Abstract
C. S. Peirce defined the sign as a means to communicate a form or habit embodied in the object to the interpretant, thus constraining (through a sign) the behavior of an interpreter to a limited series of effects. This is part of the process of “semiotic scaffolding” in which sign relations interlock and reinforce one another, providing directionality to the process. In biological evolutionary studies canalization is defined as the adjustment of developmental pathways by natural selection to bring about a uniform result despite genetic and environmental variations. Establishing parallelism between the two concepts allows the possibility of understanding how semiotic processes introduce information from the environment resulting in canalization (and assimilation), determining “fixed” pathways to elaborate signal repertoires for particular species adapted to particular environments sensed by particular organs. This kind of sign action can produce an “encapsulation” process of the sign meaning, further affecting the meaning-making process developing in the receiver, a process affecting signal usage by animals, constraining agency of biological systems’ behavior towards a definite sequence of events or signals and providing a certain orientation of the process (“semiotic canalization”). Therefore, we can also say that signs could potentially be built by senders (i.e. by the sign-vehicle) in a sort of pre-determined way and not extracted by the receiver from a “neutral” sender. Semiotic canalization is seen as a part of a more general process of scaffolding during development, acting mainly during some information exchanges between communicating subjects, providing adaptive responses to some standard communicative situations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andrade, E. (2007). A semiotic framework for evolutionary and developmental biology. BioSystems, 90, 389–404.
Bradbury, J. W., & Vehrencamp, S. L. (2011). Principles of animal communication. 2nd Edition. London: Sinauer.
Bruni, L. E. (2008). Cellular semiotics and signal transduction. In M. Barbieri (Ed.), Introduction to biosemiotics (pp. 365–407). Dordrecht: Springer.
Bundgaard, P. F. (2007). The cognitive import of the narrative schema. Semiotica, 165, 247–261.
Chandler, D. (2007). Semiotics. The basics. London: Routledge.
Dor, D., & Jablonka, E. (2010). Plasticity and canalization in th evolution of linguistic communication: an evolutionary-developmental approach. In R. K. Larson, V. Déprez & H. Yamakido (Eds.), The evolution of human language: Biolinguistic perspectives (pp. 135–147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
El-Hani, C. N., Queiroz, J., & Stjernfelt, F. (2010). Firefly femmes fatales: A case study in the semiotics of deception. Biosemiotics, 3, 33–55.
Emmeche, C. (2015). Semiotic scaffolding of the social self in reflexivity and friendship. Biosemiotics, 8, 275–289.
Favareau, D. (2015). Symbols are grounded not in things, but in scaffolded relations and their semiotic constraints (or how the referential generality of symbol scaffolding grows mind). Biosemiotics, 8, 235–255.
Fischer, J. (2011). Where is the information in animal communication? In R. Menzel & J. Fischer (Eds.), Animal thinking (pp. 151–161). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Francescoli, G. (1999). A preliminary report on the acoustic communication in uruguayan Ctenomys (Rodentia, Octodontidae): basic sound types. Bioacoustics, 10, 203–218.
Francescoli, G. (2001). Vocal signals from Ctenomys pearsoni pups. Acta Theriologica, 46, 327–330.
Francescoli, G. (2011). Tuco-tucos’ vocalization output varies seasonally (Ctenomys pearsoni; Rodentia, Ctenomyidae): implications for reproductive signaling. Acta Ethologica, 14, 1–6.
Francescoli, G. (2017). Environmental factors could constrain the use of long-range vocal signals in solitary tuco-tucos (Ctenomys; Rodentia, Ctenomyidae) reproduction. Journal of Ecoacoustics, 1, 1–9.
Francescoli, G. (2019). “Evolutionary stories”: Narratives as evolutionary tools to describe and analyse animal behaviour and animal signals. In: M. Silvera-Roig (Ed.) Cognitive and intermedial semiotics. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89209.
Fresco, N., Jablonka, E., & Ginsburg, S. (2017). The construction of learned information through selection processes. In R. Joyce (Ed.), The routledge handbook of evolution and philosophy (pp. 91–105). London: Routledge.
Harms, W. F. (2004). Primitive content, translation, and the emergence of meaning in animal communication. In D. Kimbrough Oller & U. Griebel (Eds.), Evolution of communication systems (pp. 31–48). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hauser, M. D. (1996). The evolution of communication. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Hoffmeyer, J. (2008a). Semiotic scaffolding of living systems. In M. Barbieri (Ed.), Introduction to biosemiotics (pp. 149–166). Dordrecht: Springer.
Hoffmeyer, J. (2008b). The semiotic niche. Journal of Mediterranean Ecology, 9, 5–30.
Jablonka, E. (2011). Introduction: Lamarckian problematics in biology. In S. B. Gissis & E. Jablonka (Eds.), Transformation of Lamarckism. From subtle fluids to Molecular Biology (pp. 145–155). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Kroodsma, D. E. (1996). Ecology of passerine song development. In D. E. Kroodsma & E. H. Miller (Eds.), Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds (pp. 3–19). Ithaca: Comstock/Cornell University Press.
Kull, K. (2015). Evolution, choice, and scaffolding: Semiosis is changing its own building. Biosemiotics, 8, 223–234.
Laland, K. N., Uller, T., Feldman, M. W., Sterelny, K., Müller, G. B., Moczek, A., Jablonka, E., & Odling-Smee, J. (2015). The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 282, 20151019. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019.
Maynard Smith, J., & Harper, D. (2003). Animal signals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Owren, M. J., Rendall, D., & Ryan, M. J. (2010). Redefining animal signaling: influence versus information in communication. Biology and Philosophy, 25, 755–780.
Rendall, D., Owren, M. J., & Ryan, M. J. (2009). What do animal signals mean? Animal Behaviour, 78, 233240.
Schleich, C. E., & Busch, C. (2002). Acoustic signals of a solitary subterranean rodent Ctenomys talarum (Rodentia: Ctenomyidae): physical characteristics and behavioural correlates. Journal of Ethology, 20, 123–131.
Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (2003). Signalers & receivers in animal communication. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 145–173.
Snowdon, C. T. (1990). A naturalistic view of categorical perception. In S. Harnad (Ed.), Categorical Perception. The Groundwork of Cognition (pp. 332–354). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
von Uexküll, J. (1926). Theoretical Biology. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.
von Uexküll, J. (1940/2010). A theory of meaning. In: von Uexküll, J. A foray into the worlds of animals and humans, with A theory of meaning (pp. 139–208). Minneapolis: Minnesota Press.
Waddington, C. H. (1942). Canalization of development and the inheritance of acquired characters. Nature, 150, 563–565.
West-Eberhard, M. J. (2003). Developmental plasticity and evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Francescoli, G. “Semiotic Canalization”: a Process Directing the Use and Interpretation of Signals in Animal Interactions?. Biosemiotics 14, 199–207 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-020-09400-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-020-09400-0