Advertisement

Biosemiotics

pp 1–17 | Cite as

Some Challenges to the Evolutionary Status of Semiosis

  • Claudio Julio Rodríguez HigueraEmail author
Article

Abstract

The prevalent idea that semiosis is evolutionary is a driving point for biosemiotic research, starting from the Peircean premises of continuity and including a large number of views on how signs evolve. In this paper I wish to add a small pinch of skepticism to an otherwise productive point of view. Briefly, the question to be asked is: Is there any proper and fair connection between the logical abstraction of signs, genetic expressions interpreted as signs and the animal usage of signs? And how do we go about answering this? Instead of attempting a negative account of the possibility of an evolutionary view of biosemiosis, I will attempt to make an argument in favor of skepticism as a way to make a more fine-grained distinction across the areas where biosemiotic thinking seems to have some impact. The aim is then to find philosophical strategies to overcome this skepticism when possible, while also raising some awareness about the possible limits of current biosemiotics regarding the ideal evolutionary chain of signs. Ultimately, the idea is reexamining some core assumptions of the biosemiotic point of view at its most general, accounting for some possible ways in which theory may move forward. The potential incompatibility of theoretical standpoints between some of the different approaches that may be taken is, it will be argued, a desirable outcome for biosemiotic research. That is, the way we deal with the possible theories on the evolutionary continuity of signs will also affect our different research programs, and having a nuanced philosophical discussion on it can only contribute to the expansion and clarification of where different positions within biosemiotics currently stand.

Keywords

Evolution of semiosis Biosemiotics theories Philosophy of biosemiotics Peircean semiotics Predictability Theoretical pluralism 

Notes

References

  1. Armstrong, D. M. (2010). Sketch for a systematic metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbieri, M. (2008a). Biosemiotics: A new understanding of life. Naturwissenschaften, 95(7), 577–599.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbieri, M. (2008b). The code model of semiosis: The first steps toward a scientific biosemiotics. The American Journal of Semiotics, 24(1–3), 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barthes, R. (1968). Elements of semiology. New York: Hill & Wang.Google Scholar
  5. Borges, P. (2010). A visual model of Peirce’s 66 classes of signs unravels his late proposal of enlarging semiotic theory. In J. Kacprzyk, L. Magnani, W. Carnielli, & C. Pizzi (Eds.), Model-Based Reasoning in Science and Technology, volume 314 (pp. 221–237). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brier, S. (2008a). Cybersemiotics: Why information is not enough! Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brier, S. (2008b). The paradigm of Peircean biosemiotics. Signs, 2, 20–81.Google Scholar
  8. Brioschi, M. R. (2016). Hints toward cosmology: The need for cosmology in Peirce’s philosophy. SCIO. Revista de Filosofía, 12, 51–73.Google Scholar
  9. Champagne, M. (2013). A necessary condition for proof of abiotic semiosis. Semiotica, 197, 283–287.Google Scholar
  10. Chien, J. (2011). Can Saussure’s orangery manuscripts shed new light on biosemiotics? Semiotica, 185(1/4), 51–77.Google Scholar
  11. Cobley, P. (2016). Cultural implications of biosemiotics. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deely, J. (2001). Physiosemiosis in the semiotic spiral: A play of musement. Sign Systems Studies, 29(1), 27–47.Google Scholar
  13. Deely, J. (2015). Objective reality and the physical world: Relation as key to understanding semiotics. Green Letters: Studies in Ecocriticism, 3, 267–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fernández, E. (2014a). Peircean habits and the life of symbols. Chinese Semiotic Studies, 7(1), 203–215.Google Scholar
  15. Fernández, E. (2014b). Peircean habits, broken symmetries, and biosemiotics. In V. Romanini & E. Fernández (Eds.), Peirce and biosemiotics: A guess at the riddle of life (pp. 171–181). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Hoffmeyer, J. (2002). The central dogma: A joke that became real. Semiotica, 138(1/4), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoffmeyer, J. (2007). Semiotic scaffolding of living systems. In M. Barbieri (Ed.), Introduction to biosemiotics: The new biological synthesis (pp. 149–166). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoffmeyer, J., & Stjernfelt, F. (2016). The great chain of semiosis. Investigating the steps in the evolution of semiotic competence. Biosemiotics, 9, 7–29.Google Scholar
  19. Hookway, C. (1997). Design and chance: The evolution of Peirce’s evolutionary cosmology. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 33(1), 1–34.Google Scholar
  20. Houser, N. (2012). Naturalism. In D. Favareau, P. Cobley, & K. Kull (Eds.), A more developed sign: Interpreting the work of Jesper Hoffmeyer (pp. 191–194). Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Google Scholar
  21. Jappy, T. (2013). Introduction to Peircean visual semiotics. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  22. Koch, W. (1986). Evolutionary cultural semiotics, volume 6 of Bochum publications in evolutionary cultural semiotics. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
  23. Kull, K. (1999). Towards biosemiotics with Yuri Lotman. Semiotica, 127(1/4), 115–131.Google Scholar
  24. Kull, K. (2009). Vegetative, animal, and cultural semiosis: The semiotic threshold zones. Cognitive Semiotics, 4, 8–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kull, K. (2019). Steps towards the natural meronomy and taxonomy of semiosis: Emon between index and symbol? Sign Systems Studies, 47(1/2), 88–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lane, R. (2014). Peircean semiotic indeterminacy and its relevance for biosemiotics. In V. Romanini & E. Fernández (Eds.), Peirce and biosemiotics: A guess at the riddle of life (pp. 51–78). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maran, T., & Kleisner, K. (2010). Towards an evolutionary biosemiotics: Semiotic selection and semiotic co-option. Biosemiotics, 3(2), 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nöth, W. (1994). Opposition at the roots of semiosis. In W. Nöth (Ed.), Origins of Semiosis: Sign Evolution in Nature and Culture, volume 116 of Approaches to Semiotics (pp. 37–60). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nöth, W. (2000). Umberto Eco’s semiotic threshold. Sign Systems Studies, 28, 49–61.Google Scholar
  30. Nöth, W. (2004). Walter a Koch: Portrait of the semiotician on the occasion of his 70th birthday. SemiotiX, 2.Google Scholar
  31. Olteanu, A. (2019). Multiculturalism as multimodal communication: A semiotic perspective. Cham: Springer Nature.Google Scholar
  32. Pihlström, S. (2004). Peirce’s place in the pragmatist tradition. In C. Misak (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Peirce (pp. 27–57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Queiroz, J. (2012). Peirce’s ten classes of signs: Modeling biosemiotic processes and systems. In T. Maran, K. Lindström, R. Magnus, & M. Tønnessen (Eds.), Semiotics in the wild—Essays in honour of Kalevi Kull on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 55–62). Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Google Scholar
  34. Queiroz, J. (2012b). Dicent symbols in non-human semiotic processes. Biosemiotics, 5(3), 319–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reynolds, A. (1996). Peirce’s cosmology and the laws of thermodynamics. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 32(3), 403–423.Google Scholar
  36. Reynolds, A. (1997). The incongruity of Peirce’s tychism. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 33(3), 704–721.Google Scholar
  37. Rodríguez Higuera, C. J. (2016). Just how emergent is the emergence of semiosis? Biosemiotics, 9(2), 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rodríguez Higuera, C. J., & Kull, K. (2017). The biosemiotic glossary project: The semiotic threshold. Biosemiotics, 10(1), 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Romanini, V., & Fernández, E. (2014). Peirce and biosemiotics: A guess at the riddle of life. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Salthe, S. (2007). Meaning in nature: Placing biosemiotics within pansemiotics. In M. Barbieri (Ed.), Biosemiotics: Information, codes and signs in living systems (pp. 207–217). New York: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  41. Sebeok, T. (1991). A sign is just a sign. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Sfendoni-Mentzou, D. (1997). Peirce on continuity and laws of nature. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 33(3), 646–678.Google Scholar
  43. Sharov, A., Maran, T., & Tønnessen, M. (2016). Comprehending the semiosis of evolution. Biosemiotics, 9(1), 1–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sharov, A. A. (2016). Evolution of natural agents: Preservation, advance, and emergence of functional information. Biosemiotics, 9(1), 103–120.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sharov, A. A. (2017). Evolutionary biosemiotics and multilevel construction networks. Biosemiotics, 9(3), 399–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Short, T. L. (2010). Did Peirce have a cosmology? Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 46(4), 521–543.Google Scholar
  47. Stjernfelt, F. (2012). The evolution of semiotic self-control: Sign evolution as the ongoing refinement of the basic argument structure of biological metabolism. In T. Schilhab, F. Stjernfelt, & T. Deacon (Eds.), The symbolic species evolved (pp. 39–63). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stjernfelt, F. (2014). Natural propositions: The actuality of Peirce’s doctrine of Dicisigns. Boston: Docent Press.Google Scholar
  49. Thellefsen, T. L. (2001). C. S. Peirce’s evolutionary sign: An analysis of depth and complexity within Peircean sign types and Peircean evolution theory. SEED, 1(2), 1–45.Google Scholar
  50. Turley, P. T. (1977). Peirce’s cosmology. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
  51. van Heusden, B. (1999). The emergence of difference: Some notes on the evolution of human semiosis. Semiotica, 127(1–4), 631–646.Google Scholar
  52. van Heusden, B. (2004). A bandwidth model of semiotic evolution. In M. Bax, B. van Heusden, & W. Wildgen (Eds.), Semiotic evolution and the dynamics of culture (pp. 3–34). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  53. Ventimiglia, M. (2008). Reclaiming the Peircean cosmology: Existential abduction and the growth of the self. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 44(4), 661–680.Google Scholar
  54. de Villiers, T. (2007). Why Peirce matters: The symbol in Deacon’s Symbolic Species. Language Sciences, 29, 88–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zlatev, J. (2009). The semiotic hierarchy: Life, consciousness, signs and language. Cognitive Semiotics, 4, 169–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Palacký UniversityOlomoucCzechia

Personalised recommendations