Advertisement

Building Zoosemiotics

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

Abstract

Evaluation sub-question n°2: finally, what are the stakes of a real zoosemiotics discipline, and why build it?

This last chapter aims to explain how the stakes of zoosemiotics operate, by presenting the links of stakes that unite semiotics with biosemiotics, and the latter with zoosemiotics. It also gives an overview of progress in the field: progress that was made – where we stand now – as well as upcoming progress – which way it is heading – and progress that we hope for – in what direction it should evolve. The last part of this chapter is meant to constitute a conclusion to this book and to summarize its statements.

Keywords

Biosemiotics Zoosemiotics Semiotics methodology Interdisciplinary methodology Interdisciplinarity Animal studies 

References

  1. Alexeev, A., et al. (Eds.). (2017). Questions Actuelles de la Neurophilosophie (translation from Russian title). IINTELL: Moscou.Google Scholar
  2. Association Grand Paris Sémiotique. (2019). L’Engagement. Confrontations sémiotiques. To be published.Google Scholar
  3. Bertrand, D., & Darras, B. (2019). In Association Grand Paris Sémiotique, L’Engagement. Confrontations sémiotiques. To be published.Google Scholar
  4. Bickle, J. (Ed.). (2009). The Oxford handbook of philosophy and neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford university press.Google Scholar
  5. Deely, J. (1992). Semiotics and biosemiotics: Are sign-science and life-science coextensive? In T. A. Sebeok, D. J. Umiker-Sebeok, & E. P. Young (Eds.), Biosemiotics: The semiotic web 1991 (pp. 45–54). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  6. Delahaye, P. (2017). Cognition, langage, émotion : faut-il sortir du laboratoire ? In A. Alexeev et al. (Eds.), Questions Actuelles de la Neurophilosophie (translation from Russian title). IINTELL: Moscou.Google Scholar
  7. Delahaye, P. (2018a). The 38th Albi-Moissac colloquium of French semioticians: Living beings and their environment. Sign Systems Studies, 46(2/3), 398–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Delahaye, P. (2018b). Founding of the French zoosemiotics society. Sign Systems Studies, 46(2/3), 401–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Favareau, D., Cobley, P., & Kull, K. (Eds.). (2012). A more developed sign: Interpreting the work of Jesper Hoffmeyer. Tartu University Press: Tartu.Google Scholar
  10. Guillaume, A. (2013). Transférabilité du sens d’hier et d’aujourd’hui. Des mots, des signes, des cultures. Nanterre, Université de Paris Ouest La Défense.Google Scholar
  11. Guillaume, A. (2014). L’interthéoricité : sémiotique de la transférogenèse. Plasticité, élasticité, hybridité des théories. Revue PLASTIR, Plasticités, Sciences et Arts, 37, 1–36.Google Scholar
  12. Hoffmeyer, J. (2008). Biosemiotics. An examination into the signs of life and the life of signs. Scranton: University of Scranton Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kull, K. (2012). Advancements in biosemiotics: Where we are now in discovering the basic mechanisms of meaning-making. In S. Rattasepp & T. Bennett (Eds.), Gatherings in biosemiotics (p. 18). Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Mäekivi, N. (2018). The zoological garden as a hybrid environment – A (zoo)semiotic analysis. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Google Scholar
  16. Rattasepp, S. (2018). The human Mirror. A critique of the philosophical discourse on animals from the position of multispecies semiotics. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Google Scholar
  17. Rattasepp, S., & Bennett, T. (Eds.). (2012). Gatherings in biosemiotics. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Google Scholar
  18. Rothschild, F. S. (2000). Creation and evolution: A biosemiotic approach. Edison: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Sebeok, T. A. (1968). Animal communication: Techniques of study and results of research. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Sebeok, T. A. (1973). Perspectives in zoosemiotics. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  21. Sebeok, T. A. (2001). Signs: An introduction to semiotics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  22. Sebeok, T., & Umiker-Sebeok, D. J. (Eds.). (1992). Biosemiotics: The semiotic web 1991. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  23. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1989). La pertinence: communication et cognition. Paris: les Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
  24. von Uexküll, J. (1934). Mondes animaux et monde humain. Théorie de la signification. Paris: Denoël.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations