Advertisement

Introduction and Purpose

  • Pauline Delahaye
Chapter
Part of the Biosemiotics book series (BSEM, volume 19)

Abstract

This chapter presents the rest of the book and serves as its introduction.

It starts by describing the creation process of this methodological work, and explains this choice of a semiotic study of the animal, as well as the type of corpus used and the expected societal and academic impact.

Then it discusses the reason behind introducing semiotics to the field of animal studies, relating the history of semiotics to the history of animal studies.

Lastly, it briefly addresses some methodological questions on the difficulties that come with studying a subject from different academic fields, adding new documentation categories into corpora or taking into account the various biases and ideologies that may appear.

The chapter ends by laying out the outline of the book.

Keywords

Animal studies Semiotics Academic fields Semiotic model Corpus 

References

  1. Agha, A. (1997). “Concepts” and “communication” in evolutionary terms. Semiotica, 116, 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin, J. M. (Ed.). (1901). Dictionary of philosophy and psychology. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Barbieri, M. (Ed.). (2006). Introduction to biosemiotics: The new biological synthesis. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Benveniste, E. (1966). Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  5. Bickle, J. (Ed.). (2009). The Oxford handbook of philosophy and neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bodamer, M., & Gardner, A. (2002). How cross-fostered chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) initiate and maintain conversations. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 116(1), 12–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boeckx, C., & Grohmann, K. K. (Eds.). (2013). The Cambridge handbook of biolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Boesch, C. (2007). What makes us human (Homo sapiens)? The challenge of cognitive cross-species comparison. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121(3), 227–240.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chamayou, G. (1999). L’essai “contre placebo” et le charlatanisme. Pour la science, 38, 14–17.Google Scholar
  10. Danchin, E., Giraldeau, L.-A., & Cézilly, F. (Eds.). (2005). Écologie comportementale: cours et questions de réflexion. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
  11. Darwin, C. (1989). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. London: W. Pickering.Google Scholar
  12. Deledalle, G. (1971). Le Pragmatisme. Paris/Montréal: Bordas.Google Scholar
  13. Eco, U. (1987). Notes sur la sémiotique de la réception. Actes Sémiotiques Documents, IX(81).Google Scholar
  14. Eco, U. (1988). Sémiotique et philosophie du langage. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  15. Eco, U. (1999). Kant et l’ornithorynque. Paris: Grasset.Google Scholar
  16. Favareau, D. (2006). The evolutionary history of biosemiotics. In M. Barbieri (Ed.), Introduction to biosemiotics: The new biological synthesis (p. 5). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Forsberg, N., Burley, M., & Hämäläinen, N. (Eds.). (2012). Language, ethics and animal life. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  18. Goodall, J. (1998). Learning from the chimpanzees: A message humans can understand. Science, 282, 2184–2185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greimas, A. (1981). De la colère : étude de sémantique lexicale. Actes sémiotiques – Documents, 27.Google Scholar
  20. Greimas, A. (1988). De la nostalgie: étude de sémantique lexicale. In Hommage à Bernard Pottier (Vol. 1, pp. 343–349). Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
  21. Griffin, D. (1977). In T. Sebeok (Ed.), How animals communicate (p. 29). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Guillaume, A. (2014). Animal : « être sensible » unanimement désensibilisé. Sémiotique du sensible. Revue trimestrielle de la Fondation Droit Animal, Éthique et Sciences, 81, 35–37.Google Scholar
  23. Guyomarc’h, J.-C. (1980). Abrégé d’éthologie (p. 1980). Paris: Masson.Google Scholar
  24. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kull, K. (1992). Evolution and semiotics. In T. A. Sebeok, D. J. Umiker-Sebeok, & E. P. Young (Eds.), Biosemiotics: The semiotic web 1991 (p. 222). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  26. Kull, K. (2014). Zoosemiotics is the study of animal forms of knowing. Semiotica, 198, 47–60.Google Scholar
  27. Lévi-Strauss, C. (1958). Anthropologie Structurale. Paris: Plon.Google Scholar
  28. Lieberman, P. (1977). In T. Sebeok (Ed.), How animals communicate (p. 23). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lieberman, P. (2013). The unpredictable species. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Machamer, P. (2009). Learning, neuroscience, and the return of behaviorism. In J. Bickle (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy and neuroscience (p. 175). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Martinelli, D. (2006). In M. Barbieri (Ed.), Introduction to biosemiotics: The new biological synthesis (p. 487). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Morgan, C. L. (1903). An introduction to comparative psychology (2nd ed.). Londres: W. Scott.Google Scholar
  33. Morin, E. (Ed.). (1974). L’Unité de l’homme : invariants biologiques et universaux culturels. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
  34. Neveu, F. (2004). Dictionnaire des Sciences du Langage. Herstal: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  35. Peirce, C. S. (1868a). Questions concerning certain faculties claimed for man. Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 2, 103–114.Google Scholar
  36. Peirce, C. S. (1868b). Some consequences of four incapacities. Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 2, 140–157.Google Scholar
  37. Peirce, C. S. (1901). Truth. In J. M. Baldwin (Ed.), Dictionary of philosophy and psychology (Vol. II, pp. 716–718). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  38. Peirce, C. S. (1971). Le Pragmatisme. Paris/Montréal: Bordas.Google Scholar
  39. Peirce, C. S. (1987). Textes fondamentaux de sémiotique. Paris: Méridiens-Klincksieck.Google Scholar
  40. Peirce, C. S. (1993). À la recherche d’une méthode. Perpignan: Presses Universitaires de Perpignan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pepperberg, I. (1999). Alex studies. Cognitive and communicative abilities of grey parrot. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Sebeok, T. A. (1968). Animal communication: Techniques of study and results of research. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Sebeok, T. (1973). Perspectives in zoosemiotics. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  44. Sebeok, T. (1976). Studies in semiotics: Contribution to the doctrine of signs. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Sebeok, T. (Ed.). (1977). How animals communicate. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Sebeok, T., & Umiker-Sebeok, D. J. (Eds.). (1992). Biosemiotics: The semiotic web 1991. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  47. Smith, A. (Yankelovich, D.) (1972). Supermoney. New York: Popular Library.Google Scholar
  48. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1989). La pertinence: communication et cognition. Paris: les Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
  49. Stjernfelt, F. (1992). Categorial perception as a general prerequisite to the formation of signs? On the biological range of a deep semiotic problem in Hjelmslev’s as well as Peirce’s semiotics. In T. A. Sebeok, D. J. Umiker-Sebeok, & E. P. Young (Eds.), Biosemiotics: The semiotic web 1991 (p. 445). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  50. Stoeger, A. S., Mietchen, D., Oh, S., de Silva, S., Herbst, C. T., Kwon, S., & Fitch, T. (2012). An Asian elephant imitates human speech. Current Biology, 22, 2144–2148.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Terrace, H. S. (1987). Nim. New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
  52. De Waal, F. (2013). Le Bonobo, Dieu et nous. Lonrai: Les Liens qui Libèrent.Google Scholar
  53. Yin, S. (2002). A new perspective on barking in dogs (Canis familiaris). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 116(2), 189–193.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pauline Delahaye
    • 1
  1. 1.Paris-Sorbonne UniversityParisFrance

Personalised recommendations