Biosemiotics 12 (1):99-114 (2019)

Abstract
In an earlier paper, I set out to apply to animal mimicry the definition of the sign, and, more specifically, of the iconic sign, which I originally elaborated in the study of pictures, and which was then extended by myself and others to language, gesture, and music. The present contribution, however, while summarizing some of the results of those earlier studies, is dedicated to the demonstration that animal mimicry, as well as phenomena of the human Lifeworld comparable to it, are in a sense the opposite of signs. It has often been observed, not only within speech act philosophy, but also by the semiotician Luis Prieto, that as sign can only function as such once it is recognized to be a sign. Animal mimicry, camouflage, and the like, in contrast, only work as such, to the extent that they are not perceived as signs. Unlike what speech act philosophy claims, nevertheless, the “difference which makes a difference” is not the recognition of a purpose attributed to the subject producing the sign. A footprint, for example, has to be recognized as a sign in order to function as such. Nevertheless, to the extent that a purpose is attributed to the subject setting the sign, it may be considered a sign, but one that hides its nature, a fake footprint. Mimicry and camouflage, however, are similar to such “natural meanings” as footprints in entertaining a different relation to the agent initiating the act and the agent perceiving it. Classical studies of mimicry distinguish its varieties according to what is rather vaguely called function. In this paper, we will investigate whether these classifications can be recuperated from a semiotic point of view, or whether a semiotically valid classification should start from scratch.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s12304-018-9340-0
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 51,639
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language.William P. Alston - 1970 - Philosophical Quarterly 20 (79):172-179.
Studies in the Way of Words.D. E. Over - 1990 - Philosophical Quarterly 40 (160):393-395.
Speech Acts.J. Searle - 1969 - Foundations of Language 11 (3):433-446.

View all 18 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Iconicity in Verse.Jimmie Svensson - 2015 - American Journal of Semiotics 31 (3):377-396.
Natural, Un-Natural and Detached Mimicry.John Pickering - 2019 - Biosemiotics 12 (1):115-130.
Mimicry: Towards a Semiotic Lmderstanding of Nature.Timo Maran - 2001 - Sign Systems Studies 29 (1):325-338.
Mimicry.Timo Maran - 2001 - Sign Systems Studies 29 (1):325-338.
Ideophones, rhemes, interpretants.Mark A. Sicoli - 2014 - Pragmatics and Society 5 (3):445-454.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-12-22

Total views
11 ( #760,572 of 2,331,392 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #588,490 of 2,331,392 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes