribute to his efforts to rehabilitate Karl Bühler. Among the most extensive and essential texts in this book is the essay “ Karl Bühler ’ s Axiomatics and the Axiom System of Sign Theory. ” In the first part of this text, Eschbach examines Bühler ’ s notion of axiom in-depth, discussing it against the background of numerous other notions of axiom and relating it to the use of this notion by some other authors (Haig, Peirce, Gomperz, Gätschenberger). In the second part, he goes far beyond this historical-historiographical consideration and, following Bühler ’ s approach in his “ Axiomatics of Linguistics, ” outlines his axiomatics of critical semiotics. For those who wish to delve deeper into Karl Bühler ’ s writings, “ Karl Bühlers Sprachtheorie ” (1984), “ Karl Bühler Sprache und Denken ” (2014), and the two volumes of “ Bühler Studien ” (1984) published by Suhrkamp, are the best introductory works. Eschbach ’ s work on the future of semiotics gave rise to two conclusions: 4 Anna-Viktoria Eschbach First, a scientific discussion should be guided by its respective subject matter, and this also means as concrete a claim as possible, for which the “ small form ” of the scientific essay seems best suited. Secondly, as many researchers as possible should be included in a topic ’ s discussion. Inclusivity should not be confined to contemporary authors; instead, this demand must be understood so that the arguments of older and sometimes hardly known authors should be presented in discussing concrete problems. It seems that his constant efforts to find “ semiotic classics ” should be understood from this point of view, for, as a glance at the list of publications printed at the end of the book shows, he has devoted a considerable part of his efforts to rediscovering texts. For the practical consequences resulting from the interplay of the two aspects mentioned, the name of Otto Neurath may be cited as an example whom Eschbach used as a testing ground with his visual language “ Isotype ” throughout his writings. As someone for whom teaching has been an essential driver of his research activity, it is unsurprising that he also designed volumes decidedly for a new generation of semioticians as an entry point. For example, the volume “ Bausteine der Kommunikationswissenschaft ” (Building Blocks of Communication Studies) is a compilation of the source streams of communication studies, focusing on the striking characteristic of communication studies that no mono perspectival discussion is possible, but an interdisciplinary interaction is needed. It was precisely for this expansion of the readership that he also had in mind when he made the American founder of the “ iconic turn, ” W. J. T. Mitchell, one of the most critical voices in today ’ s discussion about the nature and function of images, accessible to a German audience through the translation of the anthology “ What do pictures want ” published by Beck Verlag. The idea of making accessible was also a driving force behind the founding of Kodikas/ Code 1979, which he continued together with Ernest Hess-Lüttich and Jürgen Trabant to promote multidisciplinary approaches to the study of sociocultural semiosis, and since 2009 of the online review journal rezensionen: kommunikation: medien (r: k: m), which was created in collaboration with Horst Pöttker. To quote Jürgen Trabant in his obituary of my father in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: “ Everyone in cultural studies knew what an icon, an index, a symbol is, what pragmatics, syntax and semantics, signifier and signified are, and thanks to Achim Eschbach also knows the dimensions of Bühler ’ s Organon model. ” To all those who had the privilege of listening to him in person as he delved into his remarks on semiotics, the history of science, and philosophy during his lifetime, I invite readers of this volume to continue the discussion with him. For all those approaching his work here for the first Scheme of the Organon model by Karl Bühler An infinite chain of signs 5 time, we have translated his writings from German into English to expand the circles his work will draw. 1 It will give Prof. Dr. Achim Eschbach particular pleasure to continue expanding the chain of readers in his research area. 1 For this volume, the texts were translated from the original German into English. The original bibliographical and other references were retained in the translation and not edited. 6 Anna-Viktoria Eschbach