Element contents
Ecosemiotics
The Study of Signs in Changing Ecologies
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 November 2020
Summary
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 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 centred on models and modelling 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.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781108942850Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 10 December 2020
References
Agosta, S. J. and Klemens, J. A. (2008). Ecological fitting by phenotypically flexible genotypes: Implications for species associations, community assembly and evolution. Ecology Letters, 11(11), 1123–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andrews, E. (2003). Conversations with Lotman: Cultural Semiotics in Language, Literature, and Cognition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Augustyn, P. (2013). Man, nature, and semiotic modelling or how to create forests and backyards with language. Sign Systems Studies, 41(4), 488–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateson, G. and Bateson, M. C. (1988). Angels Fear: Towards an Epistemology of the Sacred. Cresskill: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Bleicher, S. S. (2017).The landscape of fear conceptual framework: Definition and review of current applications and misuses. PeerJ, 5:e3772: doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3772Google Scholar
Bradbury, J. W. and Vehrencamp, S. L. (2011). Principles of Animal Communication. 2nd ed. Sunderland: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Bruno, J. F., Stachowicz, J. J. and Bertness, M. D. (2003). Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18(3), 119–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callon, M., Lascoumes, P. and Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Candland, D. K. (2005). The animal mind and conservation of species: Knowing what animals know. Current Science, 89(7), 1122–7.Google Scholar
Chapin, F. S., Matson, P. A. and Mooney, H. A. (2011). Principles of Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A. (1997). Being There: Putting Brain, Body and World Together Again. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Cobley, P. (2016). Cultural Implications of Biosemiotics (Biosemiotics vol. 15). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colapietro, V. (2009). Pointing things out: Exploring the indexical dimensions of literary texts. In Veivo, H., Ljungberg, C. and Johansen, J. D., eds., Redefining Literary Semiotics. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 109–33.Google Scholar
Damásio, A. (1994). Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. Berkley: Putnam Publishing.Google Scholar
D’Aniello, B., Semin, G. R., Alterisio, A., Aria, M. and Scandurra, A. (2018). Interspecies transmission of emotional information via chemosignals: From humans to dogs (Canis lupus familiaris). Animal Cognition, 21(1), 67–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Santana, C. N., Rozenfeld, A. F., Marquet, P. A. and Duarte, C. M. (2013).Topological properties of polar food webs. Marine Ecology – Progress Series, 474, 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eco, U. (1979). The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Eco, U. (1994). Six Walks in the Fictional Woods. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Emmeche, C., Kull, K. and Stjernfelt, F. (2002). Reading Hoffmeyer, Rethinking Biology. (Tartu Semiotics Library vol. 3.) Tartu: Tartu University Press.Google Scholar
Farina, A. (2006). Ecology, Cognition and Landscape: Linking Natural and Social Systems. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Farina, A. (2008). The landscape as a semiotic interface between organisms and resources. Biosemiotics, 1(1), 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farina, A. (2012). A biosemiotic perspective of the resource criterion: Toward a general theory of resources. Biosemiotics, 5(1), 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farina, A. and Belgrano, A. (2004). The eco-field: A new paradigm for landscape ecology. Ecological Restoration, 19, 107–10.Google Scholar
Farina, A. and Belgrano, A. (2006). The eco-field hypothesis: Toward a cognitive landscape. Landscape Ecology, 21, 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farina, A. and Pieretti, N. (2013). From Umwelt to soundtope: An epistemological essay on cognitive ecology. Biosemiotics, 7(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gilbert, S.F. and Epel, D. 2008. Ecological Developmental Biology: Integrating Epigenetics, Medicine, and Evolution. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Goodale, E., Beauchamp, G., Magrath, R. D., Nieh, J. C. and Ruxton, G. D. (2010). Interspecific information transfer influences animal community structure. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25(6), 354–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffin, D. R. (1976). The Question of Animal Awareness: Evolutionary Continuity of Mental Experience. New York: Rockefeller University Press.Google Scholar
Gulick, W. (2012). Polanyian biosemiotics and the from-via-to dimensions of meaning. Tradition and Discovery: The Polanyi Society Periodical, 39(1), 18–33.Google Scholar
Hagen, J. B. (1992). An Entangled Bank: The Origins of Ecosystem Ecology. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Hare, B. and Tomasello, M. (2005). Human-like social skills in dogs? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(9), 439–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffmeyer, J. (1996). Signs of Meaning in the Universe. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmeyer, J. (2007). Semiotic scaffolding of living systems. In Barbieri, M., ed., Introduction to Biosemiotics. Dordrecht: Springer, 149–66.Google Scholar
Hoffmeyer, J. (2008). Biosemiotics: An Examination into the Signs of Life and the Life of Signs. Scranton: University of Scranton Press.Google Scholar
Hornborg, A. (1999). Money and the semiotics of ecosystem dissolution. Journal of Material Culture, 4(2), 143–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornborg, A. (2001). Vital signs: An ecosemiotic perspective on the human ecology of Amazonia. Sign Systems Studies, 29(1), 121–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansen, J. D. (2002). Literary Discourse. A Semiotic-Pragmatic Approach to Literature. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansen, J. D. and Larsen, S. E. (2002). Signs in Use. An Introduction to Semiotics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Joly-Mascheroni, R. M., Senju, A. and Shepherd, A. J. (2008). Dogs catch human yawns. Biology Letters, 4(5): doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2008.0333CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jordan, L. A. and Ryan, M. J. (2015). The sensory ecology of adaptive landscapes. Biological Letters, 11, 20141054: dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2014.1054Google ScholarPubMed
Jørgensen, S. E. (1992). Integration of Ecosystem Theories. A Pattern. Dordrecht: Springer SBM.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, S. E. and Müller, F. (2000). Ecosystems as complex systems. In Jørgensen, S. E. and Müller, F., eds., Handbook of Ecosystem Theories and Management. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, 5–20.Google Scholar
Jüssi, Fred (1986). Ohakas [Thistle]. In Jüssi, Fred, Jäälõhkuja [Icebreaker]. Tallinn: Valgus, 35–6.Google Scholar
Kaplinski, J. (1985). Three poems. The Paris Review, 96, 99: www.theparisreview.org/poetry/2900/three-poems-jaan-kaplinski Accessed 15.01.2020.Google Scholar
Kleisner, K. (2010). Re-semblance and re-evolution: Paramorphism and semiotic co-option may explain the re-evolution of similar phenotypes. Sign Systems Studies, 38(1/4): 378–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, W. A. (1986). Evolutionary Cultural Semiotics: Essays on the Foundation and Institutionalization of Integrated Cultural Studies. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Kohn, E. (2013). How Forests Think: Toward an Anthropology Beyond the Human. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Komárek, S. (2009). Nature and Culture. The World of Phenomena and the World of Interpretation. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Kotov, K. and Kull, K. (2011). Semiosphere is the relational biosphere. Emmeche, In C. and Kull, K., eds., Towards a Semiotic Biology: Life is the Action of Signs. London: Imperial College Press, 179–94.Google Scholar
Kull, K. (1998). Semiotic ecology: Different natures in the semiosphere. Sign Systems Studies, 26, 344–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kull, K. (1999). Towards biosemiotics with Juri Lotman. Semiotica, 127(1–4), 115–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kull, K. (2004). Semiosphere and a dual ecology: Paradoxes of communication. Sign Systems Studies, 33(1), 175–89.Google Scholar
Kull, K. (2010). Ecosystems are made of semiosic bonds: Consortia, umwelten, biophony and ecological codes. Biosemiotics, 3(3), 347−57.Google Scholar
Kull, K. (2015). A semiotic theory of life: Lotman’s principles of the universe of the mind, Green Letters, 19(3), 255–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kull, K. and Torop, P. (2003). Biotranslation: Translation between umwelten. In Petrilli, S., ed., Translation Translation. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 313–28.Google Scholar
Laigle, I., Aubin, I., Digel, C., Brose, U., Boulangeat, I. and Gravel, D. (2018). Species traits as drivers of food web structure. Oikos, 127, 316–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Philosophy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Leopold, A. (1968). A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 129–33.Google Scholar
Lestel, D. (2002). The biosemiotics and phylogenesis of culture. Social Science Information, 41(1), 35–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lestel, D. (2013). The withering of shared life through the loss of biodiversity. Social Science Information, 52(2), 307–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lévêque, C. (2003). Ecology: From Ecosystem to Biosphere. Boca Raton: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, K. (2010). Autocommunication and perceptual markers in landscape: Japanese examples. Biosemiotics, 3(3), 359−373.Google Scholar
Lindström, K. (2011). Delineating Landscape Semiotics: Towards the Semiotic Study of Landscape Processes. (Dissertationes semioticae Universitatis Tartuensis, 15). Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Google Scholar
Lotman, J. (1978). Problems in the typology of texts. In. Lucid, D. P., ed., Soviet Semiotics: An Anthology. Baltimore & London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 119–24.Google Scholar
Lotman, J. (1990). Universe of the Mind. A Semiotic Theory of Culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Lotman, J. (1992) = Лотман, Юрий Михайлович. “Текст и полиглотизм культуры”. (Text and Cultural Polyglotism) – Лотман, Ю. М. Избранные статьи в трех томах. т. I. Статьи по семиотике и топологии культуры. Таллин: Александра, 142–7.Google Scholar
Lotman, J. (1997). Culture as a subject and an object in itself. Trames, 1(1), 7–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lotman, J. (2009). Culture and Explosion. (Semiotics, Communication and Cognition 1). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lotman, J. (2011). The place of art among other modelling systems. Sign Systems Studies, 39(2/4), 249–70.Google Scholar
Lotman, J. and Piatigorsky, A. M. (1978). Text and function. In. Lucid, D. P., ed., Soviet Semiotics: An Anthology. Baltimore & London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 233–44.Google Scholar
Lukac, M. and Godbold, D. L. (2011). Soil Ecology in Northern Forests. A Belowground View of a Changing World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupien, S. J., Maheu, F., Tu, M., Fiocco, A. and Schramek, T. E. (2007). The effects of stress and stress hormones on human cognition: Implications for the field of brain and cognition. Brain and Cognition, 65(3), 209–37.Google Scholar
Magnus, R. (2012). How did man become unaddressed? In Maran, T., Lindström, K., Magnus, R. and Tønnessen, M., eds., Semiotics in the Wild: Essays in Honour of Kalevi Kull on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday. Tartu: University of Tartu Press, 157−63.Google Scholar
Malavasi, R., Kull, K. and Farina, A. (2014).The acoustic codes: How animal sign processes create sound-topes and consortia via conflict avoidance. Biosemiotics 7(1), 89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandelker, A. (1994). Semiotizing the Sphere: Organicist Theory in Lotman, Bakhtin, and Vernadsky. Publications of the Modern Language Association, 109(3), 385–96.Google Scholar
Maran, T. (2007). Towards an integrated methodology of ecosemiotics: The concept of nature-text. Sign Systems Studies, 35(1/2), 269–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maran, T. (2010). Why was Thomas A. Sebeok not a cognitive ethologist? From “animal mind” to “semiotic self”. Biosemiotics, 3(3), 315–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maran, T. (2012). Are ecological codes archetypal structures? In Maran, T., Lindström, K., Magnus, R. and Tønnessen, M., eds., Semiotics in the Wild: Essays in Honour of Kalevi Kull on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday. Tartu: University of Tartu Press, 147–56.Google Scholar
Maran, T. (2014a). Biosemiotic criticism: Modelling the environment in literature. Green Letters: Studies in Ecocriticism, 18(3), 297–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maran, T. (2014b). Semiotization of matter: A hybrid zone between biosemiotics and material ecocriticism. In Iovino, S., and Oppermann, S., eds., Material Ecocriticism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 141–54.Google Scholar
Maran, T. (2017a). Mimicry and Meaning: Structure and Semiotics of Biological Mimicry. (Biosemiotics vol. 16). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maran, T. (2017b). On the diversity of environmental signs: A typological approach. Biosemiotics, 10(3), 355–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maran, T. (2020a). Deep ecosemiotics: Forest as a semiotic model. Recherches sémiotiques / Semiotic Inquiry (RS/SI). Special issue on Biosemiotics. ed. J. Bates. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Maran, T. (2020b). Ecological repertoire analysis: A method of interaction-based semiotic study for multispecies environments. Biosemiotics, 13(1), 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maran, T. and Kleisner, K. (2010). Towards an evolutionary biosemiotics: Semiotic selection and semiotic co-option. Biosemiotics, 3(2), 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maran, T. and Kull, K. (2014). Ecosemiotics: main principles and current developments. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 96(1), 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maran, T. and Tüür, K. (2017). From birds and trees to texts: An ecosemiotic look at Estonian nature writing. Parham, In J. and Westling, L., eds., A Global History of Literature and the Environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 286–300.Google Scholar
Messier, C., Puettmann, K. J. and Coates, K. D., eds. (2013). Managing Forests as Complex Adaptive Systems: Building Resilience to the Challenge of Global Change. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, C. (1971). Foundations of the theory of signs. In Morris, Charles, Writings on the General Theory of Signs. The Hague: Mouton, 17–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, T. (2013). Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Nielsen, S. E. and Herrera, A. Y. (2017). Sex steroids, learning and memory. In Pfaff, D. W. and Joëls, M., eds., Hormones, Brain and Behavior, 3rd ed. Amsterdam: Academic Press, 399–422.Google Scholar
Nielsen, S. N. (2007). Towards an ecosystem semiotics: Some basic aspects for a new research programme. Ecological Complexity, 4(3), 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, S. N. (2016). Second order cybernetics and semiotics in ecological systems – Where complexity really begins. Ecological Modelling, 319, 119–29.Google Scholar
Noble, E. E., Hsu, T. M. and Kanoski, S. E. (2017). Gut to brain dysbiosis: mechanisms linking western diet consumption, the microbiome, and cognitive impairment. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 11(9). http://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2017.00009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nöth, W. (2001). Ecosemiotics and the semiotics of nature. Sign Systems Studies, 29(1), 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nöth, W. (2014). The life of symbols and other legisigns: More than mere metaphor? In Romanini, V. and Fernández, E., eds., Peirce and Biosemiotics: A Guess at the Riddle of Life. Dordrecht: Springer, 171–82.Google Scholar
Odling-Smee, J., Laland, K. N. and Feldman, M. W. (2003) Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ojamaa, M. and Torop, P. (2015). Transmediality of cultural autocommunication. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 18(1), 61–78.Google Scholar
Palagi, E., Nicotra, V. and Cordoni, G. (2015). Rapid mimicry and emotional contagion in domestic dogs. Royal Society Open Science, 2(12), 150505. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patoine, P.-L. and Hope, J. (2015). The semiosphere, between informational modernity and ecological postmodernity. Recherches sémiotiques / Semiotic Inquiry (RS/SI), 35(1), 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patten, B. C. and Odum, E. P. (1981). The cybernetic nature of ecosystems. The American Naturalist, 118(6), 886–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peh, K. S.-H., Corlett, R. T. and Bergeron, Y., eds. (2015). Routledge Handbook of Forest Ecology. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1958–1966). Collected papers. Vols. 1–6 edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss; vols. 7–8 edited by Burks, A. W.. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press (referred as CP).Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (ed.) (2019). The Microbiome and the Brain. Boca Raton: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, J. V., Thornburg, A. M., Kissel, M. et al. (2018). Semiotic mechanisms underlying niche construction. Biosemiotics, 11, 181–98.Google Scholar
Petrilli, S. (2003). Modeling, dialogue, and globality: Biosemiotics and semiotics of self. 2. Biosemiotics, semiotics of self, and semioethics. Sign Systems Studies, 31(1), 65–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrilli, S. and Ponzio, A. (2005). Semiotics Unbounded: Interpretive Routes through the Open Network of Signs. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Piiper, J. (1935). Pilte ja hääli kodumaa loodusest I [Images and sounds from homeland’s nature I]. Tartu: Noor-Eesti.Google Scholar
Piiper, J. (1968). Rännakuid Eesti radadel [Wanderings in Estonian routes]. Tallinn: Eesti Raamat.Google Scholar
Pilgrim, S. and Pretty, J. (2013). Nature and culture: An introduction. In Pilgrim, S. and Pretty, J., eds., Nature and Culture. Rebuilding Lost Connections. Oxon: Routledge, 1–20.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M (1967). Sense-giving and sense-reading. Philosophy, 42(162), 301–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proops, L. and McComb, K. (2010). Attributing attention: the use of human-given cues by domestic horses (Equus caballus). Animal Cognition, 13, 197–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raffa, K. F., Aukema, B. H., Bentz, B. J., Carroll, A. L., Hicke, J. A., Turner, M. G. and Romme, W. H. (2008). Cross-scale drivers of natural disturbances prone to anthropogenic amplification: The dynamics of bark beetle eruptions. BioScience, 58(6), 501–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remm, T. (2015). Sociocultural Space: Spatial Modelling and the Sociocultural World. Dissertationes Semioticae Universitatis Tartuensis 20. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Google Scholar
Rueckert, W. (1978). Literature and ecology: An experiment in ecocriticism. Iowa Review, 9(1), 71–86.Google Scholar
Sánchez-García, F. J., Machado, V., Galián, J. and Gallego, D. (2017). Application of the eco-field and general theory of resources to bark beetles: Beyond the niche construction theory. Biosemiotics, 10, 57–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebeok, T. A. (1990). Essays in Zoosemiotics (Monograph Series of the TSC 5). Toronto: Toronto Semiotic Circle; Victoria College in the University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Sebeok, T. A. (1991). In what sense is language a “primary modeling system”? In A Sign is Just a Sign. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 49–58.Google Scholar
Sebeok, T. A. (2001). Tell me, where is fancy bred? The biosemiotic self. In Global Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 120–7.Google Scholar
Sebeok, T. A. and Danesi, M. (2000). The Forms of Meaning: Modeling Systems Theory and Semiotic Analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sell, R. D. (2000). Literature as Communication: The Foundations of Meditating Criticism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serres, M. (2011). Malfeasance: Appropriation Through Pollution? Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Siewers, A. (2011). Pre-modern ecosemiotics: The green world as literary ecology. In Peil, T., ed., The Space of Culture – The Place of Nature in Estonia and Beyond. Tartu: University of Tartu Press, 39–68.Google Scholar
Siewers, A. (2014). Introduction: song, tree, and spring: environmental meaning and environmental humanities. In Siewers, A., ed., Re-imagining nature: environmental humanities and ecosemiotics, Bucknell: Bucknell University Press, 1–41.Google Scholar
Slabbekoorn, H. and Halfwerk, W. (2009). Behavioural ecology: Noise annoys at community level. Current Biology, 19(16), R693–R695.Google Scholar
Sonesson, G. (2010). From mimicry to mime by way of mimesis: Reflections on a general theory of iconicity. Sign Systems Studies, 38(1), 18–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spretnak, C. (1997). The Resurgence of the Real: Body, Nature, and Place in a Hypermodern World. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Stachowicz, J. J. (2001). Mutualism, facilitation, and the structure of ecological communities. Bioscience, 51(3), 235–46.Google Scholar
Stibbe, A. (2012). Animals Erased: Discourse, Ecology and Reconnection with the Natural World. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Stibbe, A. (2015). Ecolinguistics: Language, Ecology and the Stories We Live By. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stock, A. K., Dajkic, D., Köhling, H. L., von Heinegg, E. H., Fiedler, M. and Beste, C. (2017). Humans with latent toxoplasmosis display altered reward modulation of cognitive control. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 10170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suzuki, T. N. (2016). Semantic communication in birds: Evidence from field research over the past two decades. Ecological Research 31(3): 307–19.Google Scholar
Tobias, J. A., Planqué, R., Cram, D. L. and Seddon, N. (2014). Species interactions and the structure of complex communication networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(3), 1020–5.Google ScholarPubMed
Tondl, L. (2000). Semiotic foundation of models and modelling. In Bernard, J., Grzybek, P. and Withalm, G., eds., Modellierungen von Geschichte und Kultur Modelling History and Culture Akten des 9. Internationalen Symposiums der Osterreichischen Gesellschaft fur Semiotik Universitat Graz, 22.–24. November 1996 Band I. Angewandte Semiotik 16/17. Wien: OGS, 81–9.Google Scholar
Torop, P. (2008). Translation as communication and auto-communication. Sign Systems Studies, 36(2), 375–96.Google Scholar
Tüür, K. (2009). Bird sounds in nature writing: human perspective on animal communication. Sign Systems Studies, 37(3/4), 226–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tüür, K. (2016). Semiotics of textual animal representations. In Maran, T., Tønnessen, M. and Rattasepp, S., eds., Animal Umwelten in a Changing World: Zoosemiotic Perspectives (Tartu Semiotics Library; 18). Tartu: University of Tartu Press, 222–38.Google Scholar
Van Dyck, H. (2012). Changing organisms in rapidly changing anthropogenic landscapes: the significance of the ‘Umwelt’-concept and functional habitat for animal conservation. Evolutionary Applications, 5(2), 144–53.Google Scholar
Veivo, H., Ljungberg, C. and Johansen, J. D. (eds.) (2009). Redefining Literary Semiotics. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Vladimirova, E. (2009). Sign activity of mammals as means of ecological adaptation. Sign Systems Studies, 37(3/4), 614–38.Google Scholar
Weik von Mossner, A. (2018). Green states of mind? Cognition, emotion and environmental framing. Green Letters, 22(3), 313–23.Google Scholar
West-Eberhard, M. (2003). Developmental Plasticity and Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westling, L. (2016). Dangerous intersubjectivities from Dionysos to Kanzi. In Tønnessen, M., Armstrong Oma, K. and Rattasepp, S., eds., Thinking about Animals in the Age of the Anthropocene. Lanham: Lexington Books, 19–36.Google Scholar
Wheeler, W. (2006). The Whole Creature: Complexity, Biosemiotics and the Evolution of Culture. London: Lawrence & Wishart.Google Scholar
Wheeler, W. (2016). Expecting the Earth. Life, Culture, Biosemiotics. London: Lawrence & Wishart.Google Scholar
Woodward, F. I. (1994). How many species are required for a functional ecosystem? In Schulze, E. D. and Mooney, H. A., eds., Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function. (Praktische Zahnmedizin Odonto-Stomatologie Pratique Practical Dental Medicine (Geology), vol. 99) Berlin: Springer, 271–92.Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, A. A., Ivanov, V. V. and Toporov, V. N. (1978). Structural-typological study of semiotic modeling systems. In Lucid, D. P., ed., Soviet Semiotics: An Anthology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 47–58.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this element is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 86
- Cited by