- Department of Semiotics
University of Tartu, Jakobi 2, Tartu 50410
Estonia
Timo Maran
University of Tartu, Department of Semiotics, Faculty Member
- Semiotics, Ecocriticism, Animal Studies, Human-Animal Relations, Animals and Animality, Biosemiotics, and 32 moreNature Culture, Peirce Pragmaticist Semiotics, History of semiotics, Ecosemiotics, Jakob von Uexküll, Zoosemiotics, Mimicry (Coevolution), Umwelt, Thomas A. Sebeok, Animal Behavior, Philosophy of Biology, Environmental Communication, Cultural Transmission (Evolutionary Biology), Anthrozoology, Semiotic Anthropology, History of Biology, Gregory Bateson, Continental Philosophy of Biology, Jesper Hoffmeyer, Polanyi, Michael, Human-wildlife conflicts, Science Communication, Conservation Biology, Ecological Humanities, Environmental Humanities, Tim Ingold, Endangered Species, Michel Serres, Biocultural Diversity, Multispecies Ethnography, Multispecies Studies, and Ecolinguisticsedit
- Professor of Ecosemiotics and Environmental Humanities My main fields of research are ecosemiotics (semiotic relatio... moreProfessor of Ecosemiotics and Environmental Humanities
My main fields of research are ecosemiotics (semiotic relations between culture and nature, semiotic relations in ecosystems) and zoosemiotics (sign-based and communicative relations in animals). Recently I have also been engaged in research in ecocriticism and environmental communication studies. In my research I proceed from the theoretical foundations of biosemiotics and traditions of the Tartu Semiotic School. Studying the semiotic phenomena at the outer boundaries of human culture presumes open methodology and often object-based approach. I have written about the theory of ecosemiotics and zoosemiotics as well as conducting research on specific objects: biological mimicry, Estonian nature writing, history of zoosemiotics, and reception of new species.
Current research and obligations:
- Professor of Ecosemiotics and Environmental Humanities, University of Tartu
- Researcher in charge of the Estonian Science Agency's project "Semiotics of multispecies environments: agencies, meaning making and communication conflicts" (2017 - 2020)
- Editor of the Series "Elements in Environmental Humanities". Cambridge University Press.
See http://lepo.it.da.ut.ee/~timo_m/index_en.html for full list of publications and other information.
In case of interest in any of my paper here that has not full text, please feel free to contact me.edit
Research Interests:
This Element provides an accessible introduction to ecosemiotics and demonstrates its pertinence for the study of today’s unstable culture–nature relations. Ecosemiotics can be defined as the study of sign processes responsible for... more
This Element provides an accessible introduction to ecosemiotics and demonstrates its pertinence for the study of today’s unstable culture–nature relations. Ecosemiotics can be defined as the study of sign processes responsible for ecological phenomena. The arguments in this Element are developed in three steps that take inspiration from
both humanities and biological sciences: 1) Showing the diversity, reach, and effects of sign-mediated relations in the natural environment from the level of a single individual up to the functioning of the ecosystem. 2) Demonstrating numerous ways in which prelinguistic semiotic relations are part of culture and identifying detrimental environmental effects that self-contained and purely symbol-based sign systems, texts, and discourses bring along. 3) Demonstrating how ecosemiotic analysis centered on models and modeling can effectively map relations between texts and the natural
environment, or the lack thereof, and how this methodology can be used artistically to initiate environmentally friendly cultural forms and practices.
both humanities and biological sciences: 1) Showing the diversity, reach, and effects of sign-mediated relations in the natural environment from the level of a single individual up to the functioning of the ecosystem. 2) Demonstrating numerous ways in which prelinguistic semiotic relations are part of culture and identifying detrimental environmental effects that self-contained and purely symbol-based sign systems, texts, and discourses bring along. 3) Demonstrating how ecosemiotic analysis centered on models and modeling can effectively map relations between texts and the natural
environment, or the lack thereof, and how this methodology can be used artistically to initiate environmentally friendly cultural forms and practices.
Research Interests:
The present book analyses critically the tripartite mimicry model (consisting of the mimic, model and receiver species) and develops semiotic tools for comparative analysis. It is proposed that mimicry has a double structure where sign... more
The present book analyses critically the tripartite mimicry model (consisting of the mimic, model and receiver species) and develops semiotic tools for comparative analysis. It is proposed that mimicry has a double structure where sign relations in communication are in constant interplay with ecological relations between species. Multi-constructivism and toolbox-like conceptual methods are advocated for, as these allow taking into account both the participants’ Umwelten as well as cultural meanings related to specific mimicry cases.
From biosemiotic viewpoint, mimicry is a sign relation, where deceptively similar messages are perceived, interpreted and acted upon. Focusing on living subjects and their communication opens up new ways to understand mimicry. Such view helps to explain the diversity of mimicry as well as mimicry studies and treat these in a single framework. On a meta-level, a semiotic view allows critical reflection on the use of mimicry concept in modern biology.
The author further discusses interpretations of mimicry in contemporary semiotics, analyses mimicry as communicative interaction, relates mimicry to iconic signs and focuses on abstract resemblances in mimicry. Theoretical discussions are illustrated with detailed excursions into practical mimicry cases in nature (brood parasitism, eyespots, myrmecomorphy, etc.). The book concludes with a conviction that mimicry should be treated in a broader semiotic-ecological context as it presumes the existence of ecological codes and other sign conventions in the ecosystem.
From biosemiotic viewpoint, mimicry is a sign relation, where deceptively similar messages are perceived, interpreted and acted upon. Focusing on living subjects and their communication opens up new ways to understand mimicry. Such view helps to explain the diversity of mimicry as well as mimicry studies and treat these in a single framework. On a meta-level, a semiotic view allows critical reflection on the use of mimicry concept in modern biology.
The author further discusses interpretations of mimicry in contemporary semiotics, analyses mimicry as communicative interaction, relates mimicry to iconic signs and focuses on abstract resemblances in mimicry. Theoretical discussions are illustrated with detailed excursions into practical mimicry cases in nature (brood parasitism, eyespots, myrmecomorphy, etc.). The book concludes with a conviction that mimicry should be treated in a broader semiotic-ecological context as it presumes the existence of ecological codes and other sign conventions in the ecosystem.
Research Interests: Semiotics, Evolutionary Biology, Animal Communications, Mimesis, Evolutionary Developmental Biology, and 17 moreCoevolution, Symbiosis, Biosemiotics, Visual Communication, History of Biology, Zoosemiotics, Epigenetics, Theoretical biology, Ecosemiotics, Jakob von Uexküll, Animal communication, Mimicry (Coevolution), Deception, Camouflage, Mimicry, Theory of Mimesis, and Extended Evolutionary Synthesis
“Animal Umwelten in a Changing World. Zoosemiotic Perspectives” raises semiotic questions of human-animal relations: what is the semiotic character of different species, how humans endow animals with meaning, and how animal sign exchange... more
“Animal Umwelten in a Changing World. Zoosemiotic Perspectives” raises semiotic questions of human-animal relations: what is the semiotic character of different species, how humans endow animals with meaning, and how animal sign exchange and communication has coped with environmental change. The book takes a zoosemiotic approach and considers different species as being integrated with the environment via their specific umwelt or subjective perceptual world. The authors elaborate J. v. Uexküll’s concept of umwelt to make it applicable for analyzing complex and dynamical interactions between animals, humans, environment and culture. The opening chapters of the book present a framework for philosophical, historical, epistemological and methodological aspects of zoosemiotic research. These initial considerations are followed by specific case studies: on human–animal interactions in zoological gardens, communication in the teams of visually disabled persons and guiding dogs, semiotics of the animal condition in philosophy, historical changes in the role of animals in human households, the semiotics of predation, cultural perception of novel species, and other topics. The authors belong to the research group in zoosemiotics and human–animal relations based in the Department of Semiotics at the University of Tartu in Estonia, and in the University of Stavanger in Norway.
Research Interests: Semiotics, Human-Animal Relations, Posthumanism, Actor Network Theory, Animal Studies, and 14 moreAnthrozoology, Cultural Semiotics, Biosemiotics, Critical Posthumanism, Ecocriticism, Zoosemiotics, Environmental Humanities, Human-Animal Studies, Ecosemiotics, Umwelt, Jakob von Uexküll, Animal communication, Zoos and Aquariums, and Philosophy and Sociology of Human/animal Relations
Research Interests:
The collection of essays dedicated to the 60th birthday of Kalevi Kull, Professor of Biosemiotics at the University of Tartu, comprises twenty innovative articles in biosemiotics and nearby fields. Contributions have grown out of authors’... more
The collection of essays dedicated to the 60th birthday of Kalevi Kull, Professor of Biosemiotics at the University of Tartu, comprises twenty innovative articles in biosemiotics and nearby fields. Contributions have grown out of authors’ unpublished research materials, unconventional approaches or sketches of articles. The list of authors includes internationally renowned biosemioticians, Kalevi Kull’s co-thinkers and students. Among topics shared by many articles are attention to the borders of biosemiotics while pointing to the connectedness of the subject matter of biosemiotics and the human cultural sphere, emphasis on the dialogic nature of academic theories as well as human lives, and focus on the identity of biosemiotics and its ethical implications. The collection includes a bibliography of Kalevi Kull’s academic writings in English.
Research Interests:
The book is the first annotated reader to focus specifically on the discipline of zoosemiotics. Zoosemiotics can be defined today as the study of signification, communication and representation within and across animal species. The name... more
The book is the first annotated reader to focus specifically on the discipline of zoosemiotics. Zoosemiotics can be defined today as the study of signification, communication and representation within and across animal species. The name for the field was proposed in 1963 by the American semiotician Thomas A. Sebeok. He also established the framework for the paradigm by finding and tightening connections to predecessors, describing terminology, developing methodology and setting directions for possible future studies.
The volume includes a wide selection of original texts accompanied by editorial introductions. An extensive opening introduction discusses the place of zoosemiotics among other sciences as well as its inner dimensions; the understanding of the concept of communication in zoosemiotics, the heritage of biologist Jakob v. Uexküll; contemporary developments in zoosemiotics and other issues. Chapter introductions discuss the background of the authors and selected texts, as well as other relevant texts.
The selected texts cover a wide range of topics, such as semiotic constitution of nature, cognitive capabilities of animals, typology of animal expression and many other issues. The roots of zoosemiotics can be traced back to the works of David Hume and John Locke. Great emphasis is placed on the heritage of Thomas A. Sebeok, and a total of four of his essays are included. The Reader also includes influential studies in animal communication (honey bee dance language, vervet monkey alarm calls) as well as theory elaborations by Gregory Bateson and others. The reader concludes with a section dedicated to contemporary research. Readings in Zoosemiotics is intended as a primary source of information about zoosemiotics, and also provides additional readings for students of cognitive ethology and animal communication studies.
The volume includes a wide selection of original texts accompanied by editorial introductions. An extensive opening introduction discusses the place of zoosemiotics among other sciences as well as its inner dimensions; the understanding of the concept of communication in zoosemiotics, the heritage of biologist Jakob v. Uexküll; contemporary developments in zoosemiotics and other issues. Chapter introductions discuss the background of the authors and selected texts, as well as other relevant texts.
The selected texts cover a wide range of topics, such as semiotic constitution of nature, cognitive capabilities of animals, typology of animal expression and many other issues. The roots of zoosemiotics can be traced back to the works of David Hume and John Locke. Great emphasis is placed on the heritage of Thomas A. Sebeok, and a total of four of his essays are included. The Reader also includes influential studies in animal communication (honey bee dance language, vervet monkey alarm calls) as well as theory elaborations by Gregory Bateson and others. The reader concludes with a section dedicated to contemporary research. Readings in Zoosemiotics is intended as a primary source of information about zoosemiotics, and also provides additional readings for students of cognitive ethology and animal communication studies.
Research Interests:
Maran, Timo 2008. Mimikri semiootika. [Semiotics of mimicry]Tartu Ülikooli doktoritöid. Tartu: Tartu University Press. [Updated edition of the dissertation, in Estonian]... more
Maran, Timo 2008. Mimikri semiootika. [Semiotics of mimicry]Tartu Ülikooli doktoritöid. Tartu: Tartu University Press. [Updated edition of the dissertation, in Estonian]
http://lepo.it.da.ut.ee/~timo_m/publikatsioonid/mimikri_semiootika.html
http://lepo.it.da.ut.ee/~timo_m/publikatsioonid/mimikri_semiootika.html
The global ecological crisis has often been related to the so-called Great Acceleration, i.e. the rapid growth of many social metrics (population size, gross domestic product, energy usage, etc.) from the mid-20th century onwards. The... more
The global ecological crisis has often been related to the so-called Great Acceleration, i.e. the rapid growth of many social metrics (population size, gross domestic product, energy usage, etc.) from the mid-20th century onwards. The degrowth movement has opposed the great economic expansion by advocating for a simplified society and decreased human use of energy and natural resources. In this paper, I will analyse the semiotic aspects of this process as a semiotic acceleration, and argue that transformation into the degrowth society can be supported by the restructuration of human semiotic systems towards more coherence and better connectivity with ecological processes. The semiotic acceleration manifests as a massive multiplication and spread of abstract signs and information content that is detached from ecological and material processes, and lacks value-based organization. To support the degrowth transformation, I propose the semiosis of the living as an understanding that significance arises first and foremost from semiotic participation in specific lived ecologies (cultural, ecological, and material), placement and rootedness of the given act of semiosis in the particular semiotic fabric and the unfolding of the world. The semiosis of the living re-grounds the human semiotic processes in the patterns of iconic and indexical relations shared by humans and non-human species alike.
Research Interests:
Kalevi Kull's biosemiotic aesthetics has apparent potential for ecosemiotics. This potentiality will be elaborated through the concepts of collateral beauty and adjacent semiosis. If diverse organisms aim towards better fitting,... more
Kalevi Kull's biosemiotic aesthetics has apparent potential for ecosemiotics. This potentiality will be elaborated through the concepts of collateral beauty and adjacent semiosis. If diverse organisms aim towards better fitting, perfection, and beauty, than aesthetics arises in ecosystems occasionally yet recurrently. Perceiving such collateral beauty becomes an effective means to create new semiotic connections and associations, thereby contributing to the integrity and coherence of the semiotic system. Collateral beauty may help humans become better connected with the broader ecosemiosphere, or to perceive the meaning and the value of ecological systems.
Research Interests:
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... more
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.
Research Interests:
Many concepts used in semiotics today are derived from linguistics, philosophy, literature studies and other fields. Yet a genuinely ecosemiotic approach, requires modelling tools that go beyond imagery based on human culture and... more
Many concepts used in semiotics today are derived from linguistics, philosophy, literature studies and other fields. Yet a genuinely ecosemiotic approach, requires modelling tools that go beyond imagery based on human culture and communication. In this paper, I develop an ecosemiotic research model that uses “forest” as its primary ground. Basing myself on the Tartu-Moscow school of cultural semiotics, I
introduce modelling as an analytic method. Then I describe properties of the forest as an ecosystem as well as its experiential meaning for humans. The forest model can be applied in studying common objects of ecosemiotics, but it can also be mirrored back to the objects of general, cultural or social semiotics. The paper concludes with suggestions on developing the forest model in practical research.
introduce modelling as an analytic method. Then I describe properties of the forest as an ecosystem as well as its experiential meaning for humans. The forest model can be applied in studying common objects of ecosemiotics, but it can also be mirrored back to the objects of general, cultural or social semiotics. The paper concludes with suggestions on developing the forest model in practical research.
Research Interests:
Antropotseen, suur kiirenemine, kuues liikide väljasuremislaine, globaalne kliimamuutus - heal lapsel mitu nime. Aga tõsi on, et teaduspõhiselt ja mõõtmisandmete järgi otsustades on inimkond praegu keset keskkonnamuutust, millesarnast... more
Antropotseen, suur kiirenemine, kuues liikide väljasuremislaine, globaalne kliimamuutus - heal lapsel mitu nime. Aga tõsi on, et teaduspõhiselt ja mõõtmisandmete järgi otsustades on inimkond praegu keset keskkonnamuutust, millesarnast meie liik pole kunagi varem kogenud. Mõned uuringutel põhinevad arvandmed selle kohta: 20. sajandil tõusis Maa pinnatemperatuur 0,7-0,9 • C ja alates 1975. aastast on temperatuuri tõus peaaegu kahekordistunud-keskmiselt 1,5-1,8 • C sajandi kohta (Lindsey, Dahlman 2020). ÜRO raporti järgi on looduslike metsamaade pindala viimase kolmekümne aasta jooksul vähenenud 178 miljoni hektari võrra, moodustades praegu 30,8 protsenti maismaast (FAO 2020: 10). Teise, hiljuti Pariisis avaldatud ÜRO raporti hinnangul ohustab väljasuremine miljonit taime-ja loomaliiki (UN IPBES 2019). Selgroogsete loomaliikide väljasuremise kiirus viimasel sajandil on olnud 114 korda suurem loomulikust väljasuremise tempost ning Rahvusvahelise Looduskaitseliidu hinnangul on 20-25% loomaliikidest väljasuremisriskiga (Ceballos jt 2015; Web, Mindel 2015). Ökoloogilist kriisi saaks näitlikustada veel paljude teistegi andmetega, aga üldpilt on niigi selge: meie planeet on väga ebatavalises ja kiires teisenemisfaasis.
Artikkel põhineb Tartu Ülikooli aulas 6. oktoobril 2020 peetud inauguratsiooniloengul. Pikemalt saab neil teemadel lugeda raamatust Ecosemiotics: The Study of Signs in Changing Ecologies (Maran 2020).
Artikkel põhineb Tartu Ülikooli aulas 6. oktoobril 2020 peetud inauguratsiooniloengul. Pikemalt saab neil teemadel lugeda raamatust Ecosemiotics: The Study of Signs in Changing Ecologies (Maran 2020).
Research Interests:
Unnatural. The distinction between Natural and Unnatural appears to be a powerful tool in the workings of culture, society and supposedly also in cultural theory. But the self-evidence of this distinction is deceptive.
Research Interests:
L’écocritique matérialiste s’intéresse au rapport entre matière et représentation. À cet égard, la biosémiotique et l’écosémiotique fournissent un cadre théorique apte à fonder une compréhension processuelle des relations signifiantes... more
L’écocritique matérialiste s’intéresse au rapport entre matière et représentation. À cet égard, la biosémiotique et l’écosémiotique fournissent un cadre théorique apte à fonder une compréhension processuelle des relations signifiantes unissant les organismes et leur environnement. La théorie de l’Umwelt de Jakob von Uexküll et celle des affordances de James J. Gibson, mais également la typologie des signes de Charles S. Peirce et la sémiotique culturelle de Iouri Lotman constituent un ensemble théorique cohérent sur lequel l’écocritique matérialiste pourrait s’appuyer pour fonder un modèle conceptuel adéquat à son projet d’interprétation des textes et des pratiques culturelles liées à la nature. Afin d’instaurer un dialogue entre la biosémiotique et l’écocritique matérialiste, un modèle conceptuel décrivant le processus par lequel la matière devient sémiotisée est proposé dans cet article. En tenant compte, d’une part, de la capacité de la matière à produire des significations, mais également, d’autre part, de la façon dont les actions humaines modifient les propriétés sémiotiques de la matière, une zone hybride entre l’agentivité de la matière et la modélisation humaine devrait être considérée dans une perspective écocritique.
Publication originale anglaise : « Semiotization of matter. A hybrid zone between biosemiotics and material ecocriticism», dans S. Iovino & S. Oppermann (dir.), Material Ecocriticism, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 2014, p. 141‑154. Traduction : Simon Levesque.
Publication originale anglaise : « Semiotization of matter. A hybrid zone between biosemiotics and material ecocriticism», dans S. Iovino & S. Oppermann (dir.), Material Ecocriticism, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 2014, p. 141‑154. Traduction : Simon Levesque.
Research Interests:
This essay – a collection of contributions from 10 scholars working in the field of biosemiotics and the humanities – considers nature in culture. It frames this by asking the question 'Why does biosemiotics need the humanities?'. Each... more
This essay – a collection of contributions from 10 scholars working in the field of biosemiotics and the humanities – considers nature in culture. It frames this by asking the question 'Why does biosemiotics need the humanities?'. Each author writes from the background of their own disciplinary perspective in order to throw light upon their interdisciplinary engagement with biosemiotics. We start with Donald Favareau, whose originary disciplinary home is ethnomethod-ology and linguistics, and then move on to Paul Cobley's contribution on general semiotics and Kalevi Kull's on biosemiotics. This is followed by Cobley (again) with Frederick Stjernfelt who contribute on biosemiotics and learning, then Gerald Ostdiek from philosophy, and Morten Tønnessen focusing upon ethics in particular. Myrdene Anderson writes from anthropology, while Timo Maran and Louise Westling provide a view from literary study. The essay closes with Wendy Wheeler reflecting on the movement of biosemiotics as a challenge, often via the ecological humanities, to the kind of so-called 'postmodern' thinking that has dominated humanities critical thought in the universities for the past 40 years. Virtually all the matters gestured to in outline above are discussed in much more satisfying detail in the topics which follow.
Research Interests:
In the present times of global environmental change, there is growing need for qualitative methods that would describe the meanings and significance of living environments. This paper proposes ecological repertoire analysis as a... more
In the present times of global environmental change, there is growing need for qualitative methods that would describe the meanings and significance of living environments. This paper proposes ecological repertoire analysis as a qualitative observation-based method for the environmental humanities. The method proceeds from theories relevant for ecosemiotics-ecofield analysis (A. Farina), umwelt theory (J. v. Uexküll), and perceptual affordance (J. Gibson)-and takes the event to be a basic unit of study. Interaction events are defined as any observable significant interactions between participants and understood as having symptomatic qualities with regards to the broader ecosystem. The temporal and spatial pattern of the events allows for bringing forth the meaning motifs and general theme of the given environment. By interpreting activities of various animals in the framework of umwelt theory as well as the affordances that they use to relate with the environment, the method integrates the knowledge and competences of non-human species. The method is exemplified by a small study done on the shores of the river Emajõgi, conducted in August 2019 in Tartu, Estonia. Based on this study, ecological repertoire analysis appears to be a useful research method for analyzing conflicts and aggregations of different species in hybrid environments.
Research Interests:
The relationship of humans to other primates-both in terms of abilities and evolution-has been an age-old topic of dispute in science. In this paper the claim is made that the different views of authors are based not so much on... more
The relationship of humans to other primates-both in terms of abilities and evolution-has been an age-old topic of dispute in science. In this paper the claim is made that the different views of authors are based not so much on differences in empirical evidence, but on the ontological stances of the authors and the underlying ground narratives that they use. For comparing and reconciling the views presented by the representatives of, inter alia, cognitive ethology, comparative psychology, and zoosemiotics, an overarch-ing approach of multi-constructivism is introduced. The paper proposes an analytic model (3C/GUTP) that distinguishes four logical possibilities in representing anthropo-logical difference: Gradualism, Transformativism, Unitarism, and Pluralism. Using this typology, the views of C. Darwin, F. de Waal, M. Tomasello, and T. A. Sebeok regarding the similarities and differences between human and animal capacities for cognition, culture and communication (B3C^) are analyzed. The results indicate systematic differences in the selected narratives by these authors (e.g. Darwin-Gradualism, Tomasello-Transformativism) that can be related to the types of underlying ontologies.
Research Interests:
Why dedicate a special issue of Biosemiotics to mimicry? Is there anything new one could say about mimicry that was not said elsewhere? Given the size of mimicry studies, one could argue that almost everything worth saying has been... more
Why dedicate a special issue of Biosemiotics to mimicry? Is there anything new one could say about mimicry that was not said elsewhere? Given the size of mimicry studies, one could argue that almost everything worth saying has been already said. But in some cases, it was a long time ago, in other cases, it was overshadowed by the mainstream opinions of the day, and yet other insights just slipped through the cracks because their authors were outsiders to the world of ‘big science.’ Biosemiotics, a discipline that studies sign systems and meaning production in the living world, approaches the phenomenon of mimicry in part by analysing iconic signs (where a sign refers to its object because of mutual resemblance) and by emphasising the intentionality of semiosis and interspecies semiotic relations. Biosemiotics thus provides a fresh approach to the study and analysis of mimicry by highlighting the communicative and meaning-laden aspects of such deceptive similarities. The goal of this special issue is thus to advance a semiotic and communicative approach to the interpretation of mimicry, an approach which we believe has relevance to both a biological theory of mimicry and to general biosemiotic theory.
Research Interests:
This editorial explores the relationship between phenomenology and biosemiotics and addresses four questions in the following order: (i) Are there phenomena beyond human experience? (ii) What is the relation between semiosis and... more
This editorial explores the relationship between phenomenology and biosemiotics and addresses four questions in the following order: (i) Are there phenomena beyond human experience? (ii) What is the relation between semiosis and phenomena? (iii) Should Biosemiotic Phenomenology be practiced as pure theory, or as applicable for empirical studies? And lastly, (iv) how can biosemiotics contribute to phenomenology?
Research Interests:
This paper aims to provide an overview of ecosemiotics (or semiotic ecology) particularly as developed at the University of Tartu (Estonia) and adjacent academic communities. The first ecosemiotic publications were issued in Tartu in 1998... more
This paper aims to provide an overview of ecosemiotics (or semiotic ecology) particularly as developed at the University of Tartu (Estonia) and adjacent academic communities. The first ecosemiotic publications were issued in Tartu in 1998 and thus the history of the field now reaches back two decades. The rationale of the paper is twofold: to preserve the record of the activities of Tartu’s ecosemiotics and to publicize the paradigm in the context of contemporary environmental humanities. Its emergence and development being closely bound to the scholars in Tartu, ecosemiotics is now a well-established theory of its own. In the following I present the main events, where the University of Tartu was involved, which facilitated this theoretical development.
Research Interests:
Environmental signs as physically manifested signs that we and other animals perceive and interpret in the natural environment are seldom focused on in contemporary semiotics. The aim of the present paper is to highlight the diversity of... more
Environmental signs as physically manifested signs that we and other animals perceive and interpret in the natural environment are seldom focused on in contemporary semiotics. The aim of the present paper is to highlight the diversity of environmental signs and to propose a typology for analysing them. Combining ecosemiotics and the pragmatist semiotics of C. Peirce and C. Morris, the proposed typology draws its criteria from the properties of the object and the representamen of the sign, and of their relationships. The analysis distinguishes eight basic types of environmental signs and provides examples of these from the natural environment. The typology also integrates existing concepts of environmental affordances, ecofields, phonetic syntax, sign fields, ecological codes, meta-signs and others. In addition to basic types of environmental signs, compound environmental signs are discussed with three types of these distinguished: (1) environmental meta-signs; (2) ecological codes; and (3) environmental-cultural hybrid signs. Further study of compound environmental signs could lead to reconceptualising relations between linguistic and pre-linguistic semiosis.
Research Interests:
This essay – a collection of contributions from 10 scholars working in the field of biosemiotics and the humanities – considers nature in culture. It frames this by asking the question 'Why does biosemiotics need the humanities?'. Each... more
This essay – a collection of contributions from 10 scholars working in the field of biosemiotics and the humanities – considers nature in culture. It frames this by asking the question 'Why does biosemiotics need the humanities?'. Each author writes from the background of their own disciplinary perspective in order to throw light upon their interdisciplinary engagement with biosemiotics. We start with Donald Favareau, whose originary disciplinary home is ethnomethod-ology and linguistics, and then move on to Paul Cobley's contribution on general semiotics and Kalevi Kull's on biosemiotics. This is followed by Cobley (again) with Frederick Stjernfelt who contribute on biosemiotics and learning, then Gerald Ostdiek from philosophy, and Morten Tønnessen focusing upon ethics in particular. Myrdene Anderson writes from anthropology, while Timo Maran and Louise Westling provide a view from literary study. The essay closes with Wendy Wheeler reflecting on the movement of biosemiotics as a challenge, often via the ecological humanities, to the kind of so-called 'postmodern' thinking that has dominated humanities critical thought in the universities for the past 40 years. Virtually all the matters gestured to in outline above are discussed in much more satisfying detail in the topics which follow.
Research Interests:
The article discusses the tradition of Estonian nature writing with the focus on two representative examples, depicting a coastal environment (Vilsandi islet) and a remote forest area (Alutaguse). The study proceeds from an ecosemiotic... more
The article discusses the tradition of Estonian nature writing with the focus on two representative examples, depicting a coastal environment (Vilsandi islet) and a remote forest area (Alutaguse). The study proceeds from an ecosemiotic understanding of communication-based relations between humans and their environment. Nature writing serves as a modelling tool for inter-species’ relations and the humans’ relations with their environment. It is also suitable material for the study of the semiotic mechanisms of meaning making. The chapter demonstrates that texts of nature writing are locally situated; that in order to analyse them it is necessary to take into account the specific Umwelts of the represented species; and that texts of nature writing form an intertextual ecosystem. Structural similarities can be detected in texts written about the same place by different authors. We argue that nature writing works as a model of the specific environmental relationships of the particular culture and era, as well as of the biotope as a whole.
Keywords: nature writing, ecocriticism, ecosemiotics, Umwelt theory, structure of text, Estonia
Keywords: nature writing, ecocriticism, ecosemiotics, Umwelt theory, structure of text, Estonia
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Ecosemiotics studies the role of environmental perception and conceptual categorization in the design, construction, and transformation of environmental structures. This article provides a brief review of the history of ecosemiotics, and... more
Ecosemiotics studies the role of environmental perception and conceptual categorization in the design, construction, and transformation of environmental structures. This article provides a brief review of the history of ecosemiotics, and formulates eight core principles of the ecosemiotic approach. The ecosemiotic view understands humans as capable of both prelinguistic (biosemiotic) and linguistic (cultural) modelling of their environment. Accordingly, the diversity of structures is, to a certain extent, resultant of the types of semioses partaking in their formation. Ecosemiotics could provide geography with conceptual tools to describe the role of signs and communication in the dynamics of physical environments.
Research Interests:
This paper analyses the cultural and biosemiotic bases of human attitudes towards other species. A critical stance is taken towards species neutrality and it is shown that human attitudes towards different animal species differ depending... more
This paper analyses the cultural and biosemiotic bases of human attitudes towards other species. A critical stance is taken towards species neutrality and it is shown that human attitudes towards different animal species differ depending on the psychological dispositions of the people, biosemiotic conditions (e.g. umwelt stuctures), cultural connotations and symbolic meanings. In real-life environments, such as zoological gardens, both biosemiotic and cultural aspects influence which animals are chosen for display, as well as the various ways in which they are displayed and interpreted. These semiotic dispositions are further used as motifs in staging, personifying or de-personifying animals in order to modify visitors' perceptions and attitudes. As a case study, the contrasting interpretations of culling a giraffe at the Copenhagen zoo are discussed. The communicative encounters and shifting per ceptions are mapped on the scales of welfaristic, conservational, dominionistic, and utilitarian approaches. The methodological approach described in this article integrates static and dynamical views by proposing to analyse the semiotic potential of animals and the dynamics of communicative interactions in combination.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
ABSTRACT This article provides a brief overview of the journal Sign Systems Studies, apparently the oldest journal of semiotics in the world. It was established by Juri Lotman in 1964, produced in Tartu and published by the University of... more
ABSTRACT This article provides a brief overview of the journal Sign Systems Studies, apparently the oldest journal of semiotics in the world. It was established by Juri Lotman in 1964, produced in Tartu and published by the University of Tartu Press. In addition, we provide a list of all semiotic journals currently published in the world, which includes 46 titles; from these 39 are printed on paper (among them 6 international journals on general semiotics, 14 specialized in some branch of semiotics, and 19 regional semiotics journals). Seven journals appear exclusively on the web. Altogether these journals publish articles in 16 languages.
Research Interests:
A key feature of biosemiotics is, in contrast with traditional semiotics, that it considers the dynamics of semiosis at multiple time scales, and emphasizes the active role organisms have in reshaping sign relations.
Research Interests:
The article attempts to bridge semiotics with species conservation and management. Biosemiotic and cultural semiotic methodology is applied in the analysis of a case study – the early occurrence of the golden jackal (Canis aureus) in... more
The article attempts to bridge semiotics with species conservation and management. Biosemiotic and cultural semiotic methodology is applied in the analysis of a case study – the early occurrence of the golden jackal (Canis aureus) in Estonia. Nine semi-structured interviews were carried out with the local inhabitants of the Matsalu region, professional zoologists and environmental officials who were involved in the golden jackals’ discourse. The interviews were analyzed for interactions between golden jackals and humans, expected ecological effects of golden jackals, communication between different interest groups and central cultural motifs used to interpret the new species. It is argued that in the development of this discourse, the golden jackals’ own activity has played an essential role. At the same time, human cultural models also influence the interpretation of a new species to a considerable degree. Two of such models – the opposition of the own and the alien and the “settler’s” narrative – are brought out and analyzed. The effect of the fear of the unknown is also specified. To improve human communication about new or invasive species, it is suggested to raise awareness of the underlying cultural models and to use integrative communication as the developing discourse is dynamical and constantly changing for all interest groups. For a semiotic study of species management, it is suggested to combine methodology from biosemiotics, cultural semiotics and actor-network theory.
Research Interests:
ABSTRACT The journal Biosemiotics was envisioned by its founding editor, Marcello Barbieri, as a major periodical for interdisciplinary papers that integrate biology and semiotics. Since 2008 the journal has published 21 issues, including... more
ABSTRACT The journal Biosemiotics was envisioned by its founding editor, Marcello Barbieri, as a major periodical for interdisciplinary papers that integrate biology and semiotics. Since 2008 the journal has published 21 issues, including special issues on crucial problems such as the semiotics of perception, origins of mind, code biology, biohermeneutics, biosemiotic analysis of information and chance. The impact factor of the journal (currently 0.488) does not fully describe the significance of this journal, because the discipline of biosemiotics is young and remains in its early phase of growth. As the new editorial team of Biosemiotics, we would like to express our gratitude to Dr. Barbieri for his excellent job as an editor, and ensure the readers that we are equally committed to maintain high standards and the scientific rigor of published papers. At the end of 2014 we reorganized the editorial board of the journal based on the credential and former activity of prospective members. ...
Research Interests:
In this presentation, I observe sustainability, education and knowledge from the semiotic perspective. An essential principle of sustainable development is to keep human technological development, use of resources, social and knowledge... more
In this presentation, I observe sustainability, education and knowledge from the semiotic perspective. An essential principle of sustainable development is to keep human technological development, use of resources, social and knowledge processes within the carrying capacity of the biosphere. The human semiosis appears to grow, however, without any borders (Kull 1988). Semiosis is used here as an umbrella term to denote any kind of sign process: perception, cognition, communication, naming etc. This paradox is the central topic of my presentation: how can ever-growing knowledge support sustainable development?
We have shown elsewhere that human ability to use symbolic sign systems for accumulating and conveying knowledge are deeply related with environmental degradation (Maran, Kull 2014; Maran 2014). Humans act upon environment based on their knowledge and imprint their semiotic character onto other living organisms and matter. This can have deterring effects for sign action of other organisms (Maran 2014). Kalevi Kull has proposed that in order to be sustainable, knowledge should be incomplete and the culture should be willing to forget (Kull 1988).
In this presentation, I take a look at an alternative possibility. Namely, in regard to some biological phenomena (mimicry, biophony) it has been noticed that knowledge is not limited to one species, but rather spread and maintained by many species in biological community (Kull 2010; Malavasi et al. 2014; Maran 2012). Such biologically shared knowledge can be called "ecological codes" (Maran 2012). I propose that human knowledge can be sustainable if human knowledge and activities remain connected to "ecological codes" and are a part of these broader ecologies of knowledge. In other words, human knowledge is sustainable, if human action makes sense to the other inhabitants of the biosphere.
One of the basic conceptual sources of semiotics is the triadic sign typology of Charles S. Peirce (1931–1958) that distinguishes icons (signs based on feeling / resemblance), indexes (based on relation) and symbols (based on convention). In semiotics, it is generally assumed that human symbolic and language-based knowledge is not accessible to other species, but resemblance-based icons and relation-based indexes could be (cf. Kull 2009). Therefore, if we aim at the sustainability of semiosis, we should consider how iconic, indexical and symbolic aspects of human knowledge relate to one another. Probably, most obstructive to sustainable development are highly abstract knowledge systems that tend to forget their history and connection to the original context. For environmental education this would means that teaching biological and ecological knowledge should take into consideration their applicability in the environment. Knowledge that supports sustainable development needs to be "down-to-the-earth" interactional and contextual.
References
Kull, Kalevi 1998. Semiotic ecology: Different natures in the semiosphere. Sign Systems Studies 26: 344–371.
Kull, Kalevi 2009. Vegetative, animal, and cultural semiosis: The semiotic threshold zones. Cognitive Semiotics 4: 8–27.
Kull, Kalevi 2010. Ecosystems are made of semiosic bonds: consortia, Umwelten, biophony and ecological codes. Biosemiotics 3(3): 347–357.
Malavasi, Rachele; Kull, Kalevi; Farina, Almo (2014). The acoustic codes: How animal sign processes create sound-topes and consortia via conflict avoidance. Biosemiotics 7(1), 89–95.
Maran, Timo 2012. Are ecological codes archetypal structures? - Semiotics in the Wild. Essays in Honour of Kalevi Kull on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday. Maran, Timo; Lindström, Kati; Magnus, Riin; Toennessen, Morten (eds.), Tartu: Tartu University Press, 147-156.
Maran, Timo 2014. Semiotization of matter. A hybrid zone between biosemiotics and material ecocriticism. In: Iovino, Serenella; Oppermann, Serpil (Eds.). Material Ecocriticism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 141-154.
Maran, Timo; Kull, Kalevi 2014. Ecosemiotics: main principles and current developments. - Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 96 (1): 41–50, DOI: 10.1111/geob.12035.
Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1958. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931–1958 [vols. 1–6, Ed. Charles Hartshorne, and Paul Weiss 1931–1935; vols. 7–8. Ed. A. W. Burks, 1958; In-text references are to CP, followed by volume and paragraph numbers]. CD Folio Bound Views.
We have shown elsewhere that human ability to use symbolic sign systems for accumulating and conveying knowledge are deeply related with environmental degradation (Maran, Kull 2014; Maran 2014). Humans act upon environment based on their knowledge and imprint their semiotic character onto other living organisms and matter. This can have deterring effects for sign action of other organisms (Maran 2014). Kalevi Kull has proposed that in order to be sustainable, knowledge should be incomplete and the culture should be willing to forget (Kull 1988).
In this presentation, I take a look at an alternative possibility. Namely, in regard to some biological phenomena (mimicry, biophony) it has been noticed that knowledge is not limited to one species, but rather spread and maintained by many species in biological community (Kull 2010; Malavasi et al. 2014; Maran 2012). Such biologically shared knowledge can be called "ecological codes" (Maran 2012). I propose that human knowledge can be sustainable if human knowledge and activities remain connected to "ecological codes" and are a part of these broader ecologies of knowledge. In other words, human knowledge is sustainable, if human action makes sense to the other inhabitants of the biosphere.
One of the basic conceptual sources of semiotics is the triadic sign typology of Charles S. Peirce (1931–1958) that distinguishes icons (signs based on feeling / resemblance), indexes (based on relation) and symbols (based on convention). In semiotics, it is generally assumed that human symbolic and language-based knowledge is not accessible to other species, but resemblance-based icons and relation-based indexes could be (cf. Kull 2009). Therefore, if we aim at the sustainability of semiosis, we should consider how iconic, indexical and symbolic aspects of human knowledge relate to one another. Probably, most obstructive to sustainable development are highly abstract knowledge systems that tend to forget their history and connection to the original context. For environmental education this would means that teaching biological and ecological knowledge should take into consideration their applicability in the environment. Knowledge that supports sustainable development needs to be "down-to-the-earth" interactional and contextual.
References
Kull, Kalevi 1998. Semiotic ecology: Different natures in the semiosphere. Sign Systems Studies 26: 344–371.
Kull, Kalevi 2009. Vegetative, animal, and cultural semiosis: The semiotic threshold zones. Cognitive Semiotics 4: 8–27.
Kull, Kalevi 2010. Ecosystems are made of semiosic bonds: consortia, Umwelten, biophony and ecological codes. Biosemiotics 3(3): 347–357.
Malavasi, Rachele; Kull, Kalevi; Farina, Almo (2014). The acoustic codes: How animal sign processes create sound-topes and consortia via conflict avoidance. Biosemiotics 7(1), 89–95.
Maran, Timo 2012. Are ecological codes archetypal structures? - Semiotics in the Wild. Essays in Honour of Kalevi Kull on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday. Maran, Timo; Lindström, Kati; Magnus, Riin; Toennessen, Morten (eds.), Tartu: Tartu University Press, 147-156.
Maran, Timo 2014. Semiotization of matter. A hybrid zone between biosemiotics and material ecocriticism. In: Iovino, Serenella; Oppermann, Serpil (Eds.). Material Ecocriticism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 141-154.
Maran, Timo; Kull, Kalevi 2014. Ecosemiotics: main principles and current developments. - Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 96 (1): 41–50, DOI: 10.1111/geob.12035.
Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1958. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931–1958 [vols. 1–6, Ed. Charles Hartshorne, and Paul Weiss 1931–1935; vols. 7–8. Ed. A. W. Burks, 1958; In-text references are to CP, followed by volume and paragraph numbers]. CD Folio Bound Views.
Research Interests:
Hereby we provide a list of all semiotic journals currently published in the world, which includes 53 titles. From among these, 42 are printed on paper (among them six international journals on general semiotics, 16 journals special-... more
Hereby we provide a list of all semiotic journals currently published in the world, which includes 53 titles. From among these, 42 are printed on paper (among them six international journals on general semiotics, 16 journals special- izing in some branch of semiotics, and 20 regional semiotics journals), while 11 ap- pear only as electronic publications. All in all, these journals publish articles in 16 languages.
Research Interests:
The article discusses evolutionary aspects of mimicry from a semiotic viewpoint. The concept of semiotic scaffolding is used for this approach, and its relations with the concepts of exaptation and semiotic co-option are explained.... more
The article discusses evolutionary aspects of mimicry from a semiotic viewpoint. The concept of semiotic scaffolding is used for this approach, and its relations with the concepts of exaptation and semiotic co-option are explained. Different dimensions of scaffolding are brought out as ontogenetic, evolutionary, physiological and cognitive. These dimensions allow for interpreting mimicry as a system that scaffolds itself. With the help of a number of mimicry cases, e.g. butterfly eyespots, brood parasitism, and plant mimesis, the evolutionary dynamics of mimicry in the open bio-semiosphere is investigated. The main argument is that biological mimicry largely develops through sign relations and communicative relations between organisms. It is proposed that mimicry systems should be described as two-layered structures composed of the ecological composition of the species involved and the semiotic structure of their communication.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This article examines the concept of biosemiotic criticism. It contrasts biosemiotics with the semiology of Ferdinand de Saussure and provides an overview of biosemiotics as a synthetic biological discipline. It describes how the... more
This article examines the concept of biosemiotic criticism. It contrasts biosemiotics with the semiology of Ferdinand de Saussure and provides an overview of biosemiotics as a synthetic biological discipline. It describes how the emergence of biosemiotics widened the sphere of semiotic processes to embrace all living organisms on Earth and offers a perspective of what biosemiotic criticism might be. The article also considers attempts to develop models that would bridge biosemiotics (or semiotic thinking more generally) and cultural or literary criticism.
Research Interests:
In modern biology, the appearance of organisms is largely understood as an adaptation serving the survival function. Here we advance a biosemiotic perspective inspired by the works of Adolf Portmann and Jakob von Uexküll. From this... more
In modern biology, the appearance of organisms is largely understood as an adaptation serving the survival function. Here we advance a biosemiotic perspective inspired by the works of Adolf Portmann and Jakob von Uexküll. From this perspective, the visual dimension of every living being can be understood as a representation of the evolutionary experience of a species. In the study of animal displays, biosemiotics focuses on the qualitative perspective in both the logic behind the emergence of such signs as well as their perception and interpretation by perceiving animals. In this study, we claim that convergence of the animal surface patterns that stem developmentally from different ontogenetic precursors should be taken as evidence for congruence in biological meaning. As a specific example, the article discusses the development, perception, and evolution of semantic organs such as eyespots on butterfly wings and vertebrate eyes.
Research Interests:
This article elaborates a synthesis of the semiotics of the Tartu–Moscow Semiotic School, literary semiotics, ecocriticism and biosemiotics as a methodology for analysing nature writing. The methodology uses the concept of modelling as it... more
This article elaborates a synthesis of the semiotics of the Tartu–Moscow Semiotic School, literary semiotics, ecocriticism and biosemiotics as a methodology for analysing nature writing. The methodology uses the concept of modelling as it was developed by Yuri Lotman and Thomas A. Sebeok. From this perspective, every piece of nature writing is essentially a model of the relationship between humans and nature, in its actual state as well as in its idealised form. The methodology distinguishes three levels of modelling: zoosemiotic modelling, linguistic modelling and artistic modelling. As a practical example, the author analyses Fred Jüssi’s nature essay Ohakas [The Thistle] (1976). The analysis demonstrates that the different modelling levels in the text are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary of one another. This also means that there is no need to oppose literature’s ability to represent nature and the complexity of its poetic structure.
Research Interests:
Ecosemiotics studies the role of environmental perception and conceptual categorization in the design, construction, and transformation of environmental structures. This article provides a brief review of the history of ecosemiotics, and... more
Ecosemiotics studies the role of environmental perception and conceptual categorization in the design, construction, and transformation of environmental structures. This article provides a brief review of the history of ecosemiotics, and formulates eight core principles of the ecosemiotic approach. The ecosemiotic view understands humans as capable of both prelinguistic (biosemiotic) and linguistic (cultural) modelling of their environment. Accordingly, the diversity of structures is, to a certain extent, resultant of the types of semioses partaking in their formation. Ecosemiotics could provide geography with conceptual tools to describe the role of signs and communication in the dynamics of physical environments.
Research Interests:
This introductory paper of the zoosemiotic issue of Semiotica gives an insight into the history of zoosemiotics and into contemporary developments of the field. Temporal distance allows taking a fresh perspective on Thomas A. Sebeok’s... more
This introductory paper of the zoosemiotic issue of Semiotica gives an insight into the history of zoosemiotics and into contemporary developments of the field. Temporal distance allows taking a fresh perspective on Thomas A. Sebeok’s zoosemiotic writings, periodization of his works and their relations to other studies of animal semiotics. In the present time, zoosemiotics can provide a necessary space of dialogue between biosemiotics and general semiotics. It is claimed that for contemporary zoosemiotics, a pluralistic approach is the most suitable, for the purposes of historical description, object-level studies and paradigmatic theorisations. It is also relevant to see zoosemiotics as contextualised within recent developments of environmental humanities. In this paper the classical era of zoosemiotics is contrasted with the more recent post-linguistic zoosemiotics, with special attention paid to the synthesis between zoosemiotics and cultural and literary criticism, to zoomusicology, and to the inclusion of semiotic arguments in animal ethics. Several practical methods and applications of zoosemiotics are discussed.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Hereby we provide a list of all semiotic journals currently published in the world, which includes 53 titles. From among these, 42 are printed on paper (among them six international journals on general semiotics, 16 journals specializing... more
Hereby we provide a list of all semiotic journals currently published in the world, which includes 53 titles. From among these, 42 are printed on paper (among them six international journals on general semiotics, 16 journals specializing in some branch of semiotics, and 20 regional semiotics journals), while 11 appear only as electronic publications. All in all, these journals publish articles in 16 languages.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Biological mimicry can be described as a structure consisting of two senders (a mimic and a model), a receiver, and their communicative interactions. The distinguishing of three participants in mimicry brings along the possibility to... more
Biological mimicry can be described as a structure consisting of two senders (a mimic and a model), a receiver, and their communicative interactions. The distinguishing of three participants in mimicry brings along the possibility to explain mimicry from different perspectives as a situation focused on signalreceiver, mimic, model, or human observer. This has been the foundation for many definitions and classifications of mimicry as well as for some semiotic interpretations. The present paper introduces some possibilities for defining and classifying mimicry in order to map the dynamical relations between the structure and semiosis in biological mimicry. From a semiotic point of view, the most common property of mimicry seems to be the receiver’s inclination to make a mistake in recognition. This allows describing mimicry as incorporating a specific type of semiotic entity — ambivalent sign, — which is understood as an oscillation between one and several signs depending on the actual course of interpretation. Proceeding from Jakob von Uexküll’s Theory of meaning, mimicry as any other relation between species is umwelt-dependent i.e., it is conditioned by meanings and functions present for an animal. Therefore also mimic and model, as entities that the receiver fails to differentiate, are first entities of meaning in one’s umwelt and are not necessarily representatives of some biological species. The Uexküllian approach allows us to analyze various examples of abstract and semiabstract resemblances in nature. Based on some examples, the biological notion of “abstract mimicry” is reinterpreted here as a situation where the object of imitation is an abstract feature with a universal meaning for many different animal receivers.
Research Interests:
Biological mimicry can be considered as having a double-layered structure: there is a layer of ecological relations between species and there is a layer of semiotic relations of the sign. The present article demonstrates the limitations... more
Biological mimicry can be considered as having a double-layered structure: there is a layer of ecological relations between species and there is a layer of semiotic relations of the sign. The present article demonstrates the limitations of triadic models and typologies of mimicry, as well as their lack of correspondence to mimicry as it actually occurs in nature. It is argued that more dynamical semiotic tools are needed to describe mimicry in a theoretically coherent way that would at the same time allow comparative approach to various mimicry cases. For this a five-stage model of analysis is proposed, which incorporates classical mimicry theory, Jakob von Uexküll’s Umwelt-theory, as well as semiotic and communication analysis. This research model can be expressed in the form of five questions: 1) What is the formal structure of mimicry system? 2) What are the perceptual and effectual correspondences between the participants of mimicry? 3) What are the characteristics of resemblances? 4) How is the mimicry system regulated in ontogenetic and evolutionary processes? 5) How is the mimicry system related to human cultural processes? As a practical example of this semiotic methodology, brood parasitism between the common cuckoo Cuculus canorus and his frequent host species is examined.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
From a semiotic perspective biological mimicry can be described as a tripartite system with a double structure that consists of ecological relations between species and semiotic relations of sign. In this article the focus is on the mimic... more
From a semiotic perspective biological mimicry can be described as a tripartite system with a double structure that consists of ecological relations between species and semiotic relations of sign. In this article the focus is on the mimic who is the individual benefiting from its resemblance to the cues or signals of other species or to the environment. In establishing the mimetic resemblance the question of mimic’s activity becomes crucial, and the activity can range from the fixed bodily patterns to fully dynamic behavioural displays. The mimic’s activity can be targeted at two other participants of the mimicry system—either at the model or at the receiver. The first possibility is quite common in camouflage and there are several possibilities for mimic’s activity to occur: selecting a resting place or habitat based on conformity with the environment, changing body coloration to correspond to the surrounding environment, covering oneself with particles of the soil. In its activity aimed at the model, the mimic develops a strong semiotic connection with its specific perceptual environment or part of it and obtains a representational character. In the second possibility the activity of a mimetic organism is aimed at the receiver who is confused by the resemblance, and between the two participants an active communicative interaction is established. Such type of mimicry can be exemplified by abstract threat displays found in various groups of animals, for instance a toad’s upright posture as a response to the presence of a snake. From the semiotic viewpoint it can be interpreted as the motive of fear in the predator’s Umwelt being entered into the mimic’s subjective world and manifested in its behaviour. The mimetic organism ends up in an ambiguous position, where it needs to pretend to be something other than it is. In the final part of the article it is argued that the mimetic sign is basically a false designator as the mimic’s activity to become a sign is aimed at a specific type of signs. Rather than signifying belonging to its own species or group, a mimetic sign indicates that its carrier belongs to the type of some other species. The tension between the form and behaviour of mimetic organisms arises from the discrepancy between the type of organism that it essentially is and the type of organism that the mimetic sign it carries imposes on it.
Keywords: Semiotics of mimicry - Mimic’s activity - Camouflage - Threat displays - Iconic signs
Keywords: Semiotics of mimicry - Mimic’s activity - Camouflage - Threat displays - Iconic signs
Research Interests:
Abstract In the current debates about zoosemiotics its relations with the neighbouring disciplines are a relevant topic. The present article aims to analyse the complex relations between zoosemiotics and cognitive ethology with special... more
Abstract
In the current debates about zoosemiotics its relations with the neighbouring disciplines are a relevant topic. The present article aims to analyse the complex relations between zoosemiotics and cognitive ethology with special attention to their establishers: Thomas A. Sebeok and Donald R. Griffin. It is argued that zoosemiotics and cognitive ethology have common roots in comparative studies of animal communication in the early 1960s. For supporting this claim Sebeok’s works are analysed, the classical and philosophical periods of his zoosemiotic views are distinguished and the changing relations between zoosemiotics and cognitive ethology are described. The animal language controversy can be interpreted as the explicit point of divergence of the two paradigms, which, however, is a mere symptom of a deeper cleavage. The analysis brings out later critical differences between Sebeok’s and Griffin’s views on animal cognition and language. This disagreement has been the main reason for the critical reception and later neglect of Sebeok’s works in cognitive ethology. Sebeok’s position in this debate remains, however, paradigmatic, i.e. it proceeds from understanding of the contextualisation of semiotic processes that do not allow treating the animal mind as a distinct entity. As a peculiar parallel to Griffin’s metaphor of “animal mind”, Sebeok develops his understanding of “semiotic self” as a layered structure, characterised by an ability to make distinctions, foremost between itself and the surrounding environment. It appears that the history of zoosemiotics has two layers: in addition to the chronological history starting in 1963, when Sebeok proposed a name for the field, zoosemiotics is also philosophically rooted in Peircean semiotics and German biological philosophy. It is argued that the confrontation between zoosemiotics and cognitive ethology is related to different epistemological approaches and at least partly induced by underlying philosophical traditions.
Keywords Thomas A. Sebeok - Donald R. Griffin - History of zoosemiotics - Cognitive ethology - Semiotic self - Animal mind - Animal language controversy
In the current debates about zoosemiotics its relations with the neighbouring disciplines are a relevant topic. The present article aims to analyse the complex relations between zoosemiotics and cognitive ethology with special attention to their establishers: Thomas A. Sebeok and Donald R. Griffin. It is argued that zoosemiotics and cognitive ethology have common roots in comparative studies of animal communication in the early 1960s. For supporting this claim Sebeok’s works are analysed, the classical and philosophical periods of his zoosemiotic views are distinguished and the changing relations between zoosemiotics and cognitive ethology are described. The animal language controversy can be interpreted as the explicit point of divergence of the two paradigms, which, however, is a mere symptom of a deeper cleavage. The analysis brings out later critical differences between Sebeok’s and Griffin’s views on animal cognition and language. This disagreement has been the main reason for the critical reception and later neglect of Sebeok’s works in cognitive ethology. Sebeok’s position in this debate remains, however, paradigmatic, i.e. it proceeds from understanding of the contextualisation of semiotic processes that do not allow treating the animal mind as a distinct entity. As a peculiar parallel to Griffin’s metaphor of “animal mind”, Sebeok develops his understanding of “semiotic self” as a layered structure, characterised by an ability to make distinctions, foremost between itself and the surrounding environment. It appears that the history of zoosemiotics has two layers: in addition to the chronological history starting in 1963, when Sebeok proposed a name for the field, zoosemiotics is also philosophically rooted in Peircean semiotics and German biological philosophy. It is argued that the confrontation between zoosemiotics and cognitive ethology is related to different epistemological approaches and at least partly induced by underlying philosophical traditions.
Keywords Thomas A. Sebeok - Donald R. Griffin - History of zoosemiotics - Cognitive ethology - Semiotic self - Animal mind - Animal language controversy
Research Interests:
Abstract In biosemiotics, living beings are not conceived of as the passive result of anonymous selection pressures acted upon through the course of evolution. Rather, organisms are considered active participants that influence, shape... more
Abstract
In biosemiotics, living beings are not conceived of as the passive result of anonymous selection pressures acted upon through the course of evolution. Rather, organisms are considered active participants that influence, shape and re-shape other organisms, the surrounding environment, and eventually also their own constitutional and functional integrity. The traditional Darwinian division between natural and sexual selection seems insufficient to encompass the richness of these processes, particularly in light of recent knowledge on communicational processes in the realm of life. Here, we introduce the concepts of semiotic selection and semiotic co-option which in part represent a reinterpretation of classical biological terms and, at the same time, keep explanations sensitive to semiosic processes taking place in living nature. We introduce the term ‘semiotic selection’ to emphasize the fact that actions of different semiotic subjects (selectors) will produce qualitatively different selection pressures. Thereafter, ‘semiotic co-option’ explains how semiotic selection may shape appearance in animals through remodelling existing forms and relations. Considering the event of co-option followed by the process of semiotic selection enables us to describe the evolution of semantic organs.
Keywords Semiotic selection - Semiotic cooption - Functional integration - Semantic organs - Evolutionary biosemiotics
In biosemiotics, living beings are not conceived of as the passive result of anonymous selection pressures acted upon through the course of evolution. Rather, organisms are considered active participants that influence, shape and re-shape other organisms, the surrounding environment, and eventually also their own constitutional and functional integrity. The traditional Darwinian division between natural and sexual selection seems insufficient to encompass the richness of these processes, particularly in light of recent knowledge on communicational processes in the realm of life. Here, we introduce the concepts of semiotic selection and semiotic co-option which in part represent a reinterpretation of classical biological terms and, at the same time, keep explanations sensitive to semiosic processes taking place in living nature. We introduce the term ‘semiotic selection’ to emphasize the fact that actions of different semiotic subjects (selectors) will produce qualitatively different selection pressures. Thereafter, ‘semiotic co-option’ explains how semiotic selection may shape appearance in animals through remodelling existing forms and relations. Considering the event of co-option followed by the process of semiotic selection enables us to describe the evolution of semantic organs.
Keywords Semiotic selection - Semiotic cooption - Functional integration - Semantic organs - Evolutionary biosemiotics
Research Interests:
For more academic information and publications, please visit my personal homepage
We would like to draw your attention to the conference "Traces of Extinction: Species Loss, Solastalgia, and Semiotics of Recovery" (University of Tartu, Estonia, 5-7 June 2024). The aim of the event is to discuss mass extinction from... more
We would like to draw your attention to the conference "Traces of Extinction: Species Loss, Solastalgia, and Semiotics of Recovery" (University of Tartu, Estonia, 5-7 June 2024). The aim of the event is to discuss mass extinction from different perspectives: as a subjective experiential process, as a breakdown of semiosis, as an impoverishment of nature-cultures. In this context, our aim is to find ways in which creative culture and artistic research can raise awareness of and mitigate species extinction. The deadline for submissions is 1 December. More information is available on the CFP and conference website.
http://www.ecosem.ut.ee/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/CFP_Traces-of-Extinction_1.pdf
https://www.ecosem.ut.ee/en/valjasuremise-jaljed-konverents/
http://www.ecosem.ut.ee/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/CFP_Traces-of-Extinction_1.pdf
https://www.ecosem.ut.ee/en/valjasuremise-jaljed-konverents/
Research Interests:
Conference “Contemporary Umwelt Analysis: Applications for Culture and Ecological Relations” 18 - 19 April 2023, University of Tartu, Estonia Call for Papers Umwelt analysis, initially proposed by Jakob von Uexküll, revolutionised... more
Conference “Contemporary Umwelt Analysis: Applications for Culture and Ecological Relations”
18 - 19 April 2023, University of Tartu, Estonia
Call for Papers
Umwelt analysis, initially proposed by Jakob von Uexküll, revolutionised studies on animal behaviour and perception by targeting them as semiotic phenomena, that is, as based on meanings and signs. In the Institute of Umwelt Research in Hamburg, of which Uexküll was the director, umwelt theory served as a shared theoretical ground for research on topics as diverse as the umwelten of fighting fish to the training methods of guide dogs. In the 21st century, the scope of umwelt theory has vastly expanded, both in terms of disciplines – ranging from anthropology to ecology – and the phenomena that are addressed with the help of the theory. Novel theoretical connections and disciplinary embeddings, as well as new changes in the lifeworld itself, bring along new challenges and questions: how to fit umwelt theory with existing methodologies and theoretical backgrounds of various other disciplines, how to make it a working analytical tool in the context of human-induced environmental change, and what are the methodologies that have been developed since the times of Uexküll that would help to conduct empirical analyses of animal umwelten today.
To scrutinise these questions, the Department of Semiotics at the University of Tartu will organise a conference Contemporary Umwelt Analysis: Applications for Culture and Ecological Relations on 18 – 19 April 2023. We will especially look for contributions on the following topics:
- umwelt analysis across disciplines (ecology, anthropology, literary studies, economics, etc.);
- umwelt analysis in different applications, methods, and fieldwork;
- human and animal umwelten in the era of anthropogenic environmental change;
- contemporary developments in umwelt thinking.
Keynote speakers:
Carsten Herrmann-Pillath, University of Erfurt, Germany
Morten Tønnessen, University of Stavanger, Norway
Kalevi Kull, University of Tartu, Estonia
Martin Avila, Konstfack, Sweden
Interested parties are welcome to submit their abstracts of max. 300 words by 31 January 2023 to [email protected] for a 15-20 min. presentation. Notification of acceptance will be given by 27 February 2023. Abstracts should be sent as Word .doc or .docx files, with the e-mail subject line “Umwelt analysis”. Each abstract should contain:
the title of the paper;
the name of the author(s) (surname, given name);
affiliation and country of residence;
email address;
an abstract of max. 300 words;
a short bionote of max. 50 words.
Organised by the Department of Semiotics, University of Tartu: Kalevi Kull, Riin Magnus, Timo Maran, Nelly Mäekivi, Lona Päll, Silver Rattasepp, Siiri Tarrikas.
The conference is funded by the European Union (Horizon Europe project 101084220: “Coevolutionary approach to unlock the transformative potential of nature-based solutions for more inclusive and resilient communities”) and by the Estonian Research Council (project PRG1504: “Meanings of endangered species in culture: ecology, semiotic modelling and reception”).
18 - 19 April 2023, University of Tartu, Estonia
Call for Papers
Umwelt analysis, initially proposed by Jakob von Uexküll, revolutionised studies on animal behaviour and perception by targeting them as semiotic phenomena, that is, as based on meanings and signs. In the Institute of Umwelt Research in Hamburg, of which Uexküll was the director, umwelt theory served as a shared theoretical ground for research on topics as diverse as the umwelten of fighting fish to the training methods of guide dogs. In the 21st century, the scope of umwelt theory has vastly expanded, both in terms of disciplines – ranging from anthropology to ecology – and the phenomena that are addressed with the help of the theory. Novel theoretical connections and disciplinary embeddings, as well as new changes in the lifeworld itself, bring along new challenges and questions: how to fit umwelt theory with existing methodologies and theoretical backgrounds of various other disciplines, how to make it a working analytical tool in the context of human-induced environmental change, and what are the methodologies that have been developed since the times of Uexküll that would help to conduct empirical analyses of animal umwelten today.
To scrutinise these questions, the Department of Semiotics at the University of Tartu will organise a conference Contemporary Umwelt Analysis: Applications for Culture and Ecological Relations on 18 – 19 April 2023. We will especially look for contributions on the following topics:
- umwelt analysis across disciplines (ecology, anthropology, literary studies, economics, etc.);
- umwelt analysis in different applications, methods, and fieldwork;
- human and animal umwelten in the era of anthropogenic environmental change;
- contemporary developments in umwelt thinking.
Keynote speakers:
Carsten Herrmann-Pillath, University of Erfurt, Germany
Morten Tønnessen, University of Stavanger, Norway
Kalevi Kull, University of Tartu, Estonia
Martin Avila, Konstfack, Sweden
Interested parties are welcome to submit their abstracts of max. 300 words by 31 January 2023 to [email protected] for a 15-20 min. presentation. Notification of acceptance will be given by 27 February 2023. Abstracts should be sent as Word .doc or .docx files, with the e-mail subject line “Umwelt analysis”. Each abstract should contain:
the title of the paper;
the name of the author(s) (surname, given name);
affiliation and country of residence;
email address;
an abstract of max. 300 words;
a short bionote of max. 50 words.
Organised by the Department of Semiotics, University of Tartu: Kalevi Kull, Riin Magnus, Timo Maran, Nelly Mäekivi, Lona Päll, Silver Rattasepp, Siiri Tarrikas.
The conference is funded by the European Union (Horizon Europe project 101084220: “Coevolutionary approach to unlock the transformative potential of nature-based solutions for more inclusive and resilient communities”) and by the Estonian Research Council (project PRG1504: “Meanings of endangered species in culture: ecology, semiotic modelling and reception”).
Research Interests:
This study provides an account of Juri Lotman's (1922–1993) work on semiotics in its relationships and impact to biology and ecology – particularly through biosemiotics and ecosemiotics.