Studying the origin of semiosis is a task obscured by terminological and metaphysical issues which create an ambiguous set of definitions for biosemiotics when referring to the concept of emergence. The question is, how emergent can semiosis be? And what are the conditions for semiosis to be an emergent of a certain type? This paper will attempt to briefly deal with the general terminology of emergence from a philosophical point of view and will discuss the characterization of semiosis as an emergent phenomenon based on the distinctions made by Bedau, Kim and Chalmers. Accordingly, we will consider the possibility of strong and weak emergence in an attempt to bring some clarity to what it means for something in biosemiotics to be an emergent and how the philosophical concepts play out when applied to biosemiotic research. In inquiring into the metaphysical status of semiosis, we change our semiotic theories to correspond to the assumptions contained in the elementary objects of our theories. This being the case, the way semiosis-the constitutive element that it is for semiotics-is taken to be with regards to its possible ontology, will conduct to different research objects for the long-term investigation of its origins and necessary conditions.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The interdisciplinary grasp of semiotics makes it a good window into how humanities-based research programs deal with the issues of specific theoretical commitments, raising the stakes on how to do theory in a setting of disparity of approaches and methods. The particular case of biosemiotics as a naturalized instance of semiotics is used as a specific example of an interdisciplinary combination of theory and scientific practice to address the necessity of integrating both external methodological elements and scientific discoveries with a theory capable of giving both of these a valid connotation within the discipline. The main claim of the article will be that integrating different methods in humanities-based research programs such as semiotics creates a problematic picture for metatheoretical commitments, but examining this in light of metatheory itself can produce more robust theoretical positions within the humanities.

Cet article aborde la problématique des origines de la sémiose dans sa dimension historique et théorique, sa connexion avec la biosémiose et les théories qui cherchent à donner une réponse à cette question. La problématique au coeur de cette enquête se réduit au problème de l’émergence de la sémiose : trouve-t-elle son origine au niveau des processus physiques ou relève-t-elle plutôt du domaine d’activité du vivant ? L’école de Tartu, avec son système intégratif, formule des prémisses théoriques sur les conditions nécessaires au processus de la sémiogenèse, mais l’exploration de ce thème n’a pas encore permis l’établissement de modèles clairs permettant d’apporter quelque réponse définitive au problème. Je tâcherai de faire valoir que l’avantage de l’approche de Tartu quant au problème de la sémiogenèse tient dans les prémisses ontologiques et méthodologiques des modèles qu’elle valorise et qui permettent de dégager une voie d’exploration profitable.

We initiate a new section of the journal, an invited commentary on issues pertaining to the fields of semiotics and linguistics and personal views on what is happening in the field. In this introduction, we assess the current status of the divisions of semiotics into multiple branches and the historical overview of the semiotics/semiology debate.

The Annual Biosemiotic Achievement Award was established at the annual meeting of the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies (ISBS) in 2014, in conjunction with Springer and Biosemiotics. It seeks to recognize papers published in the journal that present novel and potentially important contributions to biosemiotic research, its scientific impact and its future prospects. Here the winner of the Biosemiotic Achievement Award for 2020 is announced: The award goes to Filip Jaroš and Matěj Pudil for the article “Cognitive systems of human and non-human animals: At the crossroads of phenomenology, ethology and biosemiotics”.