![Sample our Communication Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, 2013 & 2014 volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5927/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Information-Science2.jpg"})
Notes
1. For a discussion of the commens and its significance for Peirce’s phenomenological semeiotic, see Robinson (Citation2015, 97, 196–97, Citation2016, 99). Marais (2018, 35–36, 50–52) offers extensive critiques of both these books, suggesting that he must have known about the commens. That he not only neglects to mention either that Peircean theory or my argument from Bergman (Citation2009, 108–16), but also misreads me to be in agreement with Gorlée and Hartama-Heinonen on the reduction of all semiosis to abduction and other key matters, when in fact both books are extended radical critiques of Gorlée and Hartama-Heinonen, suggests that Marais was determined to stick to his ‘reality’ reading of the Ransdellian mystical construction of Peirce, and so couldn’t afford to take seriously Peirce’s commens-based constructivist/idealist phenomenology.
2. Also sidelined is the realm of translationality/transformationality explored in Blumczynski (Citation2016), that is directly and indeed overwhelmingly relevant to every point Marais makes about translational ‘intering.’