Deep Congruence Between Linguistic and Biotic Growth: Evidence for Semiotic Foundations

Pelkey, Jamin

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20663-9_6

Jamin Pelkey⁷

Part of the book series: Biosemiotics ((BSEM,volume 13))

771 Accesses
3 Altmetric

Abstract

Language varieties undergo constant evolution, as do varieties of life. Both language and life unfold by semiosis – pervasive processes of growth in which relationships shared between the inherited past, the unstable present and the virtual future are organically intertwined. Although many recent attempts have been made to reunite biotic and linguistic evolution, contemporary treatments are mired in unexamined presuppositions inherited from twentieth century biological theory. Chief among these is the denial of implicit end-directed processes, that which biosemiotics finds to be the necessary condition of living systems – thereby providing semiotic foundations for human inquiry. After reviewing the history and problems of dialogue between linguistics and biology, I make two primary arguments in this essay, one a critique using historical evidence, the other a suggestion using empirical evidence. My critical argument is that crucial features of semiosis are missing from contemporary linguistic-biotic proposals. Entangled with these missing accounts is an analogous form of neglect, or normative blindness, apparent in both disciplines: the role of ontogeny in biological evolution and the role of diagrammatization in linguistic evolution. This linguistic-biotic analogy points to a deeper congruence with the third (and most fundamental) mode of evolution in Peirce’s scientific ontology: “habit taking” or “Agapasm”. My positive argument builds on this linguistic-biotic analogy to diagram its corollary membership in light of Peirce’s “three modes of evolution”: Chance (Tychasm), Law (Anancasm) and Habit Taking (Agapasm). The paper ends with an application involving complex correspondence patterns in the Muji language varieties of China followed by an appeal for a radically evolutionary approach to the nature of language(s) in general, an approach that not only encompasses both linguistic and biotic growth but is also process-explicit.

I am grateful to the editors of this volume for their invaluable criticism and suggestions that led to a more accurate and intelligible presentation of the paper argument. Remaining infelicities or errors are due to my own limitations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic

$34.99 /Month

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime

Buy Now

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Integrative and Separationist Perspectives: Understanding the Causal Role of Cultural Transmission in Human Language Evolution

Article 27 June 2018

Towards a Holo-Semiotic Framework for the Evolution of Language

Linguistic Change and Biological Evolution

Notes

1.
Atkinson and Gray 2005, p. 524.
2.
E.g., Croft 2000 and 2008; Mufwene 2001 and 2005; Richerson and Boyd 2001 and 2005; Driem 2001 and 2008; Sterelny 2006; Mesoudi et al. 2006; Fitch 2008; Pelkey 2013.
3.
Cf. Sebeok 1986.
4.
E.g., Cowley 2007.
5.
Pelkey 2013.
6.
Kull et al. 2009, p. 168.
7.
I.e., “self-organizing” modes of process that mediate between inherited copying (e.g., “genotypic” analogues in language and culture) and ecological coupling (e.g., “phenotypic” analogues in language and culture) – in short, processes that mediate between analogy and automation in linguistics (resp. ecology and phylogeny in biology).
8.
Peirce 1890–1892 [2010, p. 194].
9.
Ibid., pp. 110, 194.
10.
Darwin 1882.
11.
Richerson and Boyd 2001.
12.
Atkinson and Gray 2005, p. 524.
13.
To borrow a phrase from John Deely (2007).
14.
Cf. discussion in Greenberg 1957; McMahon 1994; Alter 1999; Wyhe 2005; Atkinson and Gray 2005.
15.
Müller 1887, p. xi.
16.
Deely 2009, p. 142.
17.
Schleicher 1869 [1983, pp. 32–35].
18.
Greenberg 1957, quoted in Brosnahan 1961, p. 227.
19.
Müller 1887, p. xi.
20.
Atkinson and Gray 2005, p. 517.
21.
Fitch 2008, p. 373.
22.
Darwin 1882, p. 90.
23.
Cf. the corresponding discussion in Wyhe 2005.
24.
Cf., e.g., Rauch 1999, pp. 36, 45.
25.
Mufwene 2005, pp. 30, 32.
26.
Cf. Croft 2008, p. 220.
27.
O’Brien 2006, p. 359.
28.
McMahon 1994, p. 318.
29.
Ibid., pp. 319–320; though for Schleicher at least any peak of perfection is followed by another stage of decay.
30.
Richerson and Boyd 2005, p. 17.
31.
This can be noted throughout the numerous contributions found in Tallerman and Gibson 2012.
32.
Schleicher 1869 [1983, p. 30].
33.
Ibid., p. 32. In his own words, “[t]he species of a genus are what we call the languages of a family, the races of a species are with us the dialects of a language; the subdialects or patois correspond with the varieties of the species, and that which is characteristic of a person’s mode of speaking corresponds with the individual” (ibid.).
34.
James 1880, p. 441.
35.
Croft 2000.
36.
Sereno 1991.
37.
Dawkins 1976.
38.
Kortlandt 2003.
39.
Mufwene 2008.
40.
According to Driem 2008.
41.
Ibid., p. 105 sq.
42.
E.g., Mufwene 2008.
43.
Also known as “competence” vs “performance”, respectively, or the presumed language faculty vs its manifestations in different societies or circumstances.
44.
Chomsky 1980, p. 185.
45.
Croft 2010, p. 307.
46.
Croft 2008, p. 220.
47.
Mesoudi et al. 2006, p. 345.
48.
Hull 1988.
49.
Dawkins 1976.
50.
Cf. also Mesoudi et al. 2006.
51.
Cf. Sebeok 2001; Hoffmeyer 2008.
52.
Kull et al. 2009, p. 170.
53.
Ibid., p. 169.
54.
Ibid.
55.
Ibid., p. 170.
56.
Hoffmeyer 2008, p. 51.
57.
Kull et al. 2009, p. 168.
58.
As reconstructed in Deely 2001.
59.
Discovered in mathematics, logic, chemical valence, phenomenology, and demonstrated to be at work in numerous other domains, these categories he discusses as Firstness (quality), Secondness (reaction) and Thirdness (mediation).
60.
Peirce 1890–1892 [2010].
61.
Thellefsen 2001.
62.
Spencer 1862, p. v (cf. pp. 144, 490). As the remainder of Spencer’s book makes clear, this quotation refers prominently (though not exclusively) to evolution.
63.
Müller 1887, p. xi.
64.
Mesoudi et al. 2006.
65.
Sterelny 2006.
66.
Cf. Wyhe 2005, p. 97.
67.
Peirce 1890–1892 [2010, p. 190]. Moner is an archaic term meaning ‘single celled organism’.
68.
Deacon 2012.
69.
Dawkins 1976.
70.
Hull 1988.
71.
Croft 2008, p. 222.
72.
Ibid.
73.
Ibid.
74.
Ibid.
75.
Viz., “homunculi” cf. Deacon 2012, pp. 46–79.
76.
Deacon 2012.
77.
Ibid., p. 132.
78.
Ibid., p. 131.
79.
Ibid., p. 132.
80.
Ibid., p. 131.
81.
Ibid., p. 437.
82.
Ibid., p. 422.
83.
Deely 2008, p. 481.
84.
Peirce 1890–1892 [2010, p. 194].
85.
Cf. also Deacon 2012, pp. 1–17.
86.
Cf. also ibid., p. 136: “Natural selection could not have produced the conditions that made natural selection possible”.
87.
That which Peirce once claimed as his “one contribution of value” (Peirce 1866–1913 [1931–1958], CP [= Collected Papers] 5.415, 1905 [= a manuscript of 1905]).
88.
Ibid., CP 1.337, 1886.
89.
Cf. Jakobson 1965 [1987]; Shapiro 2002; Nöth 2008.
90.
Cf. complaints in Whitman 1910 [1919]; Gould 1977.
91.
Cf., e.g., Adams and Pedersen (eds.), 2000; Wimsatt 2006, p. 364.
92.
Whitman 1910 [1919, p. 178].
93.
Gould 1977, p. 2.
94.
Hall 1999, p. 13.
95.
Whitman 1910 [1919, p. 176].
96.
Ibid., p. 178.
97.
Cf. Rieppel 1990.
98.
Hoffmeyer 2008, pp. 102–108.
99.
Peirce 1890–1892 [2010, p. 194].
100.
Ibid.
101.
Cf. the discussion in Jakobson 1965 [1987]; Shapiro 2002; Nöth 2008; Pelkey 2013. As Frederik Stjernfelt (2007) and Winfried Nöth (2008) note, the term diagram in this sense encompasses relations within and between embodied cognitive types at numerous levels, including schemas, prototypes, constructions, blends, gestalts, concepts and general cognitive models.
102.
Peirce 1890–1892 [2010, p. 194].
103.
Shapiro 2002, p. 118.
104.
Nöth 2002, p. 5.
105.
Peirce 1866–1913 [1931–1958], CP 4.531, 1903.
106.
Stjernfelt 2007, p. ix.
107.
Peirce 1866–1913 [1931–1958], CP 4.447, 1903.
108.
Cf. Hoffmeyer 2008, p. 62.
109.
Nöth 2008; Stjernfelt 2007.
110.
Peirce 1890–1892 [2010, p. 110].
111.
Adams and Pedersen 2000.
112.
Milligan 2007.
113.
Leins and Erbar 2010.
114.
Creutzfeldt 1995.
115.
Gishlick 2008.
116.
Adams and Pedersen 2000.
117.
Ibid., p. 1.
118.
For explicit treatments cf. Pelkey 2011 and 2013; for implicit treatments cf., e.g., Shapiro 1991, and 2002; Bybee 2010.
119.
Mufwene 2005, p. 30; italics mine. – J.P.
120.
Kretzschmar 2010.
121.
Darwin 1882, pp. 90–91.
122.
Cf. Anttila 2003.
123.
Mufwene 2014, p. 15.
124.
Not only in terms of its production and comprehension, but also (and especially) in terms of its organization (cf. Nöth 1999 and 2008 for further verification and clarification of this claim).
125.
I.e., the action of dicent indexical sinsigns.
126.
Croft 2008.
127.
Cf. the discussion in Bybee 2010, pp. 50–53, 75.
128.
Deacon 2012, p. 424.
129.
Bailey 1982.
130.
Darwin 1882, p. 91.
131.
Bybee 2010, p. 50.
132.
To take up a new habit is in some sense to break an old habit. Thirdness involves “a habit of taking and laying aside habits” (Peirce 1866–1913 [1931–1958] CP 6.101, 1902).
133.
Peirce 1866–1913 [1931–1958], CP 8.332, 1904.
134.
Deacon 2012, p. 422.
135.
E.g., Brinton and Traugott 2005.
136.
Pelkey 2013.
137.
Tibeto-Burman > Burmic > Ngwi > Southeastern.
138.
For a further, more detailed empirical study in which these relations are made explicit, cf. Pelkey 2013.
139.
Pelkey 2007 and 2011, pp. 293–300.
140.
Cf. Bradley 1979.
141.
A dicent indexical legisign.
142.
Cf. Pelkey 2007 and 2011, pp. 293–300.
143.
Cf. also Rauch 1999, p. 48.
144.
Hoffmeyer 2011, p. 203.
145.
Kull 2011, p. 226.

References

Adams, R. A., & Pedersen, S. C. (Eds.). (2000). Ontogeny, functional ecology, and evolution of bats. London: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Alter, S. G. (1999). Darwinism and the linguistic image. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Google Scholar
Anttila, R. (2003). Analogy: The warp and woof of cognition. In D. J. Brian & R. D. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 425–440). Oxford: Blackwell.
Google Scholar
Atkinson, Q. D., & Gray, R. D. (2005). Curious parallels and curious connections: Phylogenetic thinking in biology and historical linguistics. Systematic Biology, 54(4), 513–526.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Bailey, C.-J. N. (1982). On the Yin and Yang nature of language. Ann Arbor: Karoma.
Google Scholar
Bradley, D. (1979). Proto-Loloish (Scandinavian Institute of Asian studies monograph, Vol. 39). London: Curzon Press.
Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Book Google Scholar
Brosnahan, L. F. (1961). Language and evolution. Lingua, 9, 225–236.
Article Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Book Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.
Google Scholar
Cowley, S. J. (2007). Distributed language: Biomechanics, functions, and the origins of talk. In C. Lyon, C. L. Nehaniv, & A. Cangelosi (Eds.), Emergence of communication and language (pp. 105–127). London: Springer.
Chapter Google Scholar
Creutzfeldt, O. D. (1995). Phylogenetic, ontogenetic, and functional development of the cerebral cortex. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Book Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2000). Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Essex: Longman.
Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2008). Evolutionary linguistics. Annual Review of Anthropology, 37, 219–234.
Article Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2010). Review of Mufwene, Salikoko S. (2008), Language evolution: Contact, competition and change. World Englishes, 29(2), 306–311.
Article Google Scholar
Darwin, C. R. (1882). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex (2nd ed.). London: John Murray.
Book Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Deacon, T. W. (2012). Incomplete nature: How mind emerged from matter. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Google Scholar
Deely, J. (2001). Four ages of understanding: The first postmodern survey of philosophy from ancient times to the turn of the twenty-first century. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Google Scholar
Deely, J. (2007). Intentionality and semiotics: A story of mutual fecundation. Scranton: University of Scranton Press.
Google Scholar
Deely, J. (2008). From semiosis to semioethics: The full vista of the action of signs. Sign Systems Studies, 38(2), 437–491.
Google Scholar
Deely, J. (2009). Purely objective reality (Semiotics, communication and cognition, Vol. 4). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Book Google Scholar
Driem, G. van (2001). Languages of the Himalayas: An ethnolinguistic handbook of the greater Himalayan region, containing an introduction to the symbiotic theory of language (Vol. 2). Leiden: Brill.
Google Scholar
Driem, G. van (2008). The language organism: Parasite or mutualist? In R. Derksen, J. Schaeken, A. Lubotsky, J. Wiedenhof, & S. Siebinga (Eds.), Evidence and counter-evidence: Essays in honour of Frederik Kortlandt (Studies in Slavic and general linguistics, Vol. 33, pp. 101–112). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Google Scholar
Fitch, W. T. (2008). Glossogeny and phylogeny: Cultural evolution meets genetic evolution. Trends in Genetics, 24(8), 373–374.
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Gishlick, A. K. (2008). The ontogeny, phylogeny, and ecology of the herpestid auditory bulla. (PhD dissertation). Yale University, New Haven.
Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1977). Ontogeny and phylogeny. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1957). Language and evolutionary theory. In J. H. Greenberg, Essays in linguistics (pp. 56–65). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
Hall, B. K. (1999). Evolutionary developmental biology (2nd ed.). Berlin: Kluwer.
Book Google Scholar
Hoffmeyer, J. (2008). Biosemiotics: An examination into the signs of life and the life of signs. Scranton: University of Scranton Press.
Google Scholar
Hoffmeyer, J. (2011). Astonishing life. In P. Cobley, J. Deely, K. Kull, & S. Petrilli (Eds.), Semiotics continues to astonish: Thomas A. Sebeok and the doctrine of signs (pp. 191–206). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chapter Google Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1988). Science as a process: An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Book Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1965 [1987]). Quest for the essence of language. In K. Pomorska & S. Rudy (Eds.), Language in literature (pp. 413–427). Cambridge, MA: Belknap Harvard.
Google Scholar
James, W. (1880). Great men, great thoughts, and the environment. Atlantic Monthly, 46, 441–459.
Google Scholar
Kortlandt, F. (2003). The origin and nature of the linguistic parasite. In B. Bauer & G.-J. Pinault (Eds.), Language in time and space (pp. 241–244). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Google Scholar
Kretzschmar, W. A., Jr. (2010). Language variation and complex systems. American Speech, 85(3), 263–286.
Article Google Scholar
Kull, K. (2011). The architect of biosemiotics: Thomas A. Sebeok and biology. In P. Cobley, J. Deely, K. Kull, & S. Petrilli (Eds.), Semiotics continues to astonish: Thomas A. Sebeok and the doctrine of signs (pp. 223–250). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chapter Google Scholar
Kull, K., Deacon, T. W., Emmeche, C., Hoffmeyer, J., & Stjernfelt, F. (2009). Theses on biosemiotics: Prolegomena to a theoretical biology. Biological Theory, 4(2), 167–173.
Article Google Scholar
Leins, P., & Erbar, C. (2010). Flower and fruit: Morphology, ontogeny, phylogeny, function and ecology. Stuttgart: Schweizerbart.
Google Scholar
McMahon, A. M. S. (1994). Understanding language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Book Google Scholar
Mesoudi, A., Whiten, A., & Laland, K. (2006). Towards a unified science of cultural evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29, 329–383.
PubMed Google Scholar
Milligan, L. A. (2007). Nonhuman primate milk composition: Relationship to phylogeny, ontogeny, and ecology. (PhD dissertation). University of Arizona, Tuscon.
Google Scholar
Mufwene, S. S. (2001). The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Book Google Scholar
Mufwene, S. S. (2005). Language evolution: The population genetics way. In G. Hauska (Ed.), Gene, Sprachen und ihre evolution (pp. 30–52). Regensburg: Universitätsverlag Regensburg.
Google Scholar
Mufwene, S. S. (2008). Language evolution: Contact, competition and change. London: Continuum.
Google Scholar
Mufwene, S. S. (2014). Language ecology, language evolution, and the actuation question. In T. A. Åfarli & B. Mæhlum (Eds.), The sociolinguistics of grammar (pp. 13–36). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Chapter Google Scholar
Müller, M. (1887). The science of thought. London: Longmans, Green and Co.
Google Scholar
Nöth, W. (1999). Peircean semiotics in the study of iconicity in language. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 35(3), 613–619.
Google Scholar
Nöth, W. (2002). Charles Sanders Peirce, pathfinder in linguistics. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis, 7(1), 1–14.
Google Scholar
Nöth, W. (2008). Semiotic foundations of natural linguistics and diagrammatic iconicity. In K. Willems & L. de Cuypere (Eds.), Naturalness and iconicity in language (Iconicity in language and literature, Vol. 7, pp. 73–100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chapter Google Scholar
O’Brien, M. J. (2006). Archaeology and cultural macroevolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29, 359–360.
Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1866–1913 [1931–1958]). The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. (Ch. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. W. Burks [Eds.], 8 Vols). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1890–1892 [2010]). The Monist metaphysical project. In Peirce Edition Project (Eds.), Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A chronological edition (Vol. 8, pp. 83–205). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Google Scholar
Pelkey, J. (2007). Muji’s mirrored merger: Correlative redistribution of checked tone classes in a new newly defined Burmic cluster. Mon-Khmer Studies Journal, 37(1), 179–196.
Google Scholar
Pelkey, J. (2011). Dialectology as dialectic: Interpreting Phula variation (Trends in linguistics: Studies and monographs, Vol. 229). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Book Google Scholar
Pelkey, J. (2013). Analogy, automation and diagrammatization: Ngwi-Branch polygrammaticalization of Tibeto-Burman *lak. Studies in Language, 37(1), 144–195.
Article Google Scholar
Rauch, I. (1999). Semiotic insights: The data do the talking. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Google Scholar
Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2001). Built for speed, not for comfort: Darwinian theory and human culture. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 2001(23), 423–463.
Google Scholar
Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. (1990). Ontogeny – A way forward for systematics, a way backward for phylogeny. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 39(2), 177–191.
Article Google Scholar
Schleicher, A. (1869 [1983]). Darwinism tested by the science of language. In E. F. K. Koerner (Ed.), Linguistics and evolutionary theory: Three essays (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science, Vol. 6, pp. 3–72). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Google Scholar
Sebeok, T. A. (1986). Communication, language and speech: Evolutionary considerations. In T. A. Sebeok, I think I am a verb. More contributions to the doctrine of signs (pp. 10–16). New York: Plenum.
Google Scholar
Sebeok, T. A. (2001). Biosemiotics: Its roots, proliferation, and prospects. Semiotica, 134, 61–78.
Google Scholar
Sereno, M. I. (1991). Four analogies between biological and cultural/linguistic evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 151(4), 467–507.
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Shapiro, M. (1991). The sense of change: Language as history. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Google Scholar
Shapiro, M. (2002). Aspects of a Neo-Peircean linguistics: Language history as linguistic theory. In M. Shapiro (Ed.), The Peirce seminar papers: Essays in semiotic analysis (Vol. 5, pp. 108–125). New York: Berghahn Books.
Google Scholar
Spencer, H. (1862). First principles. London: Williams and Norgate.
Google Scholar
Sterelny, K. (2006). The evolution and evolvability of culture. Mind & Language, 21(2), 137–165.
Article Google Scholar
Stjernfelt, F. (2007). Diagrammatology: An investigation on the borderlines of phenomenology, ontology, and semiotics (Synthese library, Vol. 336). Dordrecht: Springer.
Book Google Scholar
Tallerman, M., & Gibson, K. R. (2012). The Oxford handbook of language evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Thellefsen, T. (2001). C.S. Peirce’s evolutionary sign: An analysis of depth and complexity within Peircean sign types and Peircean evolution theory. SEED: Semiotics, Evolution, Energy, and Development, 1(2), 1–45.
Google Scholar
Whitman, C. O. (1910 [1919]). Orthogenetic evolution in pigeons (O. Riddle [Ed.], Posthumous works of Charles Otis Whitman, Vol. 1). Washington: The Carnegie Institute of Washington.
Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (2006). Generative entrenchment and an evolutionary developmental biology for culture. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29, 329–383.
Article Google Scholar
Wyhe, J. van (2005). The descent of words: Evolutionary thinking 1780–1880. Endeavour, 29(3), 94–100.
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada
Jamin Pelkey

Authors

Jamin Pelkey
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jamin Pelkey .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Slavic and South Asian Studies, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
Ekaterina Velmezova
Professor in biosemiotics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
Kalevi Kull
Dept. of Language and Communication, University of Southern Denmark, Slagelse, Denmark
Stephen J. Cowley

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pelkey, J. (2015). Deep Congruence Between Linguistic and Biotic Growth: Evidence for Semiotic Foundations. In: Velmezova, E., Kull, K., Cowley, S. (eds) Biosemiotic Perspectives on Language and Linguistics. Biosemiotics, vol 13. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20663-9_6

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20663-9_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20662-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20663-9
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics