Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science

Living Edition
| Editors: Todd K. Shackelford, Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford

Semiotic Constraints

  • Don FavareauEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3358-1

Definition

Semiotic constraints refer to the notion that the behavior of animals (including humans) is organized at least in part by what the things that they encounter in the world signify, or “mean,” to them. In the context of evolutionary psychology, such “meanings” do not refer to self-conscious mental processes but to naturally evolved patterns of behavior wherein a given stimulus has come to indicate, or point to, something other than itself for the members of a species. The term “semiotic constraints” has thus been used to refer both to those signs in the environment that productively constrain, and thus give shape to, an organism’s behavior, as well as to the conditions under which such stimuli have become meaningful for an organism to begin with.

Introduction

“Semiosis” comes from the Greek terms sêma “sign” and -ōsis(“process”). Biosemiotics is thus the study of sign-processes in living systems, and “semiotic constraints,” in this context, refer to the evolutionary and...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Akrich, M., & Latour, B. (1992). A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In W. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 259–264). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Deacon, T. (1997). The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  3. Deacon, T. (2003). Universal grammar and semiotic constraints. In M. Christiansen & S. Kirby (Eds.), Language evolution (pp. 111–139). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Deacon, T. (2011). Incomplete nature: How mind emerged from matter. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  5. Hoffmeyer, J. (1996). Signs of meaning in the universe. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Kauffman, S., Logan, R., Este, R., Goebel, R., Hobill, D., & Shmulevich, I. (2008). Propagating organization: An enquiry. Biology and Philosophy, 23(1), 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Pattee, H. (1972). Laws and constraints, symbols and languages. In C. H. Waddington (Ed.), Towards a theoretical biology (Vol. 4, pp. 248–258). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Pattee, H. (1997). The physics of symbols and the evolution of semiotic controls. In M. Coombs & M. Sulcoski (Eds.), Control mechanisms for complex systems: Issues of measurement and semiotic analysis (pp. 9–25). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
  9. Rączaszek-Leonardi, J. (2012). Language as a system of replicable constraints. In H. Pattee & J. Rączaszek-Leonardi (Eds.), Laws, language and life: Howard Pattee’s classic papers on the physics of symbols with contemporary commentary (pp. 295–333). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Steels, L. (2004). The evolution of communication systems by adaptive agents. In E. Alonso, D. Kudenko, & D. Kazakov (Eds.), Adaptive agents and multi-agent systems (pp. 125–140). Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Section editors and affiliations

  • Christopher D. Watkins
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Psychology, School of Social and Health SciencesAbertay UniversityDundeeUK