This article will outline in general lines the tenets of Lotmanian and Peircean semiotics, observing their possible intersections and interactions as well as their theoretical incompatibilities. As history would have it, both traditions stem from different roots, and their playing along cannot be taken for granted. In examining these historical roots in light of the naturalizing project of current (bio)semiotics, we can hope to find some points to connect the more general points of the theories, despite potential conflicts in their views. It will be argued that the more mainstream accounts of biosemiotics can offer a productive prospect for the interface in the analysis of culture and cognition, while a rereading of Lotmanian commitments to a specific form of cultural semantics can bridge theoretical positions held within the Peircean paradigm of biosemiotics.
BarthesR. (1997). Elements of semiology. Hill & Wang.
4.
ChangH. (2009). Semioticians make strange bedfellows! Or, once again: “is language a primary modelling system?Biosemiotics, 2(2), 169–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-009-9046-4
5.
DeelyJ. N. (2001). Four ages of understanding: The first postmodern survey of philosophy from ancient times to the turn of the twenty-first century. University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442675032
6.
DeelyJ. N. (2009). Basics of semiotics (5th ed.) University of Tartu Press.
7.
DeelyJ. N. (2015). Semiotics “today”: The twentieth-century founding and twenty-first-century prospects. In TrifonasP. P. (Ed.), International handbook of semiotics (pp. 29–113). Springer.
8.
EbbesenS. (1983). The Odyssey of semantics from the Stoa to Buridan. In EschbachA.TrabantJ. (Eds.), History of semiotics (pp. 67–85). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
9.
EcoU. (1984). Semiotics and the philosophy of language. Indiana University Press.
10.
FavareauD. F. (2008). The evolutionary history of biosemiotics. In BarbieriM. (Ed.), Introduction to biosemiotics: The new biological synthesis (pp. 1–67). Springer.
11.
FavareauD. F. (2012). Introducing a new scientific term for the study of biosemiosis. In MaranT.LindströmK.MagnusR.TønnessenM. (Eds.), Semiotics in the wild: Essays in honour of kalevi Kull on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 15–22). Tartu University Press.
12.
GramignaR. (2020). Augustine’s theory of signs, signification, and lying. In Augustine’s theory of signs, signification, and lying. De Gruyter. https://www.degruyter.com/view/title/537597
13.
HoffmeyerJ. (2008). Biosemiotics: An examination into the signs of life and the life of signs. University of Scranton Press.
JacksonB. D. (1969). The theory of signs in St. Augustine’s De doctrina christiana. Revue d’Etudes Augustiniennes et Patristiques, 15(1–2), 9–49. https://doi.org/10.1484/J.REA.5.104162
LachmannR. (1987). Value aspects in Jurij Lotman’s “semiotics of culture/semiotics of text”. Dispositio, 12(30/32), 13–33. (R. Eshelman & M. Davis, Trans).
25.
LagopoulosA. P.Boklund-LagopoulouK. (2020). A brief history of semiotics. In Chapter 2 A brief history of semiotics (pp. 8–22). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110618808-002
26.
LotmanJ. (2001). Universe of the mind: A semiotic theory of culture. I.B.Tauris.
27.
LotmanJ. (2005). On the semiosphere. Sign Systems Studies, 33(1), 205–229.
ManettiG. (2010). Ancient semiotics. In CobleyP. (Ed.), The routledge companion to semiotics (pp. 13–28). Routledge.
33.
MaranT. (2017) Mimicry and meaning: structure and semiotics of biological mimicry (16). Springer.
34.
MaranT. (2021). The ecosemiosphere is a grounded semiosphere. A Lotmanian conceptualization of cultural-Ecological systems. Biosemiotics, 14(2), 519–530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09428-w
MorrisseyC. S. (2010). Did the Latin age really begin with augustine? In HaworthK.HogueJ.SbrocchiL. G. (Eds.), Semiotics 2009: The semiotics of time (pp. 296–303). Legas.
39.
NöthW. (1995). Handbook of semiotics. Indiana University Press.
40.
NöthW. (2015). Biolinguistics and biosemiotics. In VelmezovaE.KullK.CowleyS. J. (Eds.), Biosemiotic perspectives on language and linguistics (13, pp. 151–168). Springer International Publishing. https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-20663-9
PeirceC. S. (1901). Definitions for Baldwin’s dictionary [R]. In MS [R] 1147.
43.
Rodríguez HigueraC. J. (2024a). How to detonate a semiotic bomb: the dynamics of Lotmanian explosion in the semiosphere. Language and Semiotic Studies, 10(4), 545–561. https://doi.org/10.1515/lass-2024-0019
44.
Rodríguez HigueraC. J. (2024b). Lotmanian referentiality and (cultural) semantics. Chinese Semiotic Studies, 20(4), 537–547. https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2024-2026
45.
RosaA. (2018). Spirited psyche creates artifacts: Semiotic dynamics of experience in the shaping of objects, agency, and intentional worlds. In RosaA.ValsinerJ. (Eds.), The cambridge handbook of sociocultural psychology (2nd ed., pp. 103–129). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316662229.007
46.
RosaA. (2024). Shuttling between cultures: Coupling psychology and semiotics from within and without. In ValsinerJ.TammM. (Eds.), Breakthroughs in cultural psychology (pp. 107–142). Tallinn University Press.
47.
RosaA.ValsinerJ. (2018). The human psyche lives in semiospheres. In RosaA.ValsinerJ. (Eds.), The cambridge handbook of sociocultural psychology (2nd ed., pp. 13–34). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316662229.002
48.
SaussureF. de (1995). Cours de linguistique générale. Payot.
ThompsonE. M. (1977). Jurij Lotman’s literary theory and its context. The Slavic and East European Journal, 21(2), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.2307/306702
57.
TønnessenM. (2011). Umwelt transition and Uexküllian phenomenology. An ecosemiotic analysis of Norwegian wolf management [University of Tartu]. https://193.40.4.3/handle/10062/19250
VehkavaaraT. (2007). From the logic of science to the logic of the living: The relevance of Charles Peirce to biosemiotics. In BarbieriM. (Ed.), Introduction to bioemiotics: The new biological synthesis (pp. 257–282). Springer.
