Language as Relational Technology: 5 Semiotic Potential and the Differentiation of Possibility

Thus far in the series, we have traced meaning from the relational actualisation of construal, through the stabilising work of system networks and histories of use, to semiotic experimentation that produces novelty. We now elevate the discussion to a broader conceptual plane: the evolution of possibility itself.

Possibility as Relationally Emergent

Semiotic potential is not a pre-packaged set of meanings in some mind; it is the space of possible distinctions and configurations that exists relationally. Each act of instantiation navigates and shapes this space. Over repeated interactions, certain regions become more probable, others recede, and new possibilities emerge. The evolution of what can be said, done, or interpreted is thus an emergent property of relational semiotic interactions.

Differentiation Without Intention

Crucially, this differentiation does not require interior intention or pre-linguistic thought. Change arises from:

• repeated instantiation across varied situations,

• probabilistic weighting within the system network,

• sedimentation and innovation over histories of use.

The ‘shape’ of semiotic potential is sculpted by the interaction of system, situation, and prior patterns, not by cognitive design.

Mapping the Evolution of Meaning

One can visualise this process as a dynamic landscape:

• high-probability regions of the system form stable valleys where distinctions are readily actualised,

• low-probability regions are hills, rarely traversed, but always open to exploration,

• sedimentation deepens familiar pathways, while experimentation creates new valleys and alters the contours.

This metaphor underscores that the differentiation of possibility is both structured and open, emergent from relational constraints and opportunities rather than pre-formed intentions.

Linking to the Broader Project

This post explicitly situates the series within the overarching goals of the blog: to reconceive meaning as relational, systemic, and historically situated, and to trace how semiotic potential evolves without resorting to interiorist explanations. Readers can now see a continuum:

1. Construal actualises meaning relationally.

2. System networks stabilise coordination.

3. Histories of use embed semiotic patterns over time.

4. Semiotic experimentation introduces novelty.

5. The landscape of possibility differentiates itself relationally, giving rise to the evolution of language and meaning.