Abstract
Growing ecological problems have raised the need for conceptual tools dedicated to studying semiotic processes in cultural-ecological systems. Departing from both ecosemiotics and cultural semiotics, the concept of an ecosemiosphere is proposed to denote the entire complex of semiosis in an ecosystem, including the involvement of human cultural semiosis. More specifically, the ecosemiosphere is a semiotic system comprising all species and their umwelts, alongside the diverse semiotic relations (including humans with their culture) that they have in the given ecosystem, and also the material supporting structures that enable the ecosemiosphere to thrive. Drawing parallels with Juri Lotman’s semiosphere concept, the ecosemiosphere is characterized by its heterogeneity, asymmetry, and boundedness. But unlike Lotman’s concept, the ecosemiosphere is not characterized by an overall boundedness, that is, by the presence of external binary boundaries and the shared identity arising from this unity. The involvement of human culture in the ecosemiosphere manifests in interspecies dialogues and semiotic engagements. We need to scrutinize what affordances and semiotic resources culture could offer to nonhuman species and how culture could, by semiotic means, raise the integrity, stability, and resiliency of the ecosystem. The ecosemiosphere is a grounded semiosphere.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alexandrov, V. E. (2000). Biology, semiosis, and cultural difference in Lotman’s semiosphere. Comparative Literature, 52(4), 339–362.
Andrews, E. (2003). Conversations with Lotman: cultural semiotics in language, literature, and cognition. University of Toronto Press.
Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. E. P. Dutton.
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2002). Introduction. In F. Berkes, J. Colding, & C. Folke (Eds.), Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change (pp. 1–30). Cambridge University Press.
Farina, A. (2018). Rural sanctuary: an ecosemiotic agency to preserve human cultural heritage and biodiversity. Biosemiotics, 11, 139–158.
Farina, A. (2021). Ecosemiotic landscape. a novel perspective for the toolbox of environmental humanities. (Elements in Environmental Humanities). Cambridge University Press.
Farina, A., & Belgrano, A. (2006). The eco-field hypothesis: Toward a cognitive landscape. Landscape Ecology, 21, 5–17.
Farina, A., & James, P. (2021). Vivoscapes: an ecosemiotic contribution to the ecological theory. Biosemiotics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09406-2.
Hornborg, A. (2011). Global ecology and unequal exchange: fetishism in a zero-sum world. Routledge.
Ingold, T. (2000). Globes and spheres – the topology of environmentalism. In: Ingold. T. The perception of the environment: essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. (pp. 209–218). Routledge.
Karlin, M. S. (2016). Ethnoecology, ecosemiosis and integral ecology in Salinas Grandes (Argentina). Revista Etnobiologiai, 14(1), 23–38.
Kohn, E. (2013). How forests think: Toward an anthropology beyond the human. University of California Press.
Kose, M., Heinsoo, K., Kaljund, K., & Tali, K. (2021). Twenty years of Baltic Boreal coastal meadow restoration: has it been long enough? Ecological Restoration. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13266.
Kotov, K., & Kull, K. (2011). Semiosphere is the relational biosphere. In C. Emmeche & K. Kull (Eds.), Towards a Semiotic Biology: Life is the Action of Signs (pp. 179–194). Imperial College Press.
Krampen, M. (1979). Meaning in the urban environment. Routledge.
Kruis, J. L. (2017). Shoshone as a text: a structural-semiotic analysis of reading the river as a whitewater raft guide. In Kannike, A. Tasa, M., Västrik, E. H. (Eds.), Body, personhood and privacy: perspectives on the cultural other and human experience. Approaches to culture theory 7. (pp. 245–265). University of Tartu Press.
Kull, K. (1998a). On semiosis, umwelt, and semiosphere. Semiotica, 120(3/4), 299–310.
Kull, K. (1998b). Semiotic ecology: different natures in the semiosphere. Sign Systems Studies, 26, 344–371.
Kull, K. (2005). Semiosphere and a dual ecology: Paradoxes of communication. Sign Systems Studies, 33(1), 175–189.
Kull, K. (2010). Ecosystems are made of semiosic bonds: Consortia, umwelten, biophony and ecological codes. Biosemiotics, 3(3), 347–357.
Kull, K. (2020). Semiotic fitting and the nativeness of community. Biosemiotics, 13(1), 9–19.
Lindström, K. (2010). Autocommunication and perceptual markers in landscape: Japanese examples. Biosemiotics, 3(3), 359–373.
Lotman, J. (1988). Natural environment and information. In K. Kull & T. Tiivel (Eds.), Lectures in theoretical biology (pp. 45–47). Valgus.
Lotman, J. (1990). Universe of the mind. A semiotic theory of culture. Indiana University Press.
Lotman, J. (1991). Eessõna eestikeelsele väljaandele. [Introduction to the Estonian edition.] (Veidemann, Rein, trans. In J. Lotman (Ed.), Kultuurisemiootika: Tekst – kirjandus – kultuur [Cultural semiotics: text – literature - culture] (pp. 3–6). Olion.
Lotman, J. (2005). On the semiosphere. Sign Systems Studies, 33(1), 215–239.
Lotman, J. (2009). Culture and explosion. (Semiotics, communication and cognition 1). Mouton de Gruyter.
Luhmann, N. (1989). Ecological communication. The University of Chicago Press.
Mäekivi, N., & Magnus, R. (2020). Hybrid natures – ecosemiotic and zoosemiotic perspectives. Biosemiotics, 13, 1–7.
Maran, T. (2013). Enchantment of the past and semiocide. Remembering Ivar Puura. Sign Systems Studies, 41(1), 146–149.
Maran, T. (2014). Biosemiotic criticism: modelling the environment in literature. Green Letters: Studies in Ecocriticism, 18(3), 297–311.
Maran, T. (2017). Mimicry and meaning: Structure and semiotics of biological mimicry. (Biosemiotics 16). Springer.
Maran, T. (2019). Deep ecosemiotics: Forest as a semiotic model. Recherches sémiotiques / Semiotic Inquiry, 38/39(3/1–2), 287 – 303.
Maran, T. (2020). Ecosemiotics. The study of signs in changing ecologies. (Elements in environmental humanities). Cambridge University Press.
Maran, T., & Kull, K. (2014). Ecosemiotics: main principles and current developments. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 96(1), 41–50.
Maran, T. (Forthcoming). Applied ecosemiotics: Ontological basis and conceptual models. In Cobley, P., Olteanu, A. (Eds.). Semiotics and its Masters II. Mouton De Gruyter.
Markoš, A. (2014). Biosphere as semiosphere: Variations on Lotman. Sign Systems Studies, 42(4), 487–498.
Odum, E. P. (1975). Ecology, the link between the natural and the social sciences. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Patoine, P.-L., & Hope, J. (2015). The semiosphere, between informational modernity and ecological postmodernity. Recherches sémiotiques / Semiotic Inquiry (RS/SI), 35(1), 11–26.
Patten, B. C. (2001). Jakob von Uexküll and the theory of environs. Semiotica, 134, 423–443.
Peterson, J. V., Thornburg, A. M., Kissel, M., et al. (2018). Semiotic mechanisms underlying niche construction. Biosemiotics, 11, 181–198.
Petrilli, S., & Ponzio, A. (2015). Language as primary modelling and natural languages: A biosemiotics perspective. In E. Velmezova, K. Kull, & S. J. Cowley (Eds.), Biosemiotic perspectives on language and linguistics (pp. 48–49). Springer.
Sebeok, T. A. (1988). In what sense is language a ‘primary modeling system?‘ In Broms, H., Kaufmann, R. (Eds.), Semiotics of culture: Proceedings of the 25th symposium of the Tartu-Moscow school of semiotics, Imatra, Finland, 27th–29th July, 1987. (pp. 67–80.) Arator.
Sebeok, T. A. (2001). Global semiotics. Indiana University Press.
Semenenko, A. (2016). Homo polyglottus: Semiosphere as a model of human cognition. Sign Systems Studies, 44(4), 494–510.
Siewers, A. K. (2011). Pre-modern ecosemiotics: The green world as literary ecology. In T. Peil (Ed.), The space of culture – the place of nature in Estonia and beyond (pp. 39–68). University of Tartu Press.
Siewers, A. K. (2014). Introduction: song, tree, and spring: environmental meaning and environmental humanities. In A. Siewers (Ed.), Re-imagining nature: environmental humanities and ecosemiotics (pp. 1–41). Bucknell University Press.
Uexküll, J. V. (1982). Theory of meaning. Semiotica, 42(1), 25–82.
Wheeler, W. (2016). Expecting the earth. Life, culture, biosemiotics. Lawrence & Wishart.
Acknowledgements
The research for this paper was supported by the Estonian Research Council (individual group research grant PRG314 “Semiotic fitting as a mechanism of biocultural diversity: Instability and sustainability in novel environments”).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Maran, T. The Ecosemiosphere is a Grounded Semiosphere. A Lotmanian Conceptualization of Cultural-Ecological Systems. Biosemiotics 14, 519–530 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09428-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09428-w