Cover not available
Part of
Translating Asymmetry – Rewriting Power
Edited by Ovidi Carbonell i Cortés and Esther Monzó-Nebot
[Benjamins Translation Library 157] 2021
► pp. 101–121

Chapter 5
Tom, Dick and Harry as well as Fido and Puss in boots are translators

The implications of biosemiotics for translation studies

ORCID logo | University of the Free State
As a field, translation studies arose from the practice of interlingual, mostly written translation. Though not an invalid point of departure, this assumption, which had not really been investigated critically despite lip service to Jakobson’s categories of intralinguistic, interlinguistic and intersemiotic translation, has meant that translation studies has limited its field of interest to, mainly, written, literary, professional translation as instantiated by Western practices. This linguistic bias has an anthropocentric bias as its logical implication. The limited conceptualization of translation has become untenable for a number of reasons, not least of which is the growth in multimodal communication made possible by information-technology developments as well as the growth in posthumanist thinking. Lastly, semiotic conceptualizations of translation clearly pose theoretical challenges to a translation studies that is conceptualized on the basis of interlinguistic translation only or that is based on a linguicentric and thus anthropocentric bias.
This chapter investigates the Peircean definition of meaning as “the translation of a sign into another system of signs” (Peirce 1931–1966: 4.127), in particular the ways in which this kind of thinking has evolved in the modern field of biosemiotics. If all meaning creation is, per definition, translation, it means that every living organism is a translator. It further means that one needs to consider translational actions by animals and plants at both intraspecific and interspecific levels. The chapter addresses the asymmetry both in the relationships between human and non-human animals and in the attention that translation studies pays to this power dynamic.
Keywords: anthropocentric bias, biosemiotics, non-professional interpreting and translation (NPIT), linguicentrism
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Non-Professional Interpreting and Translation (NPIT)
  • 3.Biosemiotics
    • 3.1Theoretical biosemiotics
      • 3.1.1Overview
      • 3.1.2The evolution of semiosis
      • 3.1.3The unity of life
      • 3.1.4Questioning cultural and linguistic relativism
      • 3.1.5Meaning is grounded
      • 3.1.6The adjacent possible
    • 3.2Applied biosemiotics
  • 4.Implications
  • 5.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 16 August 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.157.05mar
References (82)
References
Affifi, Ramsey. 2013. “Learning Plants: Semiosis Between the Parts and the Whole.” Biosemiotics 6 (3): 547–559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “Biological Pedagogy as Concern for Semiotic Growth.” Biosemiotics 7 (1): 73–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Myrdene. 2012. “Birthing Prepositional Logics.” In Biosemiotic Gatherings, ed. by Silver Rattasepp and Tyler Bennett, 47–51. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Google Scholar
Antonini, Rachele, Chiara Bucaria, Letizia Cirillo, Linda Rossato, and Ira Torresi. 2011. Call for papers. First International Conference on Non-Professional Interpreting and Translation 1. Università di Bologna (Forlì). [URL]
Antonini, Rachele, Letizia Cirillo, Linda Rossato, and Ira Torresi. 2017a. “Introducing NPIT studies.” In Non-professional Interpreting and Translation, ed. by Rachele Antonini, Letizia Cirillo, Linda Rossato, and Ira Torresi, 1–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(eds). 2017b. Non-Professional Interpreting and Translation: State of the Art and Future of an Emerging Field of Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barbieri, Marcello (ed). 2006. Introduction to Biosemiotics. The New Biological Synthesis. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
. 2007. Biosemiotics: Information, Codes and Signs in Living Systems. New York: Nova Scientific Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bielecka, Krystyna, and Mira Marcinow. 2017. “Mental Misrepresentation in Non-human Psychopathology.” Biosemiotics 10 (2): 195–210. DOI logo. [URL]
Biosemiotics. n.d. “International Society for Biosemiotic Studies.” [URL]
Brier, Søren. 2010. “Cybersemiotics: An Evolutionary World View Going Beyond Entropy and Information into the Question of Meaning.” Entropy 12 (8): 1902–1920. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brier, Søren, and Cliff Joslyn. 2013. “What Does it Take to Produce Interpretation? Informational, Peircean and Code-Semiotic Views on Biosemiotics.” Biosemiotics 6 (1): 143–159. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cobley, Paul. 2010. “The Cultural Implications of Biosemiotics.” Biosemiotics 3 (2): 225–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Cultural Implications of Biosemiotics. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cobley, Paul, and Frederik Stjernfelt. 2015. “Scaffolding Development and the Human Condition.” Biosemiotics 8 (2): 291–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Connolly, William E. 2013. “Biology, Politics, Creativity.” Perspectives on Politics 11 (2): 508–511. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cronin, Michael. 2017. Eco-translation: Translation and Ecology in the Age of the Anthropocene. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deacon, Terrence W. 1997. The Symbolic Species. The Co-Evolution of Language and the Human Brain. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
2012. “On the Importance of Semiotics for Biology.” In Biosemiotic Gatherings, ed. by Silver Rattasepp and Tyler Bennett, 25–27. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Google Scholar
2013. Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter. New York: WW Norman.Google Scholar
Deely, John. 2009. Purely Objective Reality. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eco, Umberto. 1979. A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Emmeche, Claus. 2014. “Semiotic Scaffolding of the Social Self in Reflexivity and Friendship.” Biosemiotics 8 (2): 275–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farina, Almo, and Nadia Pieretti. 2013. “From Umwelt to Soundtope: An Epistemological Essay on Cognitive Ecology.” Biosemiotics 7 (1): 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Favareau, Donald. 2007. “The Evolutionary History of Biosemiotics.” In Introduction to Biosemiotics: The New Biological Synthesis, ed. by Marcello Barbieri, 1–67. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Symbols are Grounded not in Things, but in Scaffolded Relations and their Semiotic Constraints (Or How the Referential Generality of Symbol Scaffolding Grows Minds).” Biosemiotics 8 (2): 235–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Favareau, Donald, Kalevi Kull, Gerald Ostdiek, Timo Maran, Louise Westling, Paul Cobley, Frederik Stjernfelt, Myrdene Anderson, Morten Tønnessen, and Wendy Wheeler. 2017. “How Can the Study of the Humanities Inform the Study of Biosemiotics?” Biosemiotics 10 (1): 9–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, Scott F. 2016. “Ecological Developmental Biology: Interpreting Developmental Signs.” Biosemiotics 9 (1): 51–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giorgi, Franco. 2017. “The Intuition of the Relevant Next.” In Biosemiotics in the Community: Essays in Honour of Donald Favareau, ed. by Kalevi Kull and Paul Cobley, 11–14. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Google Scholar
Gómez-Moreno, José Manuel Ureña. 2014. “The Role of Image Schemas and Superior Psychic Faculties in Zoosemiosis.” Biosemiotics 7 (3): 405–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Brian. 1973. “La traductologie, la traduction naturelle, la traduction automatique et la semantique [Translation studies, natural translation, machine translation, and semantics].” In Problèmes de sémantique, ed. by Judith McA’Nulty, Paul Pupier, and Antonio A. M. Querido, 133–146. Montreal: Presses de l’Université du Québec. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henning, Brian G., and Adam C. Scarfe (eds). 2013. Beyond Mechanism: Putting Life Back Into Biology. Lexington Books: Lanham.Google Scholar
Hoffmeyer, Jesper. 2008. Biosemiotics: An Examination into the Signs of Life and the Life of Signs. London: University of Scranton Press.Google Scholar
. 2015. “Introduction: Semiotic Scaffolding.” Biosemiotics 8 (2): 153–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “Knowledge Is Never Just There.” Biosemiotics 11 (1): 1–5. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmeyer, Jesper, and Frederik Stjernfelt. 2015. “The Great Chain of Semiosis. Investigating the Steps in the Evolution of Semiotic Competence.” Biosemiotics 9 (1): 7–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaroš, Filip. 2016. “Cats and Human Societies: a World of Interspecific Interaction and Interpretation.” Biosemiotics 9 (2): 287–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Juarrero, Alicia. 1999. Dynamics in Action: Intentional Behaviour as a Complex System. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kauffman, Stuart A. 1993. The Origins of Order: Self-organization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1995. At Home in the Universe. The Search for the Laws of Self-organisation and Complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2000. Investigations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008. Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason and Religion. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
2012. “From Physics to Semiotics.” In Biosemiotic Gatherings, ed. by Silver Rattasepp and Tyler Bennett, 30–46. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Google Scholar
2013. “Foreword: Evolution beyond Newton, Darwin, and entailing law.” In Beyond mechanism: Putting life back into biology, ed. by Brian G. Henning and Adam C. Scarfe, 1–24. Plymouth: Lexington.Google Scholar
Kull, Kalevi. 2007. “A Brief History of Biosemiotics.” In Biosemiotics: Information, codes and signs in Living Systems, ed. by Marcello Barbieri, 1–26. New York: Nova Publishers.Google Scholar
. 2012. “Advandements in Biosemiotics: Where Are We Now in Discovering the Basic Mechanisms of Meaning-making.” In Biosemiotic Gatherings, ed. by Silver Rattasepp and Tyler Bennett, 11–24. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Google Scholar
. 2015. “Semiosis Stems from Logical Incompatibility in Organic Nature: Why Biophysics Does Not See Meaning, while Biosemiotics Does.” Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 119 (3): 616–621. DOI logo. [URL]
. 2016. “Need for Impressions: Zoosemiotics and Zoosemiotics, by Aleksei Turovski.” Sign Systems Studies 44 (3): 456–462. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “What is the Possibility?” In Biosemiotics in the Community: Essays in Honour of Donald Favareau, ed. by Kalevi Kull and Paul Cobley, 15–25. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Google Scholar
Lesch, Harold M., Christine Anthonissen, Claire Penn, Kate Huddlestone, and Ilse Feinauer. 2017. 4th International Conference on Non-Professional Translation and Interpreting. Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study (Stellenbosch). [URL]
Mäekivi, Nelly. 2018. “Freedom in Captivity: Managing Zoo Animals According to the ‘Five Freedoms’.” Biosemiotics 11 (1): 7–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Magnus, Riin. 2015. “The Semiotic Challenges of Guide Dog Teams: the Experiences of German, Estonian and Swedish Guide Dog Users.” Biosemiotics 9 (2): 267–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marais, Kobus. 2014. Translation Theory and Development Studies: A Complexity Theory Approach. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. A (Bio)semiotic Theory of Translation: The Emergence of Social-cultural Reality. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Marais, Kobus, and Carmen Delgado Luchner. 2018. “Motivating the Translation-development Nexus: Exploring Cases from the African Continent.” The Translator 25 (1): 380–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marais, Kobus, and Kalevi Kull. 2016. “Biosemiotics and Translation Studies: Challenging “Translation”.” In Border Crossings: Translation Studies and Other Disciplines, ed. by Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, 169–188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Massey, Gary, Michaela Albl-Mikasa, Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow, Andrea Hunziker Heeb, Raquel Montero Muñoz, and Christa Stocker. 2015. 3rd International Conference on Non-Professional Interpreting and Translation. Zurich University of Applied Sciences (Winterthur). [URL]
Meyer, Bernd. 2013. Call for Papers. 2nd International Conference on Non-Professional Interpreting and Translation (NPIT2). Johannes Gutemberg Universität Mainz (Germersheim). [URL]
Molefe, Monnapula, and Kobus Marais. 2013. “The Role of Language Practice in Access to Public Service in South Africa: The Case of Philippolis.” In Multilingualism and Empowerment, ed. by Pol Cuvelier, Theodorus Du Plessis, Michael Meeuwis, Reinhild Vandekerckhove, and Vic Webb, 72–90. Pretoria: Van Schaik.Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1966. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Edited by Charles Hartshorne, Paul Weiss, and Arthur W. Burks. Cambridge: Belknap.Google Scholar
Pérez-González, Luis, and Şebnem Susam-Saraeva. 2012. “Non-professionals Translating and Interpreting. Participatory and Engaged Perspectives.” The Translator 18 (2): 149–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rafieian, Shahram. 2011. “A Biosemiotic Approach to the Problem of Structure and Agency.” Biosemiotics 5 (1): 83–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Recchia-Luciani, Angelo N. 2012. “Manipulating Representations.” Biosemiotics 5 (1): 95–120. DOI logo. [URL]
Rodríguez, Sergio. 2016. “Recurrences and Human Agential Meaning Grounding: Laying a Path in Walking.” Biosemiotics 9 (2): 169–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sebeok, Thomas A. 1976. Contributions to the Doctrine of Signs. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
1986. I Think I Am a Verb. New York: Plenum Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001a. “Biosemiotics: Its Roots, Proliferation, and Prospects.” Semiotica 134: 61–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001b. Global Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
2001c. Signs: An Introduction to Semiotics. 2 ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Stjernfelt, Frederik. 2001. “A Natural Symphony? To What Extent is Uexku lls Bedeutungslehre Actual for the Semiotics of our Time?” Semiotica 134: 79–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sueur, Jérôme, and Almo Farina. 2015. “Ecoacoustics: the Ecological Investigation and Interpretation of Environmental Sound.” Biosemiotics 8 (3): 493–502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, J. Scott. 2016. “Semiotics of a Superorganism.” Biosemiotics 9 (1): 85–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tymoczko, Maria. 2006. “Reconceptualizing Translation Theory. Integrating Non-Western Thought about Translation.” In Translating Others, ed. by Theo Hermans, 13–32. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Von Uexküll, Jacob. 1926. Theoretical biology. London: Kegan Paul, Trensch, Trubner.Google Scholar
Vehkavaara, Tommi, and Alexei Sharov. 2017. “Constructive Aspects of Biosemiotics.” Biosemiotics 10 (2): 145–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, Wendy. 2006. The Whole Creature: Complexity, Biosemiotics and the Evolution of Culture. London: Lawrence & Wishart.Google Scholar
. 2014. “A Connoisseur of Magical Coincidences: Chance, Creativity and Poiesis from a Biosemiotic Perspective.” Biosemiotics 7 (3): 389–404. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, Wendy, and Louise Westling. 2015. “Biosemiotics and Culture: Introduction.” Green Letters 19 (3): 215–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Almarri, Saqer A.
2024. Chapter 5. Sex and the stability of a legal gender system. In The Complexity of Social-Cultural Emergence [Benjamins Translation Library, 164], ► pp. 109 ff. DOI logo
van Vuuren, Xany Jansen
2024. Chapter 4. Animal photojournalism as knowledge translation. In The Complexity of Social-Cultural Emergence [Benjamins Translation Library, 164], ► pp. 84 ff. DOI logo
Marais, Kobus
2022. The stranger loops of translation. STRIDON: Studies in Translation and Interpreting 2:2 ► pp. 95 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.