Timo Maran

Semiotic interpretations of biological mimicry

Abstract This article presents different semiotic perspectives on biological mimicry, which is considered to be a communicative system consisting of a mimic, a model, and a signal-receiver. Proceeding from the writings of Thomas A. Sebeok, the activity of the mimic and the relationship between mimicry and iconicity are analyzed. From the signal-receivers perspective, mimicry is described as a probable mistake in recognition and it is characterized by the notion of ambivalent sign. Ambivalent sign is a stable sign structure fiuctuating between one and two signs. On the basis of Jakob von Uexkülls works, mimicry resemblance is described as taking place in animal Umwelten. From this semiotic viewpoint, various examples of abstract resemblance in nature are regarded as ‘resemblance with meaning’ and an alternative explanation to the concept of abstract mimicry is presented.

Towards an Evolutionary Biosemiotics: Semiotic Selection and Semiotic Co-option

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.

ECOSEMIOTICS: MAIN PRINCIPLES AND CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS

Abstract 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.

Why Was Thomas A. Sebeok Not a Cognitive Ethologist? From “Animal Mind” to “Semiotic Self”

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.

Becoming a Sign: The Mimic’s Activity in Biological Mimicry

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.

Scaffolding and Mimicry: A Semiotic View of the Evolutionary Dynamics of Mimicry Systems

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.

Dimensions of zoosemiotics: Introduction

Abstract 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 for a fresh perspective on Thomas A. Sebeoks 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 theorizations. It is also relevant to see zoosemiotics as contextualized 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 zoo-semiotics are discussed.

Biosemiotic criticism: modelling the environment in literature

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.

Semiotic dimensions of human attitudes towards other animals: A case of zoological gardens

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.

Comprehending the Semiosis of Evolution

Most contemporary evolutionary biologists consider perception, cognition, and communication just like any other adaptation to the environmental selection pressures. A biosemiotic approach adds an unexpected turn to this Neo-Darwinian logic and focuses not so much on the evolution of semiosis as it does on the semiosis of evolution. What is meant here, is that evolutionary forces are themselves semiotically constrained and contextualized. The effect of environmental conditions is always mediated by the responses of organisms, who select their developmental pathways and actions based on heritable or memorized past experience and a variety of external and internal signals. In particular, recognition and categorization of objects, learning, and communication (both intraspecific and interspecific) can change the evolutionary fate of lineages. Semiotic selection, an effect of choice upon other species (Maran and Kleisner 2010), active habitat preference (Lindholm 2015), making use of and reinterpreting earlier semiotic structures – known as semiotic co-option (Kleisner 2015), and semiotic scaffolding (Hoffmeyer 2015; Kull 2015), are some further means by which semiosis makes evolution happen. Semiotic processes are easily recognized in animals that communicate and learn, but it is difficult to find directly analogous processes in organisms without nerves and brains. Molecular biologists are used to talk about information transfer via cell-to-cell communication, DNA replication, RNA or protein synthesis, and signal transduction cascades within cells. However, these informational processes are difficult to compare with perception-related sign processes in animals because information requires interpretation by some agency, and it is not clear where the agency in cells is. In bacterial cells, all molecular processes appear deterministic, with every signal, such as the presence of a nutrient or toxin, launching a pre-defined cascade of responses targeted Biosemiotics (2016) 9:1–6 DOI 10.1007/s12304-016-9262-7