Biosemiotics
Semiotics |
---|
General concepts |
Fields |
Methods |
|
Semioticians |
|
Related topics |
Biosemiotics (from the Greek βίος bios, "life" and σημειωτικός sēmeiōtikos, "observant of signs") is a field of semiotics and biology that studies the prelinguistic meaning-making, biological interpretation processes, production of signs and codes and communication processes in the biological realm.[1]
Biosemiotics integrates the findings of biology and semiotics and proposes a paradigmatic shift in the scientific view of life, in which semiosis (sign process, including meaning and interpretation) is one of its immanent and intrinsic features.[2] The term biosemiotic was first used by Friedrich S. Rothschild in 1962,[3] but Thomas Sebeok, Thure von Uexküll, Jesper Hoffmeyer and many others have implemented the term and field.[4] The field is generally divided between theoretical and applied biosemiotics.
Insights from biosemiotics have also been adopted in the
Definition
Biosemiotics is the study of meaning making processes in the living realm, or, to elaborate, a study of
- signification, communication and habit formation of living processes
- semiosis (creating and changing sign relations) in living nature
- the biological basis of all signs and sign interpretation
- interpretative processes, codes and cognition in organisms
Main branches
According to the basic types of semiosis under study, biosemiotics can be divided into
- vegetative semiotics (also endosemiotics, or phytosemiotics),[8] the study of semiosis at the cellular and molecular level (including the translation processes related to genome and the organic form or phenotype);[9] vegetative semiosis occurs in all organisms at their cellular and tissue level; vegetative semiotics includes prokaryote semiotics, sign-mediated interactions in bacteria communities such as quorum sensing and quorum quenching.
- anthroposemiotics, the study of semiotic behavior in humans.
According to the dominant aspect of semiosis under study, the following labels have been used: biopragmatics, biosemantics, and biosyntactics.
History
Apart from
In the 1980s a circle of mathematicians active in Theoretical Biology,
The contemporary period (as initiated by
In 2001, an annual international conference for biosemiotic research known as the Gatherings in Biosemiotics[18] was inaugurated, and has taken place every year since.
In 2004, a group of biosemioticians –
The International Society for Biosemiotic Studies was established in 2005 by Donald Favareau and the five editors listed above.[19] A collective programmatic paper on the basic theses of biosemiotics appeared in 2009.[20] and in 2010, an 800 page textbook and anthology, Essential Readings in Biosemiotics, was published, with bibliographies and commentary by Donald Favareau.[1]
One of roots for biosemiotics has been medical semiotics. In 2016, Springer published Biosemiotic Medicine: Healing in the World of Meaning, edited by Farzad Goli as part of Studies in Neuroscience, Consciousness and Spirituality.[21]
In the humanities
Since the work of Jakob von Uexküll and Martin Heidegger, several scholars in the humanities have engaged with or appropriated ideas from biosemiotics in their own projects; conversely, biosemioticians have critically engaged with or reformulated humanistic theories using ideas from biosemiotics and complexity theory. For instance, Andreas Weber has reformulated some of Hans Jonas's ideas using concepts from biosemiotics,[22] and biosemiotics have been used to interpret the poetry of John Burnside.[23]
In 2021, the American philosopher Jason Josephson Storm has drawn on biosemiotics and empirical research on animal communication to propose hylosemiotics, a theory of ontology and communication that Storm believes could allow the humanities to move beyond the linguistic turn.[24]
John Deely's work also represents an engagement between humanistic and biosemiotic approaches. Deely was trained as a historian and not a biologist but discussed biosemiotics and zoosemiotics extensively in his introductory works on semiotics and clarified terms that are relevant for biosemiotics.[25] Although his idea of physiosemiotics was criticized by practicing biosemioticians, Paul Cobley, Donald Favareau, and Kalevi Kull wrote that "the debates on this conceptual point between Deely and the biosemiotics community were always civil and marked by a mutual admiration for the contributions of the other towards the advancement of our understanding of sign relations."[26]
See also
References
- ^ a b Favareau, Donald (ed.) 2010. Essential Readings in Biosemiotics: Anthology and Commentary. (Biosemiotics 3.) Berlin: Springer.
- JSTOR 1771352. Retrieved 11 May 2021.
'Biosemiotics.' This discipline focuses on the manifold possible connections between biology and semiotics, such as studying biological processes from a semiotic perspective and communication from a biological perspective, or searching for a way to theorize biological phenomena (Laubichler 'Introduction').
- ^ On the early use of the term, see: Kull, Kalevi 2022. The term ‘Biosemiotik’ in the 19th century. Sign Systems Studies 50(1): 173–178.
- ^ Kull, Kalevi 1999. Biosemiotics in the twentieth century: A view from biology. Semiotica 127(1/4): 385–414.
- S2CID 49478848. Retrieved 2022-01-05.
- .
- S2CID 202953465.
- ^ Witzany, G. 2006. Plant Communication from Biosemiotic Perspective. Plant Signaling & Behavior 1(4): 169-178.
- ^ Kull, Kalevi 2000. An introduction to phytosemiotics: Semiotic botany and vegetative sign systems. Sign Systems Studies 28: 326–350.
- ^ Maran, Timo; Martinelli, Dario; Turovski, Aleksei (eds.), 2011. Readings in Zoosemiotics. (Semiotics, Communication and Cognition 8.). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
- ^ Kull, Kalevi 2014. Zoosemiotics is the study of animal forms of knowing. Semiotica 198: 47–60.
- ^ Favareau, D. (ed.) (2010). Essential Readings in Biosemiotics: Anthology and Commentary. Berlin: Springer.
- ^ Kergosien, Y. (1985) Sémiotique de la Nature, IVe séminaire de l'Ecole d'automne de Biologie Théorique (Solignac, juin 1984), G. BENCHETRIT éd., C.N.R.S.
- ^ Kergosien, Y. (1992) Nature Semiotics : The Icons of Nature. Biosemiotics : The Semiotic Web 1991, T. Sebeok et J. Umiker -Sebeok (eds), Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 145-170
- ^ Thom, R., (1989) Semio physics: a sketch. Redwood City, Calif. : Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
- ^ Rosen, R. (1985) Anticipatory systems, Pergamon Press
- ^ See an account of recent history in: Petrilli, Susan (2011). Expression and Interpretation in Language. Transaction Publishers, pp. 85–92.
- ^ Rattasepp, Silver; Bennett, Tyler (eds.) 2012. Gatherings in Biosemiotics. (Tartu Semiotics Library 11.) Tartu: University of Tartu Press.
- ^ Favareau, Donald 2005. Founding a world biosemiotics institution: The International Society for Biosemiotic Studies. Sign Systems Studies 33(2): 481–485.
- Biological Theory4(2): 167–173,
- ISBN 978-3-319-35092-9.
- S2CID 54020391.
- S2CID 171037754. Retrieved 2022-01-05.
- ISBN 978-0-226-78665-0.
- S2CID 41549373.
- S2CID 41549373.
Bibliography
- Alexander, V. N. (2011). The Biologist's Mistress: Rethinking Self-Organization in Art, Literature and Nature. Litchfield Park AZ: Emergent Publications.
- Barbieri, Marcello (ed.) (2008). The Codes of Life: The Rules of Macroevolution. Berlin: Springer.
- Emmeche, Claus; Kull, Kalevi (eds.) (2011). Towards a Semiotic Biology: Life is the Action of Signs. London: Imperial College Press.[1]
- Emmeche, Claus; Kalevi Kull and Frederik Stjernfelt. (2002): Reading Hoffmeyer, Rethinking Biology. (Tartu Semiotics Library 3). Tartu: Tartu University Press.[2]
- Favareau, D. (ed.) (2010). Essential Readings in Biosemiotics: Anthology and Commentary. Berlin: Springer.
- Favareau, D. (2006). The evolutionary history of biosemiotics. In "Introduction to Biosemiotics: The New Biological Synthesis." Marcello Barbieri (Ed.) Berlin: Springer. pp 1–67.
- Hoffmeyer, Jesper. (1996): Signs of Meaning in the Universe. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. (special issue of Semiotica vol. 120 (no.3-4), 1998, includes 13 reviews of the book and a rejoinder by the author).
- Hoffmeyer, Jesper (2008). Biosemiotics: An Examination into the Signs of Life and the Life of Signs. Scranton: University of Scranton Press.
- Hoffmeyer, Jesper (ed.)(2008). A Legacy for Living Systems: Gregory Bateson as a Precursor to Biosemiotics. Berlin: Springer.
- Hoffmeyer Jesper; Kull, Kalevi (2003): Baldwin and Biosemiotics: What Intelligence Is For. In: Bruce H. Weber and David J. Depew (eds.), Evolution and Learning - The Baldwin Effect Reconsidered'. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
- Kull, Kalevi, eds. (2001). Jakob von Uexküll: A Paradigm for Biology and Semiotics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. [ = Semiotica vol. 134 (no.1-4)].
- Rothschild, Friedrich S.(2000). Creation and Evolution: A Biosemiotic Approach. Edison, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
- Sebeok, Thomas A.; Umiker-Sebeok, Jean (eds.) (1992): Biosemiotics. The Semiotic Web 1991. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
- Sebeok, Thomas A.; Hoffmeyer, Jesper; Emmeche, Claus (eds.) (1999). Biosemiotica. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. [ = Semiotica vol. 127 (no.1-4)].
- Tønnessen, Morten; Maran, Timo; Sharov, Alexei (2018). "Phenomenology and Biosemiotics". Biosemiotics. 11 (3): 323–330. S2CID 54020391.
External links
- International Society for Biosemiotics Studies, (older version)
- New Scientist article on Biosemiotics
- The Biosemiotics website by Alexei Sharov
- Biosemiotics, introduction (Archive.org archived version)
- Overview of Gatherings in Biosemiotics
- The S.E.E.D. Journal (Semiotics, Evolution, Energy, and Development) Archived 2013-02-25 at the Wayback Machine
- Jakob von Uexküll Centre
- Zoosemiotics Home Page