Advertisement

Difference in Kind or Difference of Degree?

  • Paul Cobley
Chapter
  • 492 Downloads
Part of the Biosemiotics book series (BSEM, volume 15)

Abstract

Possibly the most striking implication for culture arising from biosemiotics concerns the answer to the old question regarding whether humans are different in kind from non-human animals or whether the difference is a matter of degree. One imagines that the argument arose less frequently in the West before 1859 when Darwin published The Origin of Species. By 1871, Darwin had actually phrased the issue in what has become common parlance since the publication of The Descent of Man, asserting that

Keywords

Sign Language Primary Modelling Human Language Linguistic Unit Secondary Modelling 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Augustyn P. Uexküll, Peirce, and other affinities between biosemiotics and biolinguistics. Biosemiotics. 2009;2(1):1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bragg M. The adventure of English: the biography of a language. London: Sceptre; 2003.Google Scholar
  3. Brier S. Cybersemiotics: why information is not enough! Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2008a.Google Scholar
  4. Bryson B. Mother tongue: the English language. Harmondsworth: Penguin; 1990.Google Scholar
  5. Bühler K. The theory of language: the representational function of language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burgess A. A mouthful of air: language and languages, especially English. London: Vintage; 1993.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky N. A Review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language. 1959; 35(1):26–58.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky N. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1965.Google Scholar
  9. Cobley P, editor. Realism for the 21st century: a John Deely reader. Scranton/London: University of Scranton Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  10. Cobley P. Sebeok’s panopticon. In: Cobley et al., editors. “Semiotics Continues to Astonish”: how Thomas A. Sebeok shaped the future of the doctrine of signs. Berlin: de Gruyter; 2011. p. 85–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cobley P, Randviir A. What is sociosemiotics? Sociosemiotica special issue eds. Cobley and Randviir Semiotica. 2009; 173 (1–2):1–39.Google Scholar
  12. Cobley P, Deely J, Kull K, Petrilli S. Introduction: Thomas A. Sebeok: biography and 20th century role. In: Paul C et al., editors. “Semiotics Continues to Astonish”: Thomas A. Sebeok and the doctrine of signs. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton; 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Darwin C. The origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray; 1859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Darwin C. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray; 1871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Saussure F. Course in general linguistics. Trans. Roy Harris, London: Duckworth; 1983, [1916].Google Scholar
  16. Deacon TW. The symbolic species: the co-evolution of language and the human brain. Harmondsworth: Penguin; 1997.Google Scholar
  17. Deacon TW. Beyond the symbolic species. In: Schilhab T et al., editors. The symbolic species evolved. Dordrecht: Springer; 2012b. p. 1–38.Google Scholar
  18. Deacon TW. The emergent process of thinking as reflected in language processing (not yet published). 2016.Google Scholar
  19. Deacon TW, et al. Theses on biosemiotics: prolegomena to a theoretical biology. Biol Theory. 2009;4(2):167–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Deely J. Umwelt. Semiotica. 2001;134(1/4):125–35.Google Scholar
  21. Deely J. Semiotic animal. South Bend: St Augustine’s Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  22. Deely J. Building a scaffold: semiosis in nature and culture. Biosemiotics. 2015a;8:341–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Deely J. Semiosis and ‘meaning as use’: the indispensability and insufficiency of subjectivity in the action of signs. Sign Syst Stud. 2015b;43(1):7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Deely J, Petrilli S, Ponzio A. The semiotic animal. New York: Legas; 2005.Google Scholar
  25. Deutscher G. Through the language glass: how words colour your world. London: Heinemann; 2010.Google Scholar
  26. Eco U. Unlimited semiosis and drift. In The limits of interpretation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 1990. p. 23–43.Google Scholar
  27. Evans N, Levinson S. The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behav Brain Sci. 2009;2(5):429–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Favareau D, Kull K. On biosemiotics and its possible relevance to linguistics. In: Velmezova E, Cowley SJ, Kull K, editors. Biosemiotic perspectives in linguistics. Dordrecht: Springer; 2015.Google Scholar
  29. Gould SJ, Vrba ES. Exaptation: a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology. 1982;8:4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Greenberg J, editor. Universals of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1963.Google Scholar
  31. Harris R. The language myth. London: Duckworth; 1981.Google Scholar
  32. Harris R. Integrational linguistics and the structuralist legacy. Lang Commun. 1999;19:45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hockett CR. The problem of universals in language. In: Greenberg J, editor. Universals of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1963.Google Scholar
  34. Hoffmeyer J. Signs of meaning in the universe. Trans. Barbara J. Haveland, Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  35. Hoffmeyer J. Biosemiotics. An examination into the signs of life and the life of signs. Scranton: Scranton University Press; 2008a.Google Scholar
  36. Hoffmeyer J, editor. A legacy for living systems: Gregory Bateson as a precursor to biosemiotics. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008b.Google Scholar
  37. Hoffmeyer J, Kull K. Baldwin and biosemiotics: what intelligence is for. In: Weber BH, Depew DJ, editors. Evolution and learning: the Baldwin effect reconsidered. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  38. Ingram J. Talk, talk, talk. New York: Penguin; 1992.Google Scholar
  39. Kull K. On semiosis, umwelt and semiosphere. Semiotica. 1998;120(3/4):299–310.Google Scholar
  40. Kull K. Biosemiotics: to know, what life knows. Cybern Hum Know. 2009;16(3–4):81–8.Google Scholar
  41. Kull K. Umwelt and modeling. In: Cobley P, editor. The Routledge companion to semiotics. London: Routledge; 2010.Google Scholar
  42. Maher J. Seeing language in sign: the work of William C. Stokoe. Washington: Gallaudet University Press; 1997.Google Scholar
  43. Matthews PH. Grammatical theory in the United States: from Bloomfield to Chomsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McCrum R, et al. The story of English. revth ed. Harmondsworth: Penguin; 2002.Google Scholar
  45. Sebeok TA. Ecumenicalism in semiotics. In: Sebeok, editor. A perfusion of signs. Bloomington/London: Indiana University Press; 1977.Google Scholar
  46. Sebeok TA. The semiotic self. In: The sign and its masters, Austin: University of Texas Press; 1979a.Google Scholar
  47. Sebeok TA. Prefigurements of art. Semiotica. 1979b;27:3–73Google Scholar
  48. Sebeok TA. I think I am a verb: more contributions to the doctrine of signs. New York: Plenum Press; 1986a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sebeok TA. The problem of the origin of language in an evolutionary frame. Lang Sci. 1986b;8(2):168–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sebeok TA. In what sense is language a ‘primary modeling system’? In: Broms H, Kaufmann R, editors. Semiotics of culture: proceedings of the 25th symposium of the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics, Imatra, Finland, 27th–29th July, 1987. Helsinki: Arator; 1988. p. 67–80.Google Scholar
  51. Sebeok TA. The doctrine of signs. In A sign is just a sign. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 1991a.Google Scholar
  52. Sebeok TA. Semiotics in the USA. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 1991b.Google Scholar
  53. Sebeok TA. A sign is just a sign. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 1991c.Google Scholar
  54. Sebeok TA. Nonverbal communication. In: Cobley P, editor. The Routledge companion to semiotics and linguistics. London: Routledge; 2001a.Google Scholar
  55. Sebeok TA. Global semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 2001b.Google Scholar
  56. Sebeok TA. Signs: an introduction to semiotics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2001c.Google Scholar
  57. Sebeok TA, Danesi M. The forms of meaning: modeling systems theory and semiotic analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sebeok TA, Rosenthal R, editors. The Clever Hans phenomenon: communication with horses, whales, apes, and people. New York: New York Academy of Sciences; 1981.Google Scholar
  59. Steiner G. After Babel: aspects of language and translation. London: Oxford University Press; 1975.Google Scholar
  60. Vološinov VN. Discourse in life and discourse in art. In: Freudianism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 1990.Google Scholar
  61. Von Foerster H. On constructing a reality. In: Understanding understanding, Dordrecht: Springer; 2003.Google Scholar
  62. Wacewicz S, Żywiczyński P. Language evolution: why Hockett’s design features are a non-starter. Biosemiotics. 2015;8:29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wheeler JA (with Ford, Kenneth). Geons, black holes and quantum foam: a life in physics. New York: Norton; 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Cobley
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Distinguished Visiting Professor, School of Foreign Languages and CulturesNanjing Normal UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.President of the International Association for Semiotic Studies; and Professor in Language and Media, School of Media and Performing ArtsMiddlesex UniversityLondonUK

Personalised recommendations