Abstract
This article considers natural signs and their role in the origin of language. Natural signs, sometimes called primary signs, are connected with their signified by causal relationships, concomitance, or likeliness. And their acquisition is directed by both objective reality and past experience (memory). The discovery and use of natural signs is a required prerequisite of existence for any living systems because they are indispensable to movement, the search for food, regulation, communication, and many other information-related activities. It is argued that the birth of conventional signs, sometimes called secondary signs, was determined by a connotative use of natural signs and that, regulated and maintained by them, human language developed. At the same time, the origin and development of human language presupposes a ‘rational turn’ from the given and external reality of natural signs to the rationally constructed reality of artificial signs and rules that are internally maintained by the subjects’ deliberate activities, and actual and inherited social tradition (social memory). In view of this, language is defined as a dynamic system that must both be natural and artificial, empirical and a priori, inductive and deductive. This bilateral origin and regulation of language is the dual-inference of language.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies. New York: Noonday.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT.
Corballis, M. C. (2002). From hand to mouth: The origins of language. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Dennett, D. C. (1997). How to do other things with words. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 42, 219–235.
Devitt, M. (2006). Ignorance of language. Oxford: Clarendon.
Dunbar, R. (1996). Grooming, gossip and the evolution of language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Dyer, F. C. (1987). Memory and sun compensation by honey bees. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 160, 621–633.
Dyer, F. C. (2002). The biology of the dance language. Annual Review of Entomology, 47(1), 917–949.
Faye, J. (2009). Interpretation in the natural sciences. In M. Dorato, M. Rédei, & M. Suárez (Eds.), EPSA epistemology and methodology of science: Launch of the European philosophy of sciences association. Springer Verlag.
Fisher, S. (2006). Sexual selection in language, music and birdsong–common themes and issues. http://hdl.handle.net/1842/2050.
Fredborg, K. M., Nielsen, L., & Pinborg, J. (1978). An unedited part of Roger Bacon’s. “Opus Maius: De Signis”. Traditio, 34, 75–136.
Gärdenfors, P. (2004). Cooperation and the evolution of symbolic communication. In K. Oller & U. Griebel (Eds.), The evolution of communication systems (pp 237–256). MIT Press.
Glinwood, R., Ninkovic, V., & Pettersson, J. (2011). Chemical interaction between undamaged plants—effects on herbivores and natural enemies. Phytochemistry doi:10.1016/j.phytochem.2011.02.010
Heil, M., Ulrich, L., & Wilhelm, B. (2008). Defence-inducing volatiles: in search for the active motif. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 34(5), 601–604.
Hermerén, G. (1992). Expression, meaning, and nonvebal communication. In J. Emt & G. Hermerén (Eds.), Understanding the arts (pp. 129–146). Lund: Lund University Press.
Karban, R., & Shiojiri, K. (2009). Self-recognition affects plant communication and defense. Ecology Letters, 12, 502–506.
Kull, K. (2000). An introduction to phytosemiotics: semiotic botany and vegetative sign systems. Sign Systems Studies, 28, 326–350.
Miller, G. (2000). The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. London: William Heinemann.
Reid, T. (2005). An inquiry into the human mind on the principles of common sense. www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdf/reidinqu.pdf
Ruxton, G. D., Sherratt, T. N., & Speed, M. P. (2004). Avoiding attack: The evolutionary ecology of Crypsis, warning signals and mimicry. Oxford University Press.
Schiestl, F. P. (2010). The evolution of floral scent and insect chemical communication. Ecological Letters, 13(5), 643–656.
Schilmiller, A. L., & Howe, G. A. (2005). Systemic signaling in the wound response. Current Opinion in Plant Biology, 8(4), 369–377.
Shukla, M. (2005). Language from a biological perspective. Journal of Biosciences, 30(1), 119–127.
Smith, B. (2006). Why we still need knowledge of language. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 6(18), 431–457.
Sukhoverkhov, A. (2010). Memory, sign systems, and self-reproductive processes. Biological Theory, 5(2), 161–166.
van Fraassen, B. C., & Sigman, J. (1993). Interpretation in science and the arts. In G. Levine (Ed.), Realism and representation: Essays on the problem of realism in relation to science, literature and culture (pp. 73–99). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Wenner, A. M. (2002). The elusive honey bee dance “Language” hypothesis. Journal of Insect Behaviour, 15(6), 859–878.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sukhoverkhov, A. Natural Signs and the Origin of Language. Biosemiotics 5, 153–159 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-011-9123-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-011-9123-3