Towards a Holo-Semiotic Framework for the Evolution of Language

  • Jeremiah Cassar ScaliaEmail author
Part of the Numanities - Arts and Humanities in Progress book series (NAHP, volume 6)


The chapter develops the view that a global semiotic lens spanning biology and culture (thus covering the phenomenal and emergent processes of life generally) is a particularly vital frame for inquiry into the origin and evolution of language. It is further suggested that such inquiry, in its turn, could prove to be the single most important area of study to the work of transcending long-standing dichotomies between biological and cultural studies, and of affirming the perspectival salience of a semiotic theory of life. With respect to this view, a “holo-semiotic” framework (with roots in the global semiotic tradition of Thomas Sebeok) is developed wherein the object of the origin of language is approached and located within a semiotic coevolutionary complex of physio-anatomical force-relations (kinesio-/eco-semiotic) whereby a capacity for symbolical insight (anthroposemiotic) could phenomenally emerge out of biological impulse (bio-/zoo-semiotic). Based in the logic of a holo-semiotic model of language evolution, it will be argued that evolutionary semiotic processes hinge crucially on the inherent role that mimesis (as a principle function of semiosis and primary mode of information transmission) plays in both culture and biology—in its social imitative sense and in its biological replicative and adaptive senses.


  1. Barbieri, Marcello. 2008. Biosemiotics: A new understanding of life. Naturwissenschaften 95 (7): 577–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bolhuis, Johan J., Ian Tattersall, Noam Chomsky, and Robert C. Berwick. 2014. How could language have evolved? PLoS Biology 12 (8): e1001934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chandler, Daniel. 2007. Semiotics: The Basics. Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Clifford, James, and George E. Marcus. 1986. Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dacke, M., D.E. Nilsson, C.H. Scholtz, M. Byrne, and E.J. Warrant. 2003. Animal behaviour: Insect orientation to polarized moonlight. Nature 424 (6944): 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deacon, Terrence. 2004. Memes as signs in the dynamic logic of semiosis: Beyond molecular science and computation theory. Conceptual Structures at Work, 236–236.Google Scholar
  7. Deacon, Terrence. 1998. The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the Human Brain. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  8. Dennett, Daniel C. 1996. Darwin’s dangerous idea. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  9. Donald, Merlin. 1991. Origins of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2010. The evolution of language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Goody, Jack. 1977. The Domestication of the Savage Mind. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hartley, John, and Jason Potts. 2014. Cultural science: A natural history of stories, Demes, knowledge and innovation. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Hoffmeyer, Jesper, and Frederik Stjernfelt. 2016. The great chain of semiosis. Investigating the steps in the evolution of semiotic competence. Biosemiotics 9 (1): 7–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. James, Hurford. 2008. Animal syntax? Implications for language as behavior. Scotland: University of Edinburgh (ms.).Google Scholar
  15. Kirby, Simon. 2017. Culture and biology in the origins of linguistic structure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 24 (1): 118–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kull, Kalevi. 2009. Vegetative, animal, and cultural semiosis: The semiotic threshold zones. Cognitive Semiotics 4 (Supplement): 8–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kull, Kalevi, and Ekaterina Velmezova. 2014. What is the main challenge for contemporary semiotics? Σημειωτκή-Sign Systems Studies 4: 530–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kull, Kalevi. 2001. Jakob Von Uexkull: An introduction. Semiotica-La Haye Then Berlin- 134 (1/4): 1–60.Google Scholar
  19. Lieberman, Philip. 2002. On the nature and evolution of the neural bases of Human language. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 45: 36–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lieberman, Philip. 2007. The evolution of Human speech: Its anatomical and neural bases. Current Anthropology 48 (1): 39–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lieberman, Philip. 2015. Language did not spring forth 100,000 years Ago. PLoS Biol 13 (2): e1002064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maran, Timo, Dario Martinelli, and Aleksei Turovski. ed. 2012. Readings in zoosemiotics. Semiotics, communication and cognition, vol. 8. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maran, Timo. 2003. Mimesis as a phenomenon of semiotic communication. Σημειωτκή-Sign Systems Studies 1: 191–215.Google Scholar
  24. Otokura, Mari, Kenji Leibnitz, Tetsuya Shimokawa, and Masayuki Murata. 2016. Evolutionary core-periphery structure and its application to network function virtualization. Nonlinear Theory and Its Applications, IEICE 7 (2): 202–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pessoa, Luiz. 2008. On the relationship between emotion and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 9 (2): 148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Potter, Vincent G. 1967. Charles S. Peirce on norms & ideals. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  27. Sebeok, Thomas A. 1985. Zoosemiotic components of communication. In Semiotics: An introductory anthology, ed. Robert E. Innis, 294–318. Indiana, USA: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Schulze, Ernst-Detlef. 2012. Flux control in biological systems: From enzymes to populations and ecosystems. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  29. Wang, William S-Y. 2010. Conference on Evolutionary Linguistics II, Nankai University. Incomplete preliminary draft presented May 2010.Google Scholar
  30. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1954. Philosophical investigations. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wenzhou-Kean UniversityWenzhou, ZhejiangChina

Personalised recommendations