Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Conceptual Framework for Studying Evolutionary Origins of Life-Genres

  • Published:
Biosemiotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The introduction claims that there might exist an evolutionary bridge from possible genres in nature to human cultural genres. A sub-hypothesis is that basic life-conditions, partly common for animals and humans, in the long run can generate so-called life-genres. To investigate such hypotheses a framework of interrelated key communicational concepts is outlined in the second, main part. Four levels are suggested. Signs are seen as elements in utterances. Further, sufficiently similar utterances can be perceived as kinds of utterances or genres. Genres are kinds of communication in a species' life-world. Utterance and genre are the framework’s key concepts. Both are seen as products and processes and as constituted by five reciprocal aspects: form, content, act, time, and space, the necessary elements to initiate and interpret communication. A model illustrates this integrative principle. Part three dwells with the idea of life-genres, and part four exemplifies and problematises how a chimpanzee’s ‘begging’ for meat, a fish’s nest-making, and kinds of birdsongs, could be seen as possible life-genres. The last, short part gives a brief summary, highlights challenges, and reflects over the framework’s relevance for biosemiotics.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agnus, O. M. (2012). Proxemics: The study of space. IRWLE, 8(1), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altman, R. (1984). A semantic/syntactic approach to film genre. Cinema Journal, 23, 6–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altman, R. (1999). A semantic/syntactic/pragmatic approach to genre. Critical Visions in Film Theory: Classic and Contemporary Reading, 487–95.

  • Armitage, K. B. (2014). Marmot Biology. Sociality, Individual Fitness, and Population Dynamics. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Augustyn, P. (2011). On the concept of code in linguistics and biosemiotics. Biosemiotics, 4, 281–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. (1981). Forms of time and the chronotope in the Novel. In The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin pp. 84–258. Austin: University of Texas Press. [Ed. Michael Holquist. Trans. Michael Holquist and Caryl Emerson. Originally written in 1937–1938.]

  • Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-On, D., & Moore, R. (2017). Pragmatic interpretation and signaller-receiver asymmetries in animal communication. In K. Andrews & J. Beck (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of philosophy of animal minds (pp. 299–300). London: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barthes, R. (1968). Elements of semiology. New York: Hill & Wang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books.

  • Bawarshi, A. S., & Reiff, M. J. (2010). Genre - an introduction to history, theory, research, and pedagogy. Indiana: Parlor Press/The WAC Clearinghouse.

    Google Scholar 

  • BBC (2013). Nature’s Weirdest Events. Producer Mark Wheeler. London: BBC. www.bbc.co.uk/nature

  • BBC. (2014). Monkeys revealed. A co-production with animal planet. In Series producer: Jo Shinner. London: British Broadcasting.

    Google Scholar 

  • BBC Earth (2009). The life of birds. Produced in cooperation with PBS. Series’ executive producer: Mike Salisbury. London: British broadcasting.

  • Ben-Amos, D. (1969). Analytical categories and ethnic genres. Genre, 2(3), 275–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, B. (1990). The structuring of pedagogic discourse. In Of class, codes and control (Vol. 4). London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1989). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury, J. W., & Vehrencamp, S. (2011). Principles of animal communication. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruni, L. E., & Giorgi, F. (2016). Multi-level semiosis: A paradigm of emergent innovation. Biosemiotics, 9(3), 307–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bühler, K. (1934/1965). Sprachtheorie. Stuttgart: Fischer.

  • Coelho, C. (2015). Social dynamics and diffusion of novel behaviour patterns in wild capuchin monkeys. (sapajus libidinosus) inhabiting the serra da capivara national park. Ph.D. thesis. at institute ofPsychology, Catalago University, Brazil. http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/47/47132/tde-03122015-124726/en.php. Accessed 15 July 2018

  • Cohen, H., & Lefebvre, C. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of categorization in cognitive science. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Saussure, F (1916/1974). Course in General Linguistics. By J. Culler. London: Fontana.

  • Deacon, T. W. (2013). Incomplete nature: How mind emerged from matter. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. (2018). From Bacteria to Bach and Back. The evolution of minds. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubrow, H. (1982). Genre. London & New York: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmeche, C., & Kull, K. (2011). Towards a semiotic biology: Life is the action of signs. London: Imperial College Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, M. (2014). Typical cyclical behavioural patterns: The case of routines, rituals and celebrations. Biosemiotics, 7, 63–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Films, O. S. (2014). Animals in Love. Part 2: Wild Brazil. London: OSF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnegan, R. (2014). Communicating: The multiple modes of human communication. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fitch, T. (2010). The evolution of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Flood, R. L. (2010). The relationship of ‘systems thinking’ to action research. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 23(4), 269–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1972/1969). The archeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock Publications.

  • Francescoli, G. (2017). A semiotic interpretation of the innate releasing mechanism concept and other ethological triadic relations. Biosemiotics, 10(3), 461–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freadman, A. (1987). Anyone for tennis? In I. Reid (Ed.), The place of genre in learning: Current debates (pp. 91–124). Geelong: Centre for Studies in Literary Education, Deakin University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freadman, A. (2004). The machinery of talk: Charles Peirce and the sign hypothesis. Standford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freadman, A. (2009). Habermas and the politics of' Genre'. Communication. Politics & Culture, 42(1), 74–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freadman, A. (2012). The traps and trappings of genre theory. Applied Linguistics, 33(5), 544–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frow, J. (2015). Genre. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, P. (1991). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, D. R. (2013). Animal minds: Beyond cognition to consciousness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1981). The theory of communicative action. London: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1986). Kommunikativt handlande. Texter om språkrationalitet och samhälle. Göteborg: Daidalos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1998). On the pragmatics of communication. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Håkansson, G., & Westander, J. (2013). Communication in humans and other animals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functionale grammar. Second Edition. London: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauptmaier, H. (1987). Sketches of theories of genre. Poetics, 16, 397–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer, J., & Kull, K. (2011). In C. Emmeche & K. Kull (Eds.), Towards a semiotic biology: Life is the action of signs Theories of signs and meaning: Views from Copenhagen and Tartu (pp. 263–286). London: Imperial College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, E. (1936/2002). The way into phenomenological transcendental philosophy by inquiring back from the pregiven life-world. In Moran, D., & Mooney, T. (Eds.). (2002). The phenomenology reader (pp. 151–174). New York: Routledge.

  • Jakobson, R. (1935/1971). The dominant. In L. Mateijka & P. Krystyna (Eds.), Readings in Russian poetics: Formalist and structuralist views (pp. 82–87). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

  • Jensvold, M. L. A., Wilding, L., & Schulze, S. M. (2014). Signs of Communication in Chimpanzees. In G. Witzany (Ed.), Biocommunication in animals (pp. 21–40). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johns, A. M., Bawarshi, A., Coe, R. M., Hyland, K., Paltridge, B., Reiff, M. J., & Tardy, C. (2006). Crossing the boundaries of genre studies: Commentaries by experts. Journal of second language writing, 15(3), 234,249.

  • Kattenbelt, C. (1994). The Triad of Emotion, Action and Reflection: A sign-pragmatic approach to aesthetic communication. Kodikas/Code: Ars Semeiotica, 17/1–4:123–139. Tübingen: Gunther Narr Verlag, 1994.

  • Kent, T. (1983). The Classification of Genres. Genre, 16(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kent, T. (1985). Interpretation and genre perception. Semiotica, 56(1–2), 133–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G. (1993). Genre as social process). In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing (pp. 22–37). London: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laverty, S. M. (2003). Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: A comparison of historical and methodological considerations. International journal of qualitative methods, 2(3), 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, E. J. (1997). Ontological categories and natural kinds. Philosophical papers, 26(1), 29–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luckmann, T. (1992). On the communicative adjustment of perspectives, dialogue and communicative genres. In A. H. Wold (Ed.), The Dialogical Alternative Towards a Theory of Language and Mind (pp. 219–234). Oslo: Scandinavian Academic Press

  • Luckmann, T. (2009). Observations on the structure and function of communicative genres. Semiotica, (173), 267–282.

  • MacLeod, M., & Reydon, T. A. (2013). Natural kinds in philosophy and in the life sciences: Scholastic twilight or new dawn? Biological Theory, 7(2), 89–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macrae, C. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). Social cognition: Thinking categorically about others. Annual review of psychology, 51(1), 93–120.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Magnus, R. (2011). Time-plans of the organisms: Jakob von Uexküll’s explorations into the temporal constitution of living beings. Sign Systems Studies, 39(2/4), 37–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. (1997). Analysing genre: functional parameters. In F. Christie & J. Martin (Eds.), Genre and Institutions (pp. 3–39). London: Cassell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsuura, K. (2015). A new pufferfish of the genus Torquigener that builds “mystery circles” on sandy bottoms in the Ryukyu Islands, Japan (Actinopterygii: Tetraodontiformes: Tetraodontidae). Ichthyol Res, 62, 207–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medvedev, P. N. (1985). The formal method in literary scholarship: A critical introduction to sociological poetics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, R. (2013). Evidence and interpretation in great ape gestural communication. Humana-Mente, 24(1), 27–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, C. W. (1938). Foundations of the Theory of Signs. In International encyclopaedia of unified science (pp. 1–59). Chicago University Press.

  • Naguib, M., & Riebel, K. (2014). Singing in space and time: the biology of birdsong. In G. Witzany (Ed.), Biocommunication of animals (pp. 233–248). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Neale, S. (1983). Genre. London: British Film Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neale, S. (2005). Genre and Hollywood. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, K. (Ed.). (1986). Event Knowledge. Structure and Function in Development. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nöth, W. (1990). Handbook of Semiotics. Bloomington & Indianapolis. Indiana University Press.

  • NRK (2015). Livets mirakler. Britisk naturserie. Oslo: Norsk rikskringkasting.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ongstad, S. (1997). Sjanger, posisjonering og oppgaveideologier. Doctoral thesis. Trondheim: NTNU.

  • Ongstad, S. (2002). Genres - from static, closed, extrinsic, verbal dyads to dynamic, open, intrinsic semiotic triads. In R. Coe et al. (Eds.), The rhetoric and ideology of genre: Strategies for stability and change (pp. 297–320). Cresskill: Hampton Press.

  • Ongstad, S. (2004). Bakhtin’s triadic epistemology and ideologies of dialogism. In F. Bostad, C. Brandist, L. S. Evensen, & S. Faber (Eds.), Bakhtinian perspectives on language and culture (pp. 65–88). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ongstad, S. (2007). Positioning in Theory. A methodological framework for MTE-studies and beyond. In W. Herrlitz, S. Ongstad, S. & P. H. v. d. Ven, (Eds.), Research on mother tongue education in a comparative international perspective. Theoretical and methodological issues (pp. 119–148). Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.

  • Ongstad, S. (2009). The concept of lifeworld and education in post-modernity: A critical appraisal of Habermas’ theory of communicative action. In M. Murphy & T. Fleming (Eds.), Habermas, critical theory and education (pp. 47–62). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ongstad, S. (2014). The Blindness of Focusing. Pragmatic theories of communication and the challenge of validation. Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology, 5(2), 128–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paltridge, B. (1997). Genre, frames and writing in research settings. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1998). In N. Houser (Ed.), The essential Peirce. Volume 2. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prior, P. (2009). From speech genres to mediated multimodal genre systems: Bakhtin, Voloshinov, and the question of writing. In C. Bazerman, A. Bonini, & D. Figueiredo (Eds.), Genre in a Changing World (pp. 17–34). Fort Collins: WAC Clearinghouse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prum, R. (2018). The Evolution of Beauty: How Darwin's Forgotten Theory of Mate Choice Shapes the Animal World - and Us. New York: Anchor Books.

  • Rafieian, S. (2012). A Biosemiotic Approach to the Problem of Structure and Agency. Biosemiotics, 5, 83–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramesh, C. H., & Mohanraju, R. (2018). Footprints and tracks of marine organisms. Journal of Aquaculture & Marine Biology, 7(2), 74–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosmarin, A. (1985). The Power of Genre. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott-Phillips, T. (2010). Animal communication: Insights from linguistic pragmatics. Animal Behaviour, 79(1), e1–e4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott-Phillips, T. C., & Kirby, S. (2013). Information, influence, and inference in language evolution. In U. Stegmann (Ed.), Animal communication theory: information and influence (pp. 421–438). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1971). The philosophy of language. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stegmann, U. (Ed.). (2013). Animal communication theory: information and influence. Cambridge. UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis. English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Threadgold, T. (1989). Talking about genre ideologies and incompatible discourses. Cultural Studies, 3(1), 101–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tomasello, M. (2014). A natural history of human thinking. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Uexküll, J. v. (1921). Umwelt und Innerwelt der Tiere. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Voloshinov, V. N. (1973). Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Translated by I. R. Titunik & L. Matejka. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  • Watson, O. M. (2014). Proxemic behavior: A cross-cultural study. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weible, D. (2011). Ritualization and exaptation: towards a theory of hierarchical contextuality? Biosemiotics, 5, 211–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiktionary (2019). https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/utter. Accessed 07 March 2019

  • Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witzany, G. (Ed.). (2014). Biocommunication of animals. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the editors, the two anonymous reviewers, prof. em. Jon Smidt, prof. em. Ellen Krogh, and prof. Paul Prior for valuable critique, comments, and advice. And thanks to dr. Richard Moore for positive support. Further, I am grateful for opportunities to participate at conferences and seminars at (the former) CSMN - Centre for the Study of Mind in Nature, University of Oslo, exposing me to main scholars in the field. Also, I am in debt to Oslo Metropolitan University for hosting me as emeritus at The Senior Centre. Finally, thanks to the journal Nordidactica for allowing reuse of Fig. 1.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oslo Metropolitan University, Box 4 St. Olavs plass, N-0130, Oslo, Norway

    Sigmund Ongstad

Authors
  1. Sigmund Ongstad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sigmund Ongstad.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ongstad, S. A Conceptual Framework for Studying Evolutionary Origins of Life-Genres. Biosemiotics 12, 245–266 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-019-09358-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-019-09358-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation