Kalevi Kull

In this article we introduce the method of umwelt-based place analysis for urban and nature–culture communities as a semiotic tool for the analysis of place. The article first introduces a toolbox of umwelt-related concepts developed in eco- and biosemiotic research. A step-by-step outline of the umwelt-based place analysis is then provided and subsequently illustrated through a case study conducted in the city of Tartu, Estonia. It involves the basic characterisation of a place, a selection of key species, the analysis of the umwelten of the key species, as well as the relationships between human and other species’ umwelten and the analysis of the major consortia of the place. The method enables the identification of key contact and conflict points between humans and other-than-humans and facilitates an understanding of how physical affordances as well as social-cultural norms and regulations shape multispecies communities. It further grounds the formulation of design-oriented suggestions aimed at supporting species-rich communities in anthropogenic environments.

The article gives a historical overview of the institutional development of semiotics in Estonia during two centuries, and describes briefly its current status. The key characteristics of semiotics in Estonia include: (1) seminal role of two world-level classics of semiotics from the University of Tartu, Juri Lotman and Jakob von Uexkull; (2) the impact of Tartu–Moscow school of semiotics, with a series of summer schools in Kaariku in 1960s and the establishment of semiotic study of culture; (3) the publication of the international journal Sign Systems Studies, since 1964; (4) the development of biosemiotics, notably together with colleagues from Copenhagen; (5) teaching semiotics as a major in bachelor, master, and doctoral programs in the University of Tartu, since 1994; (6) a plurality of institutions — in addition to the Department of Semiotics in the University of Tartu, several supporting semiotic institutions have been established since 1990s; and (7) a wide scope of research in various branches of semiotics, including theoretical studies, empirical studies, and applied semiotics projects on governmental and other request.

We present the results of a survey conducted among professional semioticians from around the world, who were asked to answer two questions: (A) what problems should semiotics solve in the near future? and (B) what are the most important publications on semiotics since 2000? The collection of 63 responses received provides a self-description of contemporary semiotics, as well as some material for scholars to learn from one another. In addition, we add responses from the latest versions of a large language simulator (GPT) as a characteristic feature of the current decade.

The article gives a brief overview of the publication of the journal Sign Systems Studies. Throughout its publication period that started in 1964 the journal has been edited by a group of Tartu semioticians; the publisher has been the University of Tartu Press. While the first 25 volumes mainly contained articles in Russian, the next 25 volumes have predominantly been given out in English. We provide a list of thematic issues and a complete bibliography of the articles that have appeared in the journal during its entire publication period from 1964 to 2022.

This essay attempts to combine some recent theoretical results in (bio)semiotics on arbitrariness, semiotic fitting, umwelt, choice, and extended theory of evolution into a more coherent whole. The proposed model describes a living being through its subjectivity and the ability to create meaning, which are often overlooked in models based on replicability. The concept of the umwelt is divided into two – the synchronic umwelt and the distributed or diachronic umwelt. For the latter, a new term ‘umweb’ is introduced. A mechanism of evolution is described in which arbitrary relating followed by semiotic fitting is somewhat analogous to the neo-Darwinian mechanism of random mutations followed by natural selection. The paper proceeds to discuss the alternativity and coexistence of these two radically different ways of evolution and learning.

The following is a brief synopsis of the 2021 summer Semiosalong event titled “Funktionskreis and the biosemiotic signifieds”, held at the Karl Ernst von Baer House, Tartu, Estonia, with presentations by the authors of this review. The included talks revolve around the idea of a ‘second major turn in biosemiotics’ following the more ‘Peircean inspired biology’ turn of the last few decades of the 20th century, and reconciling its findings with other theoretical foundations of general semiotics, such as structural semiology. The aesthetic and textual concerns of the latter invite commentary from the biosemiotic perspective.

Jakob von Uexkull’s (1864–1944) work was influential at the time of the biosemiotic turn in semiotics in the 1990s and, together with the hermeneutic and phenomenological approaches, laid the basis for a semiotic turn in biology without losing a connection to the morphology and physiology of organisms. His work appears to be attractive and promising in transforming the culture–nature divide into an understanding of the difference between the living and the non-living. The biological study of subjectivity makes the Uexkullian approach pertinent to the 21st-century changes both in the humanities and in biology, as the acceptance of his theoretical biology marks the start of a post-Darwinian era after the long period of neo-Darwinism that dominated the 20th-century biological thought. A review and bibliography of 20th-century Uexkull studies was published in 2001; the following provides a bibliography of Uexkull studies in the two decades after 2001.

The main aim of this brief and purposely radical essay is to investigate further possibilities for empirical research in natural classification of semiosis (signs as wholes). Before introducing emon – a missing term in the taxonomy of signs – we make a distinction between the natural and artificial, and between the taxonomic and meronomic classifications of signs. Natural classifications or typologies are empirically based, while artificial classifications do not require empirical test. Meronomy describes the relational or functional structure of the whole (for instance triadic, circular, etc. composition of sign), while taxonomy categorizes individuals (individual signs). We argue that a natural taxonomy of signs can be based on the existence of different complexity of operations during semiosis, which implies different mechanisms of learning. We add into the taxonomy a particular type of signs – emonic signs, which are at work in imitation and social learning, while being more complex than indexes and less complex than symbols. Icons are related to imprinting, indexes to conditioning, emons to imitating, and symbols to conventions or naming. We also argue that the semiotic typologies could undergo large changes after the discovery of the proper mechanisms or workings of semiosis.

The two interviews with Boris Uspenskij on history and the contemporary state of linguistics and semiotics discuss the necessity to elaborate a common terminology in semiotics, at the same time speaking about perspectives for interdisciplinary research, various research models, and the possibilities to produce proof in the humanities. Commenting upon some of his own works, in particular on Ego loquens (2007), Boris Uspenskij reflects upon the crucial events of his academic life and on contacts with his colleagues, emphasizing the importance of friendship with Roman Jakobson and Juri Lotman.Высказывая свое мнение об истории и современном состоянии лингвистики и семиотики, в двух интервью Борис Успенский рассуждает о необходимости разработки общей рабочей терминологии для специалистов по семиотике, в то же время говоря о перспективах междисциплинарных исследований, о существовании разных исследовательских моделей и о принципиальных возможностях доказательств теорий в гуманитарных науках. Возвращаясь к уже написанным своим работам – в частности, к книге Ego loquens (2007), – Борис Успенский комментирует ряд важных событий своей акаде мической биографии и делится воспоминаниями о встречах и контактах с коллегами, особенно подчеркивая значимость дружбы с Романом Якобсоном и Юрием Лотманом.Labi kahe intervjuu esitab Boriss Uspenski oma vaateid semiootika ja lingvistika ajaloole ja praegusele seisule. Ta rohutab vajadust uhtse semiootikaterminoloogia jarele ning koneleb interdistsiplinaarsete uuringute perspektiividest, erinevatest mudelitest ja toestamisvoimalustest humanitaarteadustes. Kommenteerides oma toid, pohjalikumalt eelkoige raamatut Ego loquens (2007), kirjeldab ta uhtlasi olulisi sundmusi oma teadlaselus ning raagib kontaktidest Louis Hjelmslev’, Roman Jakobsoni ja Juri Lotmaniga.

In order to estimate the current situation of teaching materials available in the field of semiotics, we are providing a comparative overview and a worldwide bibliography of introductions and textbooks on general semiotics published within last 50 years, i.e. since the beginning of institutionalization of semiotics. In this category, we have found over 130 original books in 22 languages. Together with the translations of more than 20 of these titles, our bibliography includes publications in 32 languages. Comparing the authors, their theoretical backgrounds and the general frames of the discipline of semiotics in different decades since the 1960s makes it possible to describe a number of predominant tendencies. In the extensive bibliography thus compiled we also include separate lists for existing lexicons and readers of semiotics as additional material not covered in the main discussion. The publication frequency of new titles is growing, with a certain depression having occurred in the 1980s. A leading role of French, Russian and Italian works is demonstrated.

The bibliography provides a list of all known English-language publications by Juri M. Lotman (including in co-authorship and reprints), in chronologicalorder, described de visu. The first English translation of J. Lotman’s work appeared in 1973, altogether there is 109 entries in the list. The bibliography demonstrates that in the 1970s and 1980s, most of the translations were published in the context of slavistics, whereas after 2000 Lotman’s work starts to appear in the anthologies of general semiotics.

This book presents programmatic texts on biosemiotics, written collectively by world leading scholars in the field (Deacon, Emmeche, Favareau, Hoffmeyer, Kull, Markoš, Pattee, Stjernfelt). In addition, the book includes chapters which focus closely on semiotic case studies (Bruni, Kotov, Maran, Neuman, Turovski). According to the central thesis of biosemiotics, sign processes characterise all living systems and the very nature of life, and their diverse phenomena can be best explained via the dynamics and typology of sign relations. The authors are therefore presenting a deeper view on biological evolution, intentionality of organisms, the role of communication in the living world and the nature of sign systems - all topics which are described in this volume. This has important consequences on the methodology and epistemology of biology and study of life phenomena in general, which the authors aim to help the reader better understand.

Theses on the semiotic study of life as presented here provide a collectively formulated set of statements on what biology needs to be focused on in order to describe life as a process based on semiosis, or sign action. An aim of the biosemiotic approach is to explain how life evolves through all varieties of forms of communication and signification (including cellular adaptive behavior, animal communication, and human intellect) and to provide tools for grounding sign theories. We introduce the concept of semiotic threshold zone and analyze the concepts of semiosis, function, umwelt, and the like as the basic concepts for theoretical biology.

This paper examines the biosemiotic approach to the study of life processes by fashioning a series of questions that any worthwhile semiotic study of life should ask. These questions can be understood simultaneously as: (1) questions that distinguish a semiotic biology from a non-semiotic (i.e., reductionist–physicalist) one; (2) questions that any student in biosemiotics should ask when doing a case study; and (3) still currently unanswered questions of biosemiotics. In addition, some examples of previously undertaken biosemiotic case studies are examined so as to suggest a broad picture of how such a biosemiotic approach to biology might be done