Biosemiotics

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 405–427 | Cite as

The Role of Image Schemas and Superior Psychic Faculties in Zoosemiosis

Original Paper

Abstract

Image schemas are mental constructs central to human cognitive psychology. The neurobiological grounding of these structures has been suggested by experimental research both in non-human primates (Rizzolatti and Craighero 2004; Umiltá et al. 2001) and lower animals (Knudsen 2002, 1998). However, their applicability as concrete cognitive products has not been explored yet in zoosemiotics. This study shows that image schemas are highly instrumental to making sense of the impersonations of two animals featured in biology research studies and wildlife documentary films: the mimic octopus (Thaumoctopus mimicus) and the Gibb’s sea spider crab (Pisa armata). In analysing the movements and postures of these animals, it is argued that image schemas underlie recurring patterns of animal bodily experience and response, which ties image-schematic structures to non-human intersubjectivity. In line with the pluralistic view of zoosemiotics (e.g. Maran, Martinelli and Turovski 2011), this paper takes an intermediary position in the continuity–discontinuity debate regarding communication in humans and animals. In this regard, the complexity of the creative behavioural models of the animals examined leaves the door open for the existence of sophisticated mental life in non-human species.

Keywords

Compound image schemas Impersonation Interpretive brain Superior psychic faculties 

References

  1. Anderson, R., Mather, J., & Wood, J. (2010). Octopus: the ocean’s intelligent invertebrate. London: Timber Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, B. (2010). Unusual adaptations: evolution of the mimic octopus. BioScience, 60(11), 962–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbieri, M. (2007). Has biosemiotics come of age? In M. Barbieri (Ed.), Introduction to biosemiotics. the new biological synthesis (pp. 101–113). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbieri, M. (2009). Three types of semiosis. Biosemiotics, 2, 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbieri, M. (2013). Organic codes and the natural history of mind. Special issue of Biosemiotics (Origins of mind), 8, 21–52.Google Scholar
  6. Bekoff, M. (1999). Cognitive ethology. In W. Bechtel & G. Graham (Eds.), A companion to cognitive science. Blackwell companions to philosophy (pp. 371–379). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cienki, A. (1997). Motion in the metaphorical spaces of morality and reasoning as expressed in language and gesture. International Journal of Communication, 7, 85–98.Google Scholar
  8. Cienki, A. (1998). Metaphoric gestures and some of their relations to verbal metaphoric expressions. In J. P. Koenig (Ed.), Discourse and cognition: bridging the gap (pp. 189–204). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Cienki, A. (2005). Gesture and the question of literal versus non-literal reference. In S. Coulson & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), The literal and nonliteral in language and thought (pp. 281–298). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  10. Danaher, D. (1998). Peirce’s semiotic and cognitive metaphor theory. Semiotica, 119(1/2), 171–207.Google Scholar
  11. Deely, J. (2003). The quasi-error of the external world. An essay for Thomas A. Sebeok, in memoriam. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 10(1), 25–46.Google Scholar
  12. Dennett, D. (1995). Darwin’s dangerous idea: evolution and the meanings of life. London: Allen Lane/The Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dodge, E., & Lakoff, G. (2005). Image schemas: from linguistic analysis to neural grounding. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 57–92). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farina, A., & Pieretti, N. (2014). From umwelt to soundtope: an epistemological essay on cognitive ecology. Biosemiotics, 7(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibbs, R. (2003). Embodiment and linguistic meaning. Brain and Language, 84, 1–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibbs, R. (2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gibbs, R., & Colston, H. (2006). The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: basic readings (pp. 239–267). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Griffin, D. R. (1981). The question of animal awareness: evolutionary continuity of mental experience (Revised and enlarged ed.). New York: The Rockefeller University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hampe, B. (2005). Image schemas in cognitive linguistics: introduction. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 1–13). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hanlon, R. T., Watson, A. C., & Barbosa, A. (2010). A “mimic octopus” in the Atlantic: flatfish mimicry and camouflage by Macrotritopus defilippi. The Biological Bulletin, 218(1), 15–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hiraga, M. (1994). Diagrams and metaphors: iconic aspects in language. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hochberg, F. G., Norman, M. D., & Finn, J. (2006). Wunderpus photogenicus n. gen. and sp., a new octopus from the shallow waters of the Indo-Malayan Archipelago (Cephalopoda: Octopodidae). Molluscan Research, 26(3), 128–140.Google Scholar
  23. Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: the bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, M. (2005). The philosophical significance of image schemas. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 15–33). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson, M., & Rohrer, T. (2007). We are live creatures: embodiment, American pragmatism, and the cognitive organism. In Z. Jordan, T. Zimke, R. Frank, & R. Dirven (Eds.), Body, language and mind (pp. 17–54). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  26. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity. A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kimmel, M. (2005). Culture regained: situated and compound image schemas. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 285–312). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kluijver, de M.J.; Ingalsuo, S.S., & Bruyne, de R.H. (2000). Macrobenthos of the North Sea [CD-ROM]: 1. Keys to Mollusca and Brachiopoda. World Biodiversity Database CD-ROM Series. Expert Center for Taxonomic Identification (ETI): Amsterdam. ISBN 3-540-14706-3. See also http://species-identification.org/species.php?species_group=crustacea&id=211 [last consulted 8 April 2014].
  29. Knox, J. (2003). Archetype, attachment, analysis. Jungian psychology and the emergent mind. Brunner-Routledge: Hove/New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Knudsen, E. (1998). Capacity for plasticity in the adult owl auditory system expanded by juvenile experience. Science, 279, 1531–1533.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Knudsen, E. (2002). Instructed learning in the auditory localization pathway of the barn owl. Nature, 417, 322–328.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor”. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–328). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  36. Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Redwood City: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Mandler, J. (1992). How to build a baby: II. Conceptual primitives. Psychological Review, 99(4), 587–604.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maran, T. (2010). Why was Thomas A. Sebeok not a cognitive ethologist? from “animal mind” to “semiotic self”. Biosemiotics, 3, 315–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maran, T., Martinelli, D., & Turovski, A. (2011). Readings in zoosemiotics. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martinelli, D. (2001). Symptomatology of a semiotic research: methodologies and problems in zoomusicology. Sign Systems Studies, 29(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  41. Martinelli, D. (2010). A critical companion to zoosemiotics. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Martinelli, D. (2011). Let’s get physical! On the zoosemiotics of corporeality. Biosemiotics, 4, 259–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mittelberg, I. (2008). Peircean semiotics meets conceptual metaphor: iconic modes in gestural representations of grammar. In A. Cienki & C. Müller (Eds.), Metaphor and gesture (pp. 115–154). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  44. Müller, C. (1998). Redebegleitende Gesten: Kulturgeschichte – theorie – sprachvergleich. Berlin: Verlag Arno Spitz.Google Scholar
  45. Norman, M., Finn, J., & Tregenza, T. (2001). Dynamic mimicry in an Indo-Malayan octopus. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 268(1478), 1755–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Peirce, C. (1960). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (1931–1958) (Vol. I.: Principles of philosophy, II: Elements of logic. C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (Eds.)). Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Peña, S. (1999). Subsidiarity relationships between image-schemas: An approach to the force schema. Journal of English Studies 1, 187–207. University of La Rioja.Google Scholar
  48. Peña, S. (2003). Topology and cognition. What image-schemas reveal about the metaphoric language of emotions. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
  49. Peña, S. (2008). Dependency systems for image-schematic patterns in a usage-based approach to language. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1041–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Prieto-Velasco, J. A., & Tercedor-Sánchez, M. (2014). The embodied nature of medical concepts: image schemas and language for pain. Cognitive Processing. doi:10.1007/s10339-013-0594-9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Richard, B. (1967). Le determinisme de la construction des barrages chez le castor du Rhone. La Terre et la Vie, 4, 339–470.Google Scholar
  52. Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169–192.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rockwell, T. (2013). Mind or mechanism: Which came first? In L. Swan (Ed.), Origins of mind (pp. 243–258). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rohrer, T. (2005). Image schemata in the brain. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 165–196). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sato, M., & Wada, K. (2000). Resource utilization for decorating in three intertidal majid crabs (Brachyura: Majidae). Marine Biology, 137(4), 705–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Scalambrino, F. (2013). Mnemo-psychography: the origin of mind and the problem of biological memory storage. In L. Swan (Ed.), Origins of mind (pp. 327–339). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sebeok, T. (Ed.). (1968). Animal communication. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, Techniques of study and results of research.Google Scholar
  58. Sebeok, T. (1972a). Perspectives in zoosemiotics (=Janua Linguarum. Series Minor 122). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  59. Sebeok, T. (1972b). Semiotics and ethology. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Perspectives in zoosemiotics (=Janua Linguarum. Series Minor 122 (pp. 122–161). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  60. Sebeok, T. (Ed.). (1977). How animals communicate. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Sebeok, T. (1979a). The signs and its masters. Austin: Texas University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Sebeok, T. (1979b). Prefigurements of art. Semiotica, 27(1–3), 3–74.Google Scholar
  63. Sebeok, T. (1990a). Essays in zoosemiotics (=Monograph Series of the TSC 5). Toronto: Toronto Semiotic Circle; Victoria College in the University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  64. Sebeok, T. (1990b). Naming in animals, with reference to playing: a hypothesis. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Essays in zoosemiotics (=Monograph Series of the TSC 5) (pp. 77–92). Toronto: Toronto Semiotic Circle.Google Scholar
  65. Sebeok, T. (1990c). Talking with animals: zoosemiotics explained. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Essays in zoosemiotics (=monograph series of the tsc 5) (pp. 105–113). Toronto: Toronto Semiotic Circle.Google Scholar
  66. Sebeok, T. (2001). ‘Tell me, where is fancy bred?’ The biosemiotic self. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Global semiotics (pp. 120–127). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Šorm, E., & Steen, G. (2013). Processing visual metaphor. Metaphor and the Social World, 3(1), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stachowicz, J. J., & Hay, M. E. (2000). Geographic variation in camouflage specialization by a decorator crab. American Naturalist, 156, 59–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stuart-Fox, D., & Moussalli, A. (2009). Camouflage, communication and thermoregulation: lessons from colour changing organisms. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences, 364(1516), 463–470.PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Swan, L., & Goldberg, L. (2013). Introduction: mentis Naturalis. Biosemiotics, 6, 297–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Trevarthen, C. (2012). Embodied human intersubjectivity: imaginative agency, to share meaning. Journal of Cognitive Semiotics, 4(1), 6–56.Google Scholar
  73. Umiltá, M., Kohler, E., Gallese, V., Fogassi, L., Fadiga, L., Keysers, C., et al. (2001). I know what you are doing. A neurophysiological study. Neuron, 31, 155–165.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. von Uexküll, J. (1928). Theoretische biologie (2nd ed.). Berlin: Verlag von Julius Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. von Uexküll, J. (1980). Kompositionslehre der Natur: Biologie als undogmatische Naturwissenschaft. Ausgewählte Schriften. Herausgegeben und eingeleitet von Thure von Uexküll. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Ullstein GmbH.Google Scholar
  76. Wicksten, M. K. (1993). A review and a model of decorator behaviour in spider crabs (Decapoda, Brachyura, Majidae). Crustaceana, 64, 314–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Castile-La ManchaCiudad RealSpain

Personalised recommendations