Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
Biological mimicry can be described as a structure consisting of two senders (a mimic and a model), a receiver, and their communicative interactions. The distinguishing of three participants in mimicry brings along the possibility to explain mimicry from different perspectives as a situation focused on signalreceiver, mimic, model, or human observer. This has been the foundation for many definitions and classifications of mimicry as well as for some semiotic interpretations. The present paper introduces some possibilities for defining and classifying mimicry in order to map the dynamical relations between the structure and semiosis in biological mimicry. From a semiotic point of view, the most common property of mimicry seems to be the receiver’s inclination to make a mistake in recognition. This allows describing mimicry as incorporating a specific type of semiotic entity — ambivalent sign, — which is understood as an oscillation between one and several signs depending on the actual course of interpretation. Proceeding from Jakob von Uexküll’s Theory of meaning, mimicry as any other relation between species is umwelt-dependent i.e., it is conditioned by meanings and functions present for an animal. Therefore also mimic and model, as entities that the receiver fails to differentiate, are first entities of meaning in one’s umwelt and are not necessarily representatives of some biological species. The Uexküllian approach allows us to analyze various examples of abstract and semiabstract resemblances in nature. Based on some examples, the biological notion of “abstract mimicry” is reinterpreted here as a situation where the object of imitation is an abstract feature with a universal meaning for many different animal receivers.
2017 •
The present book analyses critically the tripartite mimicry model (consisting of the mimic, model and receiver species) and develops semiotic tools for comparative analysis. It is proposed that mimicry has a double structure where sign relations in communication are in constant interplay with ecological relations between species. Multi-constructivism and toolbox-like conceptual methods are advocated for, as these allow taking into account both the participants’ Umwelten as well as cultural meanings related to specific mimicry cases. From biosemiotic viewpoint, mimicry is a sign relation, where deceptively similar messages are perceived, interpreted and acted upon. Focusing on living subjects and their communication opens up new ways to understand mimicry. Such view helps to explain the diversity of mimicry as well as mimicry studies and treat these in a single framework. On a meta-level, a semiotic view allows critical reflection on the use of mimicry concept in modern biology. The author further discusses interpretations of mimicry in contemporary semiotics, analyses mimicry as communicative interaction, relates mimicry to iconic signs and focuses on abstract resemblances in mimicry. Theoretical discussions are illustrated with detailed excursions into practical mimicry cases in nature (brood parasitism, eyespots, myrmecomorphy, etc.). The book concludes with a conviction that mimicry should be treated in a broader semiotic-ecological context as it presumes the existence of ecological codes and other sign conventions in the ecosystem.
The article discusses evolutionary aspects of mimicry from a semiotic viewpoint. The concept of semiotic scaffolding is used for this approach, and its relations with the concepts of exaptation and semiotic co-option are explained. Different dimensions of scaffolding are brought out as ontogenetic, evolutionary, physiological and cognitive. These dimensions allow for interpreting mimicry as a system that scaffolds itself. With the help of a number of mimicry cases, e.g. butterfly eyespots, brood parasitism, and plant mimesis, the evolutionary dynamics of mimicry in the open bio-semiosphere is investigated. The main argument is that biological mimicry largely develops through sign relations and communicative relations between organisms. It is proposed that mimicry systems should be described as two-layered structures composed of the ecological composition of the species involved and the semiotic structure of their communication.
Biological mimicry can be considered as having a double-layered structure: there is a layer of ecological relations between species and there is a layer of semiotic relations of the sign. The present article demonstrates the limitations of triadic models and typologies of mimicry, as well as their lack of correspondence to mimicry as it actually occurs in nature. It is argued that more dynamical semiotic tools are needed to describe mimicry in a theoretically coherent way that would at the same time allow comparative approach to various mimicry cases. For this a five-stage model of analysis is proposed, which incorporates classical mimicry theory, Jakob von Uexküll’s Umwelt-theory, as well as semiotic and communication analysis. This research model can be expressed in the form of five questions: 1) What is the formal structure of mimicry system? 2) What are the perceptual and effectual correspondences between the participants of mimicry? 3) What are the characteristics of resemblances? 4) How is the mimicry system regulated in ontogenetic and evolutionary processes? 5) How is the mimicry system related to human cultural processes? As a practical example of this semiotic methodology, brood parasitism between the common cuckoo Cuculus canorus and his frequent host species is examined.
2019 •
Why dedicate a special issue of Biosemiotics to mimicry? Is there anything new one could say about mimicry that was not said elsewhere? Given the size of mimicry studies, one could argue that almost everything worth saying has been already said. But in some cases, it was a long time ago, in other cases, it was overshadowed by the mainstream opinions of the day, and yet other insights just slipped through the cracks because their authors were outsiders to the world of ‘big science.’ Biosemiotics, a discipline that studies sign systems and meaning production in the living world, approaches the phenomenon of mimicry in part by analysing iconic signs (where a sign refers to its object because of mutual resemblance) and by emphasising the intentionality of semiosis and interspecies semiotic relations. Biosemiotics thus provides a fresh approach to the study and analysis of mimicry by highlighting the communicative and meaning-laden aspects of such deceptive similarities. The goal of this special issue is thus to advance a semiotic and communicative approach to the interpretation of mimicry, an approach which we believe has relevance to both a biological theory of mimicry and to general biosemiotic theory.
2014 •
Linguistic Frontiers
<i>Metaphors to Survive by</i>: Mimicry as Biometaphors, Embodiment of Sign and Cognitive Tools (not only) in Animals?2021 •
Mimicry is a canonical example of adaptive signal design. In principle, what constitutes mimicry is independent of the taxonomic identity of the mimic, the ecological context in which it operates, and the sensory modality through which it is expressed. However, in practice the study of mimicry is inconsistent across research fields, with theoretical and empirical advances often failing to cross taxonomic and sensory divides. We propose a novel conceptual framework whereby mimicry evolves if a receiver perceives the similarity between a mimic and a model and as a result confers a selective benefit onto the mimic. Here, misidentification and/or deception are no longer formal requirements, and mimicry can evolve irrespective of the underlying proximate mechanisms. The centrality of receiver perception in this framework enables us to formally distinguish mimicry from perceptual exploitation and integrate mimicry and multicomponent signalling theory for the first time. In addition, it resolves inconsistencies in our understanding of the role of learning in mimicry evolution, and shows that imperfect mimicry is expected to be the norm. Mimicry remains a key model for understanding signal evolution and cognition, and we recommend the adoption of a unified approach to stimulate future interdisciplinary developments in this fascinating area of research.
Linguistic Frontiers
Imitation as Mechanism for Mimicry2021 •
https://www.sciendo.com/article/10.2478/lf-2021-0005 (Open Access) The neo-Darwinian paradigm is unable to account for the resilient, complex forms that evolve in nature and persist across time. Random mutations do not explain the occurrence of organisms that mimic complex forms in often astonishing detail. In the absence of God as creator, or random mutations as the basis for adaptive traits, there is something else going on. The case that I present in this article is that the only possible mechanism for mimicry in nature is imitation.
Introduction Peirce proposed several typologies of signs, with different degrees of refinement and several relationships to one another (see Queiroz 2012a; Farias, Queiroz 2000, 2003; Freadman 2004). Here we are especially interested in how Peirce’s extended theory of signs can contribute to the construction of models that serve as tools for the investigation of biological mimicry. As a corollary to our analysis of firefly signaling (see El-Hani et al. 2010), we analyze the capacity of producing dicent symbols (propositions) as a general requisite for a semiotic system to act as a mimic. As it is well known, the semiotic processes involved in biological mimicry most often do not result from learning processes taking place in the individual semiotic system, but from the fine-tuning of inherited capacities by natural selection among variants over hundreds to thousands or millions of generations. The concrete sign exchange that takes place within the lifetime of a single individual, indicating and describing at the same time, can be conceived of as dicent symbols or dicisigns. This calls for an investigation of the Peircean notion of the dicisign, which is a generalization of the notion of proposition. Peirce’s formulation liberates our treatment of propositions from the confines of human language and points to their appearance also in pictures, gestures, etc., and, moreover, generalizes propositions from beinga human privilege so as to also embrace simpler dicisigns found in non-human animals.
Bear and Human: Facets of a Multi-Layered Relationship from Past to Recent Times, with Emphasis on Northern Europe. The Archaeology of Northern Europe, 3
Evidence of bear remains in a cremation burial in the Moscow region (Burial 5, Kremenye burial ground on the upper river Oka, 12 th centuryJournal of Information Ethics
Deepfake: A Multifaceted Dilemma in Ethics and Law2023 •
Határhelyzetek IV.
Sóhagyományból „sóbiznisz” – identitáskeresés a sóvidéki Parajdon2013 •
Darbai ir dienos
Jews and Lithuanians on the eve of the Holocaust 1939–19402017 •
Desafios do sistema político brasileiro
Sociedade civil e Partidos Políticos2024 •
Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta
Esad Kurtović, Roblje u bosansko-dubrovačkim odnosima u razvijenom srednjem vijeku, Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Sarajevu 7 (Historija, Historija umjetnosti, Arheologija), Sarajevo 2020, 49-64.2020 •
Sadharananikarana : Jurnal Ilmiah Komunikasi Hindu
Implikasi Media Baru Sebagai Media Komunikasi Dan Teknologi Informasi2022 •
Revista de Gestão e Projetos
Governança de projetos na administração pública: uma revisão sistemática da literatura internacionalMicrosystem Technologies
Essential design and fabrication considerations for the reliable performance of an electrothermal MEMS microgripper2019 •
Strategic Journal of Business & Change Management
Influence of Professional Development on Teachers' Performance in Secondary Schools in Uasin Gishu County, KenyaBiochemistry and Molecular Biology Education
Creating custom Foldit puzzles for teaching biochemistry2019 •
South by Southeast: The History and Archaeology of Southeast Crete, from Myrtos to Kato Zakros, edited by E. Oddo and K. Chalikias
Navigating a World of Mountains, Coasts and Islands: Diachronic Evidence for a Connected Southeast Crete2022 •
Current Issues in Criminal Justice
Aboriginal Sovereignty, 'Crime' and Australian Criminology2019 •
Representaciones artísticas del indígena en América Latina
La imagen del Otro en la que nos miramos. Apaches de Víctor Hugo Rascón Banda2024 •
Journal of African Earth Sciences
A contribution to the synsedimentary versus epigenetic origin of the Cu mineralizations hosted by terminal Neoproterozoic to Cambrian formations of the Bou Azzer–El Graara inlier: New insights from the Jbel Laassel deposit (Anti Atlas, Morocco)2015 •
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
Editorial: Psychological Aspects and How They Relate to Doping in Sport