Abstract
The prevalent idea that semiosis is evolutionary is a driving point for biosemiotic research, starting from the Peircean premises of continuity and including a large number of views on how signs evolve. In this paper I wish to add a small pinch of skepticism to an otherwise productive point of view. Briefly, the question to be asked is: Is there any proper and fair connection between the logical abstraction of signs, genetic expressions interpreted as signs and the animal usage of signs? And how do we go about answering this? Instead of attempting a negative account of the possibility of an evolutionary view of biosemiosis, I will attempt to make an argument in favor of skepticism as a way to make a more fine-grained distinction across the areas where biosemiotic thinking seems to have some impact. The aim is then to find philosophical strategies to overcome this skepticism when possible, while also raising some awareness about the possible limits of current biosemiotics regarding the ideal evolutionary chain of signs. Ultimately, the idea is reexamining some core assumptions of the biosemiotic point of view at its most general, accounting for some possible ways in which theory may move forward. The potential incompatibility of theoretical standpoints between some of the different approaches that may be taken is, it will be argued, a desirable outcome for biosemiotic research. That is, the way we deal with the possible theories on the evolutionary continuity of signs will also affect our different research programs, and having a nuanced philosophical discussion on it can only contribute to the expansion and clarification of where different positions within biosemiotics currently stand.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In the sense of Hookway (1997).
For a review of the concept, see Rodríguez Higuera and Kull (2017).
One such example is Olteanu’s compelling Multiculturalism as Multimodal Communication (2019), which uses a Peircean-biosemiotic background to expand on cultural semiotics applied to multiculturalism, in line with Cobley’s Cultural Implications of Biosemiotics (2016).
As applied by Jappy (2013).
Take, as an example of the interest the area generates in semiotics, the VIII conference of the Nordic Association for Semiotic Studies in 2013, which was exclusively dedicated to “sign evolution on multiple time scales,” covering areas of general semiotics and linguistics, biosemiotics and experimental semiotics.
Chien (2011), however, makes the case for a more Saussurean-inspired biosemiotics in at least some areas of research.
Lotman, while not exactly a figurehead of biosemiotics research, has indeed left a mark in some accounts of biosemiotics (Kull 1999).
A reviewer rightly asks why such signs may not be discovered instead of constructed. Accessing signs from the third person is, perhaps, an interesting area of study. We may in fact be discovering signs—these being multifaceted and ample in their presence—, but their indeterminacy is really at the heart of the problem.
The vernacular employed by Deely here makes reference to virtual relations, instantiations of potential semiotic relations without the need of cognition. These so-called virtual relations are, however, fully semiosic, in Deely’s view (Deely 2001, 42).
Such a solution would perhaps be in line with Peirce’s “community-driven conception of inquiry” (Pihlström 2004: 44).
This point was raised by a reviewer and seemed important enough to consider as a solution to the conundrum.
If, for instance, laws of nature are understood instantiations, as Armstrong does (2010, 40), we could make this objection work to some degree.
However, in what I consider to be a post-Peircean paradigm, we can see attempts at diversifying the sign pool with the conceptualization of emons (Kull 2019).
Reynolds (1997) raises some interesting questions regarding the problems of Peirce’s description of chance.
And this may not be enough reason to actually do so, in any case (Rodríguez Higuera 2016).
References
Armstrong, D. M. (2010). Sketch for a systematic metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barbieri, M. (2008a). Biosemiotics: A new understanding of life. Naturwissenschaften, 95(7), 577–599.
Barbieri, M. (2008b). The code model of semiosis: The first steps toward a scientific biosemiotics. The American Journal of Semiotics, 24(1–3), 23–37.
Barthes, R. (1968). Elements of semiology. New York: Hill & Wang.
Borges, P. (2010). A visual model of Peirce’s 66 classes of signs unravels his late proposal of enlarging semiotic theory. In J. Kacprzyk, L. Magnani, W. Carnielli, & C. Pizzi (Eds.), Model-Based Reasoning in Science and Technology, volume 314 (pp. 221–237). Berlin: Springer.
Brier, S. (2008a). Cybersemiotics: Why information is not enough! Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Brier, S. (2008b). The paradigm of Peircean biosemiotics. Signs, 2, 20–81.
Brioschi, M. R. (2016). Hints toward cosmology: The need for cosmology in Peirce’s philosophy. SCIO. Revista de Filosofía, 12, 51–73.
Champagne, M. (2013). A necessary condition for proof of abiotic semiosis. Semiotica, 197, 283–287.
Chien, J. (2011). Can Saussure’s orangery manuscripts shed new light on biosemiotics? Semiotica, 185(1/4), 51–77.
Cobley, P. (2016). Cultural implications of biosemiotics. Dordrecht: Springer.
Deely, J. (2001). Physiosemiosis in the semiotic spiral: A play of musement. Sign Systems Studies, 29(1), 27–47.
Deely, J. (2015). Objective reality and the physical world: Relation as key to understanding semiotics. Green Letters: Studies in Ecocriticism, 3, 267–279.
Fernández, E. (2014a). Peircean habits and the life of symbols. Chinese Semiotic Studies, 7(1), 203–215.
Fernández, E. (2014b). Peircean habits, broken symmetries, and biosemiotics. In V. Romanini & E. Fernández (Eds.), Peirce and biosemiotics: A guess at the riddle of life (pp. 171–181). Dordrecht: Springer.
Hoffmeyer, J. (2002). The central dogma: A joke that became real. Semiotica, 138(1/4), 1–13.
Hoffmeyer, J. (2007). Semiotic scaffolding of living systems. In M. Barbieri (Ed.), Introduction to biosemiotics: The new biological synthesis (pp. 149–166). Dordrecht: Springer.
Hoffmeyer, J., & Stjernfelt, F. (2016). The great chain of semiosis. Investigating the steps in the evolution of semiotic competence. Biosemiotics, 9, 7–29.
Hookway, C. (1997). Design and chance: The evolution of Peirce’s evolutionary cosmology. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 33(1), 1–34.
Houser, N. (2012). Naturalism. In D. Favareau, P. Cobley, & K. Kull (Eds.), A more developed sign: Interpreting the work of Jesper Hoffmeyer (pp. 191–194). Tartu: University of Tartu Press.
Jappy, T. (2013). Introduction to Peircean visual semiotics. London: Bloomsbury.
Koch, W. (1986). Evolutionary cultural semiotics, volume 6 of Bochum publications in evolutionary cultural semiotics. Bochum: Brockmeyer.
Kull, K. (1999). Towards biosemiotics with Yuri Lotman. Semiotica, 127(1/4), 115–131.
Kull, K. (2009). Vegetative, animal, and cultural semiosis: The semiotic threshold zones. Cognitive Semiotics, 4, 8–27.
Kull, K. (2019). Steps towards the natural meronomy and taxonomy of semiosis: Emon between index and symbol? Sign Systems Studies, 47(1/2), 88–104.
Lane, R. (2014). Peircean semiotic indeterminacy and its relevance for biosemiotics. In V. Romanini & E. Fernández (Eds.), Peirce and biosemiotics: A guess at the riddle of life (pp. 51–78). Dordrecht: Springer.
Maran, T., & Kleisner, K. (2010). Towards an evolutionary biosemiotics: Semiotic selection and semiotic co-option. Biosemiotics, 3(2), 189–200.
Nöth, W. (1994). Opposition at the roots of semiosis. In W. Nöth (Ed.), Origins of Semiosis: Sign Evolution in Nature and Culture, volume 116 of Approaches to Semiotics (pp. 37–60). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Nöth, W. (2000). Umberto Eco’s semiotic threshold. Sign Systems Studies, 28, 49–61.
Nöth, W. (2004). Walter a Koch: Portrait of the semiotician on the occasion of his 70th birthday. SemiotiX, 2.
Olteanu, A. (2019). Multiculturalism as multimodal communication: A semiotic perspective. Cham: Springer Nature.
Pihlström, S. (2004). Peirce’s place in the pragmatist tradition. In C. Misak (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Peirce (pp. 27–57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Queiroz, J. (2012). Peirce’s ten classes of signs: Modeling biosemiotic processes and systems. In T. Maran, K. Lindström, R. Magnus, & M. Tønnessen (Eds.), Semiotics in the wild—Essays in honour of Kalevi Kull on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 55–62). Tartu: University of Tartu Press.
Queiroz, J. (2012b). Dicent symbols in non-human semiotic processes. Biosemiotics, 5(3), 319–329.
Reynolds, A. (1996). Peirce’s cosmology and the laws of thermodynamics. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 32(3), 403–423.
Reynolds, A. (1997). The incongruity of Peirce’s tychism. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 33(3), 704–721.
Rodríguez Higuera, C. J. (2016). Just how emergent is the emergence of semiosis? Biosemiotics, 9(2), 155–167.
Rodríguez Higuera, C. J., & Kull, K. (2017). The biosemiotic glossary project: The semiotic threshold. Biosemiotics, 10(1), 109–126.
Romanini, V., & Fernández, E. (2014). Peirce and biosemiotics: A guess at the riddle of life. Dordrecht: Springer.
Salthe, S. (2007). Meaning in nature: Placing biosemiotics within pansemiotics. In M. Barbieri (Ed.), Biosemiotics: Information, codes and signs in living systems (pp. 207–217). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Sebeok, T. (1991). A sign is just a sign. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Sfendoni-Mentzou, D. (1997). Peirce on continuity and laws of nature. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 33(3), 646–678.
Sharov, A., Maran, T., & Tønnessen, M. (2016). Comprehending the semiosis of evolution. Biosemiotics, 9(1), 1–6.
Sharov, A. A. (2016). Evolution of natural agents: Preservation, advance, and emergence of functional information. Biosemiotics, 9(1), 103–120.
Sharov, A. A. (2017). Evolutionary biosemiotics and multilevel construction networks. Biosemiotics, 9(3), 399–416.
Short, T. L. (2010). Did Peirce have a cosmology? Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 46(4), 521–543.
Stjernfelt, F. (2012). The evolution of semiotic self-control: Sign evolution as the ongoing refinement of the basic argument structure of biological metabolism. In T. Schilhab, F. Stjernfelt, & T. Deacon (Eds.), The symbolic species evolved (pp. 39–63). Dordrecht: Springer.
Stjernfelt, F. (2014). Natural propositions: The actuality of Peirce’s doctrine of Dicisigns. Boston: Docent Press.
Thellefsen, T. L. (2001). C. S. Peirce’s evolutionary sign: An analysis of depth and complexity within Peircean sign types and Peircean evolution theory. SEED, 1(2), 1–45.
Turley, P. T. (1977). Peirce’s cosmology. New York: Philosophical Library.
van Heusden, B. (1999). The emergence of difference: Some notes on the evolution of human semiosis. Semiotica, 127(1–4), 631–646.
van Heusden, B. (2004). A bandwidth model of semiotic evolution. In M. Bax, B. van Heusden, & W. Wildgen (Eds.), Semiotic evolution and the dynamics of culture (pp. 3–34). Bern: Peter Lang.
Ventimiglia, M. (2008). Reclaiming the Peircean cosmology: Existential abduction and the growth of the self. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 44(4), 661–680.
de Villiers, T. (2007). Why Peirce matters: The symbol in Deacon’s Symbolic Species. Language Sciences, 29, 88–108.
Zlatev, J. (2009). The semiotic hierarchy: Life, consciousness, signs and language. Cognitive Semiotics, 4, 169–200.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rodríguez Higuera, C.J. Some Challenges to the Evolutionary Status of Semiosis. Biosemiotics 12, 405–421 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-019-09366-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-019-09366-8