Skip to main content

Phytosemiotics

  • Chapter
  • 2015 Accesses

Part of the book series: Biosemiotics ((BSEM,volume 3))

Abstract

Although neither a biologist nor a biologist manqué, visual artist and design analyst Martin Krampen is the author of one of the most seminal “turning-point” texts in biosemiotics. Phytosemiotics – the selection that is presented here – is invoked in almost every published overview or introduction to the field (e.g., Barbieri 2001, Deely 1990, Favareau 2007, Kull 2003, Sebeok 2001), and is widely-acknowledged as the text that expanded the purview of Sebeok’s zoösemiotic project into the full-blown examination of sign relations pertinent to any living system (and, as at least one pre-eminent semiotician will argue, even beyond).

Martin Krampen (1928– )

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The word also appears throughout the biosemiotic literature as zoösemiotics, an orthographical convention initiated by John Deely in 1990, “to prevent a misunderstanding that I have actually encountered,” he explains, “whereby this rich realm of investigation has been unwittingly reduced in hearer’s minds to the study of sign systems among captive animals” (1990: 29).

  2. 2.

    Included in this volume as Chapter Nine.

  3. 3.

    Indeed, perhaps nowhere is anthropomorphism more fully understood for the fallacy in reasoning that it is – and is therefore studiously avoided and admonished – than in biosemiotics, which insists upon acknowledging both the commonality and the differences in naturally evolved sign systems. The discipline’s foundational insistence on such vigilant non-conflation, then, makes it particularly ironic – and unfortunate – that upon first encountering the word “biosemiotics”, the mistaken idea that comes to mind for many people is that the project must be advocating that all non-human organisms “think like humans.” Yet this is the one notion that is universally considered to be anathema throughout biosemiotics, which is why I often recommend Terrence Deacon’s masterful debunking of this “exactly backwards” idea – his 1997 The Symbolic Species, excerpts of which are included in this volume as Chapter Eighteen – to those encountering the often easily misinterpreted texts of biosemiotics for the first time.

  4. 4.

    For reference to this literature, please see footnote 5.

  5. 5.

    Baluska et al. (2006) provides an excellent overview of the current state of the art in plant behavior and plant signaling studies; the scientific peer-review journals Plant Physiology, Trends in Plant Science, and Plant Signaling and Behavior report the latest findings in the field; and Simons (1992) and Attenborough (1995) provide readable and informative introductory texts. See also the Bibliography and Further Readings section in this volume for a list of similarly relevant texts.

  6. 6.

    An English translation of Jakob von Uexküll’s “Bedeutungslehre” (“The Theory of Meaning”) will appear, with an Introduction by Thure von Uexküll, in Semiotica in 1982.

References

  • Carroll, R. C., Hoffman, C. A. (1980). Chemical feeding deterrent mobilized in response to insect herbivory and counteradaptation by Epilachna tredecimnotata. Science 209 (July 18), 414–416.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rochberg-Halton, E. (1978). Reflections on materialism: People and things. University of Chicago Magazine 70(3), 7–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delbrück, M., Degenkolbe, J., Leser, K.-H. (1977). Discussion to IV, light and dark adaptation of the photoreceptor cell. Biophysics of Structure and Mechanism 3, 181–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delbrück, M., Katzir, A., Presti, D. (1976). Responses of Phycomyces indicating optical excitation of the lowest triplet state of riboflavin. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (Washington), 78 (1969–1973).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodds, J. H., Hall, M. A. (1980). Plant hormone receptors. Scientific Progress, Oxford 66, 513–535.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Haberland, G. (1902). Culturversuche mit isolierten Pflanzenzellen, Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften. Wien: Math. Nat. Classe 111, 69–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Logid (1981). Grüne Archen. Frankfurt am Main: Fricke Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, K. ([1857] 1961). Einleitung zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomte. In Marx/Engels, Werke, vol. 13. Berlin (East): Dietz Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKechnie, G. E. (1977). The Environmental Response Inventory in application. Environment and Behaviour 9(2), 255–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. (1979). Working paper. (Mimeographed), SUNY, Buffalo, Center for Study of Cultural Transmission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Presti, D., Hsu, W.-J., Delbrück, M. (1977). Phototropism in Phycomyces mutands lacking β-Carotene. Photochemistry and Photobiology 26, 403–405.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rochberg-Halton, E. (1979). Cultural signs and urban adaptation: The meaning of cherished household possessions. Dissertation Summary (mimeographed), Behavioral Sciences, University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebeok, T. A. (1963). Communication among social bees; porpoises and sonar; man and dolphin. Language 39, 448–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sebeok, T. A. (1972). Perspectives in Zoosemiotics. The Hague: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebeok, T. A. (1976). Contributions to the Doctrine of Signs. Bloomington and Lisse: Indiana University, Research Center for Language and Semiotic Studies and the Peter de Ridder Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebeok, T. A. (1977). Ecumenicalism in semiotics. In: Sebeok, T. A. (Ed.) A Perfusion of Signs. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebeok, T. A. (1978). ‘Clever Hans’ in a semiotic frame. Diogenes 28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uexküll, J. von (1922). Wie sehen wir die Natur und wie sieht sie sich seiber? Die Naturwissenschaften 14, 316–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uexküll, J. von (1935). Die Bedeutung der Umweltforschung für die Erkenntnis des Lebens. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Naturwissenschaft 7, 257–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uexküll, J. von ([1940] 1970). Bedeutungslehre. In: Uexküll, J. von, Kriszat, G. (Eds.) Streifzüge durch die Umwelten von Tieren und Menschen. Bedeutungslehre, Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer Verlag. Originally in Bios, Vol. 10, Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uexküll, T. von (Ed.) (1980). Jakob von Uexküll, Kompositionslehre der Natur. Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Wien: Verlag Ullstein (Propylaen).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Favareau, D. (2009). Phytosemiotics. In: Essential Readings in Biosemiotics. Biosemiotics, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9650-1_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics