A zoosemiotic approach to the transactional model of communication

References

Allen, Colin. 2014. Umwelt or Umwelten? How should shared representation be understood given such diversity? Semiotica 198(1/4). 137–158.10.1515/sem-2013-0105Search in Google Scholar

Barnlund, Dean C. 1962. Toward a meaning-centred philosophy of communication. Journal of Communication 12(4). 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1962.tb01547.x.Search in Google Scholar

Barnlund, Dean C. 1970. A transactional model of communication. In Johnnye Akin, Alvin Goldberg, Joseph Stewart & Gail Myers (eds.), Language behavior: A book of readings in communication, 43–61. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783110878752.43Search in Google Scholar

Beever, Jonathan & Morten Tønnessen. 2013. “Darwin und die englische Moral”: The moral consequences of Uexküll’s Umwelt theory. Biosemiotics 6(3). 437–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-013-9180-x.Search in Google Scholar

Bekoff, Marc. 1972. The development of social interaction, play, and metacommunication in mammals: An ethological perspective. Quarterly Review of Biology 47(4). 412–434. https://doi.org/10.1086/407400.Search in Google Scholar

Bennett, Janet M. 2012. The public and private Dean Barnlund. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36(6). 780–788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.08.007.Search in Google Scholar

Brentari, Carlo. 2009. Konrad Lorenz’s epistemological criticism towards Jakob von Uexküll. Sign Systems Studies 37(3/4). 637–662.10.12697/SSS.2009.37.3-4.13Search in Google Scholar

Brentari, Carlo. 2015. Jakob von Uexküll: The discovery of the Umwelt between biosemiotics and theoretical biology (Biosemiotics 9). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.10.1007/978-94-017-9688-0Search in Google Scholar

Burghardt, Gordon M. 1998. Snake stories: From the additive model to ethology’s fifth aim. In L. Hart (ed.), Responsible conduct of research in animal behavior, 77–95. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Burghardt, Gordon M. 2008. Updating von Uexküll: New directions in communication research. Journal of Comparative Psychology 122(3). 332–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013124.Search in Google Scholar

Cerrone, Mirko. 2018. Umwelt and ape language experiments: On the role of iconicity in the human-ape pidgin language. Biosemiotics 11(1). 41–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-018-9312-4.Search in Google Scholar

Cerrone, Mirko. 2019. Keepers as social companions: Tactile communication and social enrichment for captive apes. Sign Systems Studies 47(3/4). 453–479.10.12697/SSS.2019.47.3-4.06Search in Google Scholar

Cerrone, Mirko. 2020. Interspecies relationships and their influence on animal handling: A case study in the Tallinn zoological gardens. Biosemiotics 13(1). 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-019-09372-w.Search in Google Scholar

Chapman, Colin A., Lauren J. Chapman & Richard W. Wrangham. 1995. Ecological constraints on group size: An analysis of spider monkey and chimpanzee subgroups. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 36(1). 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650050125.Search in Google Scholar

Cobley, Paul. 2010. The Routledge companion to semiotics. London & New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203874158Search in Google Scholar

Deely, John. 2010. Realism and epistemology. In Paul Cobley (ed.), The Routledge companion to semiotics, 74–88. London & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Fagot-Largeault, Anne. 2009. Anthropological physiology: von Uexküll, Portmann, Buytendijk. In A. Berthoz & Yves Christen (eds.), Neurobiology of “Umwelt”: How living beings perceive the world, 1–5. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-540-85897-3_1Search in Google Scholar

Farina & Almo & Andrea Belgrano. 2006. The eco-field hypothesis: Toward a cognitive landscape. Landscape Ecology 21(1). 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-005-7755-x.Search in Google Scholar

Ferreira, Maria Isabel Aldinhas. 2015. Semiosis: The dialectics of cognition. In Peter Pericles Trifonas (ed.), International handbook of semiotics, 1125–1137. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.10.1007/978-94-017-9404-6_52Search in Google Scholar

Ferreira, Maria Isabel Aldinhas & Miguel Gama Caldas. 2013. The concept of Umwelt overlap and its application to cooperative action in multi-agent systems. Biosemiotics 6(3). 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-013-9185-5.Search in Google Scholar

Henazi, S. Peter & Louise Barrett. 1999. The value of grooming to female primates. Primates 40(1). 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02557701.Search in Google Scholar

Ingold, Tim. 2002. The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203466025Search in Google Scholar

Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in language, 350–377. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Krampen, Martin. 1997. Models of semiosis. In R. Posner, K. Robering & Thomas A. Sebeok (eds.), Semiotics: A handbook on the sign-theoretic foundations of nature and culture, 247–287. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110095845.1.2.247Search in Google Scholar

Kull, Kalevi. 2010. Umwelt and modeling. In Paul Cobley (ed.), The Routledge companion to semiotics, 43–56. London & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Lorenz, Konrad. 1937. The companion in the bird’s world. The Auk: Ornithological Advances 54(3). 245–273. https://doi.org/10.2307/4078077.Search in Google Scholar

Mäekivi, Nelly. 2018. The zoological garden as a hybrid environment: A (zoo)semiotic analysis. University of Tartu PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Magnus, Riin & Kalevi Kull. 2012. Roots of culture in the Umwelt. In Jaan Valsiner (ed.), The Oxford handbook of culture and psychology, 649–661. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396430.013.0030Search in Google Scholar

Maran, Timo. 2005. Mimikri semiootika. University of Tartu PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Maran, Timo, Morten Tønnessen & Silver Rattasepp (eds.), 2016. Animal Umwelten in a changing world: Zoosemiotic perspectives (Tartu Semiotics Library 18). Tartu: Tartu University Press.10.26530/OAPEN_620672Search in Google Scholar

Marchesini, Roberto. 2017. Over the human: Post-humanism and the concept of animal epiphany (Numanities – Arts and Humanities in Progress 4). Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-62581-2Search in Google Scholar

Marler, Peter, Christopher S. Evans & Marc D. Hauser. 1992. Animal signals: Motivational, referential, or both? In Hanuš Papoušek, Owe Jürgens & Mechthild Papoušek (eds.), Studies in emotion and social interaction. Nonverbal vocal communication: Comparative and developmental approaches, 66–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Mielke, Alexander, Liran Samuni, Anna Preis, Jan F. Gogarten, Catherine Crockford & Roman M. Wittig. 2017. Bystanders intervene to impede grooming in Western chimpanzees and sooty mangabeys. Royal Society Open Science 4(11). 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171296.Search in Google Scholar

Nishida, Toshisada, Takayoshi Kano, Jane Goodall, William Mcgrew & Michio Nakamura. 1999. Ethogram and ethnography of Mahale chimpanzees. Anthropological Science 107(2). 141–168. https://doi.org/10.1537/ase.107.141.Search in Google Scholar

Partan, Sarah & Peter Marler. 2002. The Umwelt and its relevance to animal communication: Introduction to special issue. Journal of Comparative Psychology 116(2). 116–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.116.2.116.Search in Google Scholar

Ribó, Ignasi. 2019a. Dialogical communicative interaction between humans and elephants: An experiment in semiotic alignment. Biosemiotics 12(2). 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-019-09354-y.Search in Google Scholar

Ribó, Ignasi. 2019b. Semiotic alignment: Towards a dialogical model of interspecific communication. Semiotica 2019(230). 247–274. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2018-0003.Search in Google Scholar

Sebeok, Thomas A. 1972. Perspectives in zoosemiotics. The Hague: Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Sebeok, Thomas A. 1986. I think I am a verb: More contributions to the doctrine of signs. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4899-3490-1Search in Google Scholar

Sebeok, Thomas A. 1990. Essays in zoosemiotics. Toronto: Toronto Semiotic Circle.Search in Google Scholar

Sebeok, Thomas A. 1991. Communication. In Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), A sign is just a sign, 22–35. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Shannon, Claude E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27(3). 379–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x.Search in Google Scholar

Tønnessen, Morten. 2010. Steps to a semiotics of being. Biosemiotics 3(3). 375–392.10.1007/s12304-010-9074-0Search in Google Scholar

Tønnessen, Morten. 2014. Umwelt trajectories. Semiotica 198(1/4). 159–180.10.1515/sem-2013-0106Search in Google Scholar

Tønnessen, Morten. 2015. Introduction: The relevance of Uexküll’s Umwelt theory today. In Jakob von Uexküll: The discovery of the Umwelt between biosemiotics and theoretical biology, 1–20. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springe.10.1007/978-94-017-9688-0_1Search in Google Scholar

Tønnessen, Morten, Riin Magnus & Carlo Brentari. 2016. The biosemiotic glossary project: Umwelt. Biosemiotics 9(1). 129–149.10.1007/s12304-016-9255-6Search in Google Scholar

von Uexküll, Jakob. 1909. Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere. Berlin: Springer.Search in Google Scholar

von Uexküll, Jakob. 1921. Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere. 2. Vermehrte und verbesserte Auflage. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-3-662-24819-5Search in Google Scholar

von Uexküll, Jakob. 1926. Theoretical biology. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Search in Google Scholar

von Uexküll, Jakob. 1934. A stroll through the worlds of animal and men. Instinctive Behavior 4. 319–391.Search in Google Scholar

von Uexküll, Jakob. 1982. The theory of meaning. Semiotica 42(1). 25–82. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1982.42.1.25.Search in Google Scholar

von Uexküll, Jakob. 1992a. A stroll through the worlds of animals and men: A picture book of invisible worlds. Semiotica 89(4). 319–391. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1992.89.4.319.Search in Google Scholar

von Uexküll, Jakob. 2012[1922]. Millisena näeme meie loodust ja millisena näeb loodus iseennast? In Kalevi Kull & Riin Magnus (eds.), Omailmad, 201–239. Tartu: Ilmamaa.Search in Google Scholar

von Uexküll, Thure. 1992b. Introduction: The sign theory of Jakob von Uexküll. Semiotica 89(4). 279. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1992.89.4.279.Search in Google Scholar

Vladimirova, Elina. 2009. Sign activity of mammals as means of ecological adaptation. Sign Systems Studies 37(3/4). 614–636. https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.2009.37.3-4.12.Search in Google Scholar

de Waal, Frans B.M. & Denise L. Johanowicz. 1993. Modification of reconciliation behavior through social experience: An experiment with two macaque species. Child Development 64(3). 897–908. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02950.x.Search in Google Scholar

Wagoner, Brady & Philip Rosenbaum. 2009. From cellular to human worlds. In Rosemarie Sokol-Chang (ed.), Relating to environments: A new look at Umwelt, 3–21. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Search in Google Scholar

Wrangham, Richard W., Kathelijne Koops, Zarin P. Machanda, Steven Worthington, Andrew B. Bernard, Nicholas F. Brazeau, Ronan Donovan, Jeremiah Rosen, Claudia Wilke, Emily Otali & Martin N. Muller. 2016. Distribution of a chimpanzee social custom is explained by matrilineal relationship rather than conformity. Current Biology 26(22). 3033–3037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.09.005.Search in Google Scholar