Abstract
Because the figure of Thomas A. Sebeok looms so large throughout this volume, cited far more here than any other thinker (except, perhaps, Charles Darwin), and because the story of his founding of the contemporary interdiscipline of biosemiotics is recounted in some detail in the introductory overview of biosemiotics that is Chapter one of this volume, we will limit the comments that appear in this reading selection preface to just the barest biographical sketch, so as to allow the reader the pleasure of reading Sebeok’s own account of the founding of the “biosemiotics” project in his own words in the following selection.
Thomas A. Sebeok (1920–2001)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Recalls Sebeok: “By 1962, I had edged my way into animal communication studies. Two years after that, I first whiffled through what Gavin Ewart evocatively called ‘the tulgey wood of semiotics’” (Sebeok 1986a: ix).
- 2.
For the contrast between Y. M. Lotman’s anthropological usage and V. I. Vernadsky’s global usage, see Sebeok (2000).
- 3.
For this important distinction – which is particularly pertinent to biosemiotics – between “domain” and “field”, see Csikszentmihalyi (1996).
- 4.
Ironically, Klopfer and Hailman wrote of his earliest classic work, the Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere (1921 [1909]), that this has “had relatively little effect on animal behavior studies compared with the great originality of its content” (1967: 126). One reason for this seems to have been that it was far ahead of its time; or, in Csikszentmihalyi’s parlance, that there was no field competent in the domain to take control over it: “There are several ways that domains and fields can affect each other. Sometimes domains determine to a large extent what the field can or cannot do … No matter how much a group of scientists would like their pet theory accepted, it won’t be if it runs against the previously accumulated consensus” (1996: 44).
- 5.
That research was in large part conducted at the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study, where I was a Fellow during 1973–1974.
- 6.
See again Csikszentmihalyi (1996). Note my continued emphasis on the availability of a responsive field, which was by no means at hand in 1934, when Bühler first recognized the semiotic character of the Umweltlehre, “welcher von vornherein in seiner Grundbegriffen Merkzeichen und Wirkzeichen sematologisch orientiert ist” (1965 [1934]: 27).
- 7.
Those attending the Glottertal conferences one or more times included, besides many Germans, Swiss, Danes (e.g., Hoffmeyer), Estonians (e.g., Kull), and myself from overseas. A prominent German semiotician whom I remember being there on each occasion was Martin Krampen, who substantiated phytosemiotics, i.e., the semiotics of plants, putting this then novel domain on an equal footing with other recognized branches of biosemiotics (1981: 187; see discussion above). A large wind-up gathering in this series was organized in the nineties by Hoffmeyer; this took place in Denmark, with an expanded attendance on the part of Scandinavian semioticians as well as natural scientists. More recent locations for biosemiotics get-togethers (enumerating here only those which I myself was asked to participate in, several repeatedly) were scheduled in Berkeley, Denver, Dresden, Gaithersburg, Imatra, Guadalajara, Kassel, Las Cruces, São Paulo, Tartu, and Toronto.
- 8.
At the risk of being overcome by terminological surfeit ( or vertigo), I can offer the following non-exhaustive rundown – with a basic reference or two – of the currently labeled component branches of biosemiotics that I am aware of: protosemiotics (“the basic feature of the whole biological organization [protein synthesis, metabolism, hormone activity, transmission of nervous impulses, and so on]”, cf. Prodi in Sercarz et al. 1988: 55); microsemiotics (in prokaryotes, cf. Sonea 1988, 1990, 1995); cytosemiotics (in cells, renamed microsemiotics by Yates 1997); endosemiotics (in the milieu intérieur, T. von Uexküll et al. 1993); phytosemiotics (plants, cf. Krampen 1981, 1997); zoosemiotics (speechless animals, cf. Sebeok 1972, 1990); mycosemiosis (fungi, Kraepelin 1997); and cybersemiotics (cf. Sebeok 1997: 116; androids, robotics, cyborgs, sensor and muscle augmentation, prostheses [eye-glasses, hearing aids, dentures, artificial limbs, mirrors, etc., cf. Eco 1986: 220–222]). Anthroposemiotics (speechifying animals) is usually excluded. Exosemiotics has been used in two different senses: as the opposite of endosemiotics, or in passing reference to the sign behavior of putative extraterrestrial creatures.
- 9.
A lengthy, illustrated memorial essay of mine, “The Swiss pioneer in nonverbal communication studies: Heini Hediger [1908–1992]” (Sebeok 2001), was prepared for delivery at a conference on “Semiotics and the Communication Sciences”, University of Lugano, Switzerland, May 2–4, 2001. The written version is to appear in a volume of transactions being edited by Peter Schulz.
- 10.
A reminder: one of the central components of creativity is the field, “which includes all the individuals who act as gatekeepers to the domain. It is their job to decide whether a new idea or product should be included in the domain”. Publishers and journal editors figure prominently among the “field of experts” who recognize and validate innovation, as are academic administrators, officers of public and private sources of financial support, or, to put it briefly, persons with control over access to critical resources (cf. Csikszentmihalyi 1996: 28, 6).
- 11.
Tomio Tada’s definition of immunosemiotics is: “the study of the general principles underlying the structure of sign systems perceived by different cells of the immune machinery”, according to which “restrictions in partner cell interactions must exist as part of an intercellular semiotic system” (Sercarz et al. 1988: vii).
- 12.
Two among these subjects were my former teachers. To gain a still more rounded historical perspective of this cardinal domain of learning, we hope to arrange for similar probes of writings by other such respected figures, for instance, Susanne Langer.
- 13.
For glimpses of the relation of semiotics and biosemiotics, see T. von Uexküll (1998: 2189–2190).
- 14.
There is no evidence that these three masters of the sign were aware of one another.
The meandering, diffuse arguments at last June’s (1999) twin Uexküll-related meetings (Tartu, Imatra) over matters of basic terminology underline these points. There were sharp debates about the meaning even of such a pivotal term as Umwelt and its correct rendering into English, ranging from such approximations as “perceptual universe”, “selfworld”, or “phenomenal world”, to such absurdities as “environment” (but see Immelman and Beer 1989: 88) or “niche”. Despite the fact that the closest English equivalent is manifestly “model”, the only palpable group consensus reached was the unhelpful surrender, that the German word should be retained in English. Nevertheless, seemingly recondite concerns about technical vocabulary, leading toward a standardized symbol system, tend to reinforce the unity of a field like biosemiotics.
- 15.
On nitric oxide, that “pantheon of messenger molecules”, and so-called “hedgehog genes”, cf. Sebeok (1997: 120, footnote 13).
References
Baer, E. (1988). Medical Semiotics. London: University Press of America.
Bleibtreu, J. N. (1968). The Parable of the Beast: An Exploration of the Frontiers of Biological Knowledge. London: Gollancz.
Borbé, T. (1978). Semiotik IlL Zeichentypologie. München: Wilhelm Fink.
Cassirer, E. (1944). An Essay on Man: An Introduction to a Philosophy of Human Culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Cobley, P. (Ed.) (2001). Routledge Companion to Semiotics and Linguistics. London: Routledge.
Craik, K. J. W. (1943). The Nature of Explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crookshank, F. G. (1938). The importance of a theory of signs and a critique of language in the study of medicine. In: Ogden, C. K., Richards, I. A. (Eds.) The Meaning of Meaning. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., pp. 337–355.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: The Flow and Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: HarperCollins.
Dyer, F. C., Brockman, H. J. (1996). Sensory processes, orientation, and communication: Biology of the Umwelt. In: Houck, L. D., Drickamer, L. C. (Eds.) Foundations of Animal Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 529–538.
Eco, U. (1975). Trattato di semiotica generale. Milano: Bompiani.
Eco, U. (1986). Mirrors. In: Bouissac, P., Herzfeld, M., Posner, R. (Eds.) Iconicity: Essays on the Nature of Culture: Festschrift for Thomas A. Sebeok on His 65th Birthday. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, pp. 215–237.
Eco, U. (1988). Una sfida al mito delle due culture. Saecularia Nona 2 (January-February) Bologna.
Figge, U. L. (2001). Jakob von Uexküll: ‘Merkmale’ und ‘Wirkmale’ (in this issue).
Ginzburg, C. (1983). Clues: Morelli, Freud, and Sherlock Holmes. In: Eco, U., Sebeok, T. A. (Eds.) The Sign of Three. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 81–118.
Greimas, A. J., Courtes, J. (1979). Semiotics and Language: An Analytical Dictionary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Hall, E. T. (1968). Proxemics. Current Anthropology 9, 83–108.
Hediger, H. (1974). Communication between man and animal. Image Roche 62, 27–40.
Hediger, H. (1980). Tiere verstehen: Erkenntnisse eines Tierpsychologen. München: Kindler.
Hediger, H. (1985). A lifelong attempt to understand animals. In: Dewsbury, D. A. (Ed.) Leaders in the Study of Animal Behavior: Autobiographical Perspectives. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press.
Hoffmeyer, J. (1993). Signs of Meaning. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Hoffmeyer, J. (1998). Biosemiotics. In: Bouissac, P. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Semiotics. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 82–85.
Hoffmeyer, J., Emmeche, C. (1991). Code-duality and the semiotics of nature. In: Anderson, M., Merrell, F. (Eds.) On Semiotic Modeling. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 117–166.
Hoffmeyer, J., Emmeche, C. (Eds.) (1999). Biosemiotica Semiotica 127. [Special issue.]
Immelman, K., Beer, C. (1989). A Dictionary of Ethology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jacob, F. (1974). The Logic of Living Systems: A History of Heredity. London: Allen Lane.
Kergosien, Y. L. (1992). Nature semiotics: The icons of nature. In: Sebeok, T. A., Umiker-Sebeok, J. (Eds.) Biosemiotics, pp. 145–170.
Kleinpaul, R. (1972). Sprache ohne Worte, second edition. The Hague: Mouton.
Kraepelin, G. (1997). Mycosemiosis. In: Posner, R., Robering, K., Sebeok, T. A. (Eds.) Semiotics: A Handbook on the Sign-Theoretic Foundations of Nature and Culture, vol. 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 488–507.
Krampen, M. (1981). Phytosemiotics. Semiotica 36 (3/4), 187–209.
Krampen, M. (1997). Phytosemiosis. In Posner, R., Robering, K., Sebeok, T. A. (Eds.) Semiotics: A Handbook on the Sign-Theoretic Foundations of Nature and Culture, vol. 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 507–522.
Langholf, V. (1990). Medical Theories in Hippocrates. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Lorenz, K. (1971). Studies in Animal and Human Behaviour, vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg Galaxy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Mead, G. H. (1936). Movements of Thought in the Nineteenth Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Merrell, F. (1996). Signs Grow: Semiosis and Life Processes. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Nöth, W. (1990). Handbook of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Ogden, C. K., Richards, I. A. (1938). The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language Upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism, fifth edition. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Petrilli, S. (1999). About and Beyond Peirce. Semiotica 124 (3/4), 299–376.
Posner, R., Robering, K., Sebeok, T. A. (Eds.) (1997–2002). Semiotics: A Handbook on the Sign-Theoretic Foundations of Nature and Culture, vols. 1 and 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Prodi, G. (1977). Le basi materiali della signijicazione. Milano: Bompiani.
Prodi, G. (1988a). Material bases of signification. Semiotica 69 (3/4), 191–241.
Prodi, G. (1988b). La biologia come semiotica naturale. In: Herzfeld, M., Melazzo, L. (Eds.) Semiotic Theory and Practice, vol. 2, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 929–951.
Prodi, G. (1988c). Teoria e metodo in biologia e medicina. Bologna: CLUEB.
Sebeok, T. A. (1972). Perspectives in Zoosemiotics. The Hague: Mouton.
Sebeok, T. A. (1979). Theorie und Geschichte der Semiotik. Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch.
Sebeok, T. A. (1985 [1976]). Contributions to the Doctrine of Signs. London: University Press of America.
Sebeok, T. A. (1988). ‘Animal’ in biological and semiotic perspective. In: Ingold, T. (ed.) What Is An Animal? London: Unwin Hyman, pp. 63–76.
Sebeok, T. A. (1989 [1979]). The Sign & Its Masters. London: University Press of America.
Sebeok, T. A. (1990). Essays in Zoosemiotics. Toronto: Toronto Semiotic Circle.
Sebeok, T. A. (1991). Semiotics in the United States. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Sebeok, T. A. (1996). Galen in medical semiotics. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis I, 89–111.
Sebeok, T. A. (1997). Global semiotics. In: Rauch, I., Carr, G. F. (Eds.) Semiotics Around the World: Synthesis in Diversity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 105–130.
Sebeok, T. A. (1998a). Come comunicano gli animali che non parlano. Bari: Edizioni del Sud.
Sebeok, T. A. (1998b). The Estonian connection. Sign Systems Studies 26, 20–38.
Sebeok, T. A. (2000). The music of the spheres. Semiotica 128 (3/4), 527–535.
Sebeok, T. A. (2001). The Swiss Pioneer in Nonverbal Communication Stuides: Heini Hediger [1908–1992]. Ottawa: Legas.
Sebeok, T. A., Rosenthal, R. (Eds.) (1981). The Clever Hans Phenomenon: Communication with Horses, Whales, Apes, and People (=Annals 364). New York: The New York Academy of Sciences.
Sebeok, T. A., Umiker-Sebeok, J. (Eds.) (1992). Biosemiotics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sercarz, E. L. et al. (Eds.) (1988). The Semiotics of Cellular Communication in the Immune System. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
Short, T. L. (1998). What’s the use? Semiotica 122 (1/2), 1–68.
Sonea, S. (1988). The global organism: A new view of bacteria. The Sciences 28 (4), 38–45.
Sonea, S. (1990). Bacterial (prokaryotic) communication. In: Sebeok, T. A., Umiker-Sebeok, J. (Eds.) The Semiotic Web 1989, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 639–662.
Sonea, S. (1995). Oui, les bactérie communiquent! Débats Sémiotiques 1 (1), 24–37.
Sonea, S., Panisset, M. (1983). A New Bacteriology. Boston: Jones and Bartlett.
Thom, R. (1975). Structural Stability and Morphogenesis. Reading: W. A. Benjamin.
Thomson, T. A. (1927). Review of J. von Uexküll, Theoretical Biology. Journal of Philosophical Studies 2 (7), 413–419.
Uexküll, J. von (1973 [1920, 1928]). Theoretische Biologie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. [English trans. by D. L. Mackinnon, Theoretical Biology. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1926].
Uexküll, J. von (1982). The Theory of Meaning. In: von Uexküll, T. (Ed.) Semiotica 42 (1), 1–87.
Uexküll, J. von (1992). A Stroll Through the Worlds of Animal and Men. In: von Uexküll, T. (Ed.) Semiotica 89 (4), 273–391.
Uexküll, T. von (1982). Semiotics and medicine. Semiotica 38 (3/4), 205–215.
Uexküll, T. von (1986). Medicine and semiotics. Semiotica 61 (3/4), 201–217.
Uexküll, T. von (1987). The sign theory of Jakob von Uexküll. In: Krampen, M. et al. (eds.) Classics of Semiotics, 147–179. London: Plenum Press.
Uexküll, T. von (1990). Introduction to Models and Methods in Biosemiotics. Unpublished Manuscript.
Uexküll, T. von (1991). Die Bedeutung der Biosemotik für die Medizin. Münchener medizinische Wochenschrift 133 (41), 601–602.
Uexküll, T. von (1992). Varieties of semiosis. In: Sebeok, T. A., Umiker-Sebeok, J. (Eds.) Biosemiotics: The Semiotic Web 1991, 455–470.
Uexküll, T. von (1997). Biosemiose. In: Posner, R., Robering, K., Sebeok, T. A. (Eds.) Semiotics: A Handbook on the Sign-Theoretic Foundations of Nature and Culture, vol. 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 447–457.
Uexküll, T. von (1998). Jakob von Uexküll’s Umweltlehre. In: Posner, R., Robering, K., Sebeok, T. A. (Eds.) vol. 2, 2183–2191.
Uexküll, T. von, Geigges, W., Herrman, J. M. (1993). Endosemiotics. Semiotica 96 (1/2), 5–51.
van der Vijver, G. et al. (Eds.) (1998). Evolutionary Systems: Biological and Epistemological Perspectives on Selection and Self-Organization. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Whitley, R. (1984). The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Yates, F. E. (1985). Semiotics as bridge between information (biology) and dynamics (physics). Recherches Sémiotiques/Semiotic Inquiry 5, 347–360.
Yates, F. E. (1997). Microsemiosis. In: Posner, R., Robering, K., Sebeok, T. A. (Eds.) Semiotics: A Handbook on the Sign-Theoretic Foundations of Nature and Culture, vol. 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 457–464.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Favareau, D. (2009). Biosemiotics: Its Roots, Proliferation and Prospects. In: Essential Readings in Biosemiotics. Biosemiotics, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9650-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9650-1_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-9649-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-9650-1
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)