5,000 reads of chapter "Introduction: The semiotics of animal representations" on ResearchGate

According to ResearchGate our chapter "Introduction: The semiotics of animal representations" (co-written with Kadri Tüür) has reached 5,000 reads on their platform.  Read the chapter here.

The 39 most read texts on my ResearchGate profile

86 of my research publications/items are currently listed on my ResearchGate profile. These are the most read (100+ reads):

1. Introduction: The semiotics of animal representations 4.000

2. A hundred introductions to semiotics, for a million students A hundred introductions to semiotics, for a million students: Survey of semiotics textbooks and primers in the world 3.658

3. The Ethics of Laying Hen Genetics 2.254

4. Animal Umwelten in a Changing World. Zoosemiotic Perspectives 921

5. Umwelt ethics 794

6. How Can the Study of the Humanities Inform the Study of Biosemiotics? 793

7. Call for papers: Umwelt Theory and Phenomenology - Special Issue of Biosemiotics 552 

7. Menneskedyret og dets plass i verden (unpublished) 552

9. Umwelt Transitions: Uexküll and Environmental Change 530

10. “Darwin und die englische Moral”: The Moral Consequences of Uexküll’s Umwelt Theory 524

11. A World of Signs - In Memory of John Deely (1942-2017) 459

12. Jesper Hoffmeyer’s Biosemiotic Legacy 453

13. Interview on biosemiotic ethics with Wendy Wheeler 446

14. The First Decade of Biosemiotics 320

15. Introducing Biosemiotic Ethics 280

16. Analyse av partiprogrammer for 2013-2017 utført for Dyreetikkonferansen 2013 261

17. Comprehending the Semiosis of Evolution 253

18. Towards Synthesis of Biology and Semiotics 246

19. Phenomenology and Biosemiotics 202

20. Visjon 2040: Fra overlagt rovdrift til Utopi Buane (unpublished) 201

21. Historicising the Cultural Semiotics of Wolf and Sheep 197

22. Kalevi Kull and the rewilding of biosemiotics: Introduction (by Kati Lindström, Riin Magnus, Timo Maran and Morten Tønnessen) 196

23. Uexküllian phenomenology 194

24. The statistician's guide to Utopia: The future of growth 188

25. Umwelt and Language 186

26. Introduction: The Relevance of Uexküll’s Umwelt Theory Today 183

27. Organisms Reshape Sign Relations 177

28. The ontogeny of the embryonic, foetal and infant human umwelt 170

29. Human development, inequality and social risks in Latin-America and the Nordic countries 159

30. The Biosemiotic Glossary Project: Umwelt 143

31. Semiotic Agency, Science beyond Mechanism 141

32. Anticipating the societal transformation required to solve the environmental crisis in the 21st century 132

33. The Evolutionary Origin(s) of the Umwelt 131

34. Semiogenesis* 116

35. The search image as link between sensation, perception and action 111

36. 1st CFP: Animals in the Anthropocene - human-animal relations in a changing semiosphere (Stavanger, Norway, 17-19 September 2015) 110

37. Justifying Moral Standing by Biosemiotic Particularism 105

38. Introduction to the Special Issue Semiotics of Perception Being in the World of the Living—Semiotic Perspectives 104

39. Abstraction, cruelty and other aspects of animal play (exemplified by the playfulness of Muki and Maluca) 100

* chapter in the book Semiotic Agency, Science beyond Mechanism

Of these 39 texts with 100+ reads on ResearchGate, 2 are call for papers, 2 texts are unpublished (written in Norwegian), the rest are scientific, published texts. 32 are related to biosemiotics, 3 to animal welfare, 2 to economics (#24, #29), of which 1 to human welfare (#29).

Semiotics of animal representations intro chapter reaches 4.000 reads

Our book chapter "Introduction: The semiotics of animal representations", authored by me and Kadri Tüür, from the book The semiotics of animal representations (Rodopi - now Brill, 2014) has reached 4.000 reads at ResearchGate.

Google Scholar: 522 citations; i10-index 20

According to my Google Scholar profile, my research has attracted 520 citations (+13 since March 14th; +3 since December 30th 2020). My h-index is 12 (-1 since March 14th), and my i10-index 20 (+2 since March 14th and unchanged since December 30th). 2021 now stands with 29 citations (+13 since March 14th).

On the current count, I have 5 publications with more than 30 citations each. This includes 31 citations of the book The semiotics of animal representations, which I co-edited and co-wrote the introduction for, along with Kadri Tüür (and which has been merged to one source by Google Scholar).

Extensively cited in Jaroš & Pudil 2020

The article "Cognitive Systems of Human and Non-human Animals: At the Crossroads of Phenomenology, Ethology and Biosemiotics" by Filip Jaroš & Matěj Pudil (published in Biosemiotics) cites my work quite extensively.

Footnote 2:

Our contribution should not be understood as adhering to an Uexküllian puritanism. Influenced by an evolutionary-ontogenetic approach, we fully acknowledge the usefulness of the concept of umwelt transition (Tønnessen 2011) and recognize that a one-sided endorsment of umwelt theory can obscure many phenomena of interspecies communication (cf. Lestel 2011b).

P. 4:

In an editorial in this journal, Tønnessen et al. (2018) examine the relationship between phenomenology and biosemiotics and conclude that phenomenological investigation, which is traditionally focused on the experience of the human individual, can be enriched by biosemiotically oriented research on the experience of animals – only against this background will the specificity of human experience emerge.

P. 5:

But not only interspecific differences are worthy of attention. The human individuals also undergo transformations during their own ontogenesis, as reflected in the biosemiotic literature (Tønnessen 2014) and also in Merleau-Ponty´s own work (Merleau-Ponty 2002).

Footnote 4:

For a resolution between signs and signals and its connection with the phenomenality of animal umwelten see Tønnessen et al. (2018: 4).

P. 7:

Accordingly, Tønnessen (2014: 302) notes that language acquisition is connected with a certain loss of those non-verbal aspects of human experience and so “the mature human being’s umwelt consists for the most part only of those objects that can be named”. Once human language is acquired to this extent, it becomes a superior realm of meanings that often pushes out other, e.g. pictorial, representations of the world (cf. Portmann 1990: 113).

P. 7:

Language changes us, it gives us a fully subjective dimension by which we relate to the world because it penetrates our perception, changes it, but also stays flexible. In this sense, language becomes the way by which we live.6 Tønnessen (2014: 288) in this sense distinguishes three aspects of umwelt: the core umwelt, based on automated acts of perception and automated mental acts; mediated umwelt, based on wilful acts of perception and wilful mental acts; and conceptual umwelt, characteristic for higher animals, as an aspect of umwelt distinctive by its habitual acts of perception and habitual mental acts defined as “the learned matching of something with something else”. In the case of humans, this last aspect of umwelt is specifically connected with language use.

Footnote 6:

See Tønnessen (2014: 291): “In terms of umwelt, i.e. subjective experience, we gradually individuate and become first animal, then human, then eventually persons.”

P. 11:

Within the biosemiotic tradition, subjectivity is attributed to every creature that has an umwelt (Tønnessen 2014; Tønnessen et al. 2016).

P. 13:

According to a canonical understanding of umwelt (Tønnessen et al. 2016: definitions 3–5), the form of these meanings is predetermined by belonging to the particular species and is bound to its physiological properties and limitations.

References:

Tønnessen, M. (2011). Umwelt transition and Uexküllian phenomenology: An ecosemiotic analysis of Norwegian wolf management. Doctoral thesis, Department of Semiotics, University of Tartu, Estonia.
Tønnessen,M. (2014). The ontogeny of the embryonic, foetal and infant human umwelt. Sign Systems Studies, 42(2), 281–307. https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2014.42.2-3.06.
Tønnessen, M. (2015). Uexküllian phenomenology. Chinese Semiotic Studies, 11(3), 347–369.
Tønnessen, M., et al. (2018). Phenomenology and biosemiotics. Biosemiotics, 11(3), 323–330. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12304-018-9345-8.
Tønnessen, M., Magnus, R., & Brentari, C. (2016). The Biosemiotic Glossary Project: Umwelt. Biosemiotics 9(1): 129–149.

1.500 reads for introductory chapter on animal representations

Our chapter "Introduction: The semiotics of animal representations" (co-written by me and Kadri Tüür) has reached 1.500 reads on ResearchGate.

Revised abstract: "Semiotics in ethology and zoology"

I have just revised my chapter abstract for a planned multi-volume companion to semiotics, reiterated below. The initial version is to be found here.

***

Semiotics in ethology and zoology

Morten Tønnessen

Zoosemiotics, the semiotic study of topics of ethology, zoology and other animal-related fields, historically emerged as a precursor to biosemiotics and ecosemiotics, with common roots in the Umwelt theory of Jakob von Uexküll (1921, 1934), among other sources of inspiration (see e.g. Kleisner 2008). Thomas Sebeok (1972, 1990) coined the term, established von Uexküll as a key figure in zoosemiotics, and made initial connections between semiotic theory and animal studies. Von Uexküll´s semiotically framed work has influenced ethology directly and also by way of Konrad Lorenz (1935, 1961 [1949]). In contemporary times, Dario Martinelli (2010) and others have developed a history of zoosemiotics as well as contributed to expanding and further developing the range of semiotic studies of animals (see also Maran et al. (eds.) 2011). 

Key developments in semiotic approaches to animal studies in recent years have their origin in Italy, France, the Czech republic and Estonia, among other countries. Attempts at synthesis with related fields or approaches have been made e.g. with regard to ecology and ecological economics (Farina 2012), Actor-Network Theory, posthumanities, anthropology, and Human–animal studies/anthrozoology. Other developments are related to work contextualizing Umwelt theory, e.g. within philosophy (phenomenology – Buchanan 2008; philosophical anthropology – Brentari 2015), or criticizing the classical version of Umwelt theory while aiming to update it (e.g. Tønnessen 2009). Furthermore, zoosemiotics has been contextualized within ethology (e.g. Maran 2010).

Critical discussion and integration with related approaches is now resulting in novel models and methods, many of which originating in a growing number of case studies (e.g. Maran et al. 2016). Focus is shifting from objective descriptions of differences in sensory apparatus, communication channels etc. to more dynamical representations with more emphasis on interaction (e.g. Lestel 2011) and hybridity, thus challenging mainstream dichotomies. Particularly, there is rising interest in human–animal interaction, and many authors frame descriptive accounts about such interaction as being situated within an ethical outlook. In doing so, they underline the moral relevance of human–animal sign exchange and the ways in which human semiosis ultimately affect animals.

Today, zoosemiotics is arguably the theoretically and empirically soundest approach to “taking the animal´s perspective”. In the near future, work is needed that 1) connects semiotic studies in ethology and zoology with issues in global human ecology, 2) develops flexible zoosemiotic tools and methodology for application by field ethologists, veterinarians, zookeepers etc., and 3) makes further connections with phenomenology, ethnography, and anthropology by developing tools and methodology tailor-made for studies related to human agents and their dealings with animals. 

References

Buchanan, Brett (2008). Onto-Ethologies: The Animal Environments of Uexküll, Heidegger, Merleau, and Deleuze. New York: SUNY Press.

Brentari, Carlo (2015). Jakob von Uexküll: The discovery of the Umwelt between Biosemiotics and theoretical biology(Biosemiotics 9). Springer.

Farina, Almo (2012). A Biosemiotic perspective of the resource criterion: toward a general theory of resources. Biosemiotics 5 (1), 17–32. 

Kleisner, Karel (2008). The semantic morphology of Adolf Portmann: A starting point for the biosemiotics of organic form? Biosemiotics1(2): 207–219.

Lestel, Dominique (2011). What capabilities for the animal? Biosemiotics4(1): 83– 102.

Lorenz, Konrad (1935). Der Kumpan in der Umwelt des Vogels. Journal für Ornithologie 83: 137–213.

Lorenz, Konrad (1961 [1949]). King Solomon’s Ring. Transl. by Marjorie Kerr Wilson. London:  Methuen.

Martinelli, Dario (2010). A Critical Companion to Zoosemiotics: People, Paths, Ideas, (Biosemiotics 5). Berlin: Springer.

Maran, Timo (2010). Why was Thomas A. Sebeok not a cognitive ethologist? From “animal mind” to “semiotic self”. Biosemiotics 3(3): 315–329.

Maran, Timo; Martinelli, Dario; Turovski, Aleksei (eds.) (2011). Readings in Zoosemiotics, (Semiotics, Communication and Cognition 8). Berlin: DeGruyter Mouton.

Maran, Timo, Morten Tønnessen, Kristin Armstrong Oma, Laura Kiiroja, Riin Magnus, Nelly Mäekivi, Silver Rattasepp, Paul Thibault & Kadri Tüür (2016). Animal Umwelten in a changing world – Zoosemiotic perspectives(Tartu Semiotics Library 18) (eds. Timo Maran, Morten Tønnessen & Silver Rattasepp). Tartu: Tartu University Press.

Sebeok, Thomas A. (1972). Perspectives in Zoosemiotics(Janua Linguarum. Series Minor 122). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.

Sebeok, Thomas A. (1990). Essays in Zoosemiotics(Monograph Series of the TSC 5). Toronto: Toronto Semiotic Circle; Victoria College in the University of Toronto.

Tønnessen, Morten (2009). Umwelt transitions: Uexküll and environmental change. Biosemiotics2: 47–64.

von Uexküll, Jakob (1921). Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere. (2nd ed.) Berlin: Verlag von Julius Springer.

von Uexküll, Jakob (1934). Streifzüge durch die Umwelten von Tieren und Menschen: Ein Bilderbuch unsichtbarer Welten. Hamburg: Rowohlt. Reprinted in Jakob von Uexküll & Georg Kriszat (illustrations) 1956 [1934/1940], Streifzüge durch die Umwelten von Tieren und Menschen: Ein Bilderbuch unsichtbarer Welten. Bedeutungslehre, Hamburg: Rowohlt.

Abstract: "Semiotics in ethology and zoology"

About a month ago I finished the abstract below, for a forthcoming book (chapter).

***

Semiotics in ethology and zoology

Morten Tønnessen

Zoosemiotics, the semiotic study of topics of ethology, zoology and other animal-related fields, historically emerged as a precursor to biosemiotics and ecosemiotics, with common roots in the Umwelt theory of Jakob von Uexküll (1921, 1934), among other sources of inspiration (see e.g. Kleisner 2008). Thomas Sebeok (1972, 1990) coined the term, established von Uexküll as a key figure in zoosemiotics, and made initial connections between semiotic theory and animal studies. In contemporary times, Dario Martinelli (2010) and others have developed a history of zoosemiotics as well as contributed to expanding and further developing the range of semiotic studies of animals (see also Maran et al. (eds.) 2011). 

Key developments in semiotic approaches to animal studies in recent years have their origin in Italy, France, the Czech republic and Estonia, among other countries. Attempts at synthesis with related fields or approaches have been made e.g. with regard to ecology and ecological economics (Farina 2012), Actor-Network Theory, posthumanities, anthropology, and Human–animal studies/anthrozoology. Other developments are related to work contextualizing Umwelt theory, e.g. within philosophy (phenomenology – Buchanan 2008; philosophical anthropology – Brentari 2015), or criticizing the classical version of Umwelt theory while aiming to update it (e.g. Tønnessen 2009). Furthermore, zoosemiotics has been contextualized within ethology (e.g. Maran 2010).

Critical discussion and integration with related approaches is now resulting in novel models and methods, many of which originating in a growing number of case studies (e.g. Maran et al. 2016). Focus is shifting from objective descriptions of differences in sensory apparatus, communication channels etc. to more dynamical representations with more emphasis on interaction (e.g. Lestel 2011) and hybridity, thus challenging mainstream dichotomies. Particularly, there is rising interest in human–animal interaction, increasingly tied to an ethical outlook.

In the near future, work is needed that 1) connects semiotic studies in ethology and zoology with issues in global human ecology, 2) develops flexible zoosemiotic tools and methodology for application by field ethologists, veterinarians, zookeepers etc., and 3) makes further connections with phenomenology, ethnography, and anthropology by developing tools and methodology tailor-made for studies related to human agents and their dealings with animals. Today, zoosemiotics is arguably the theoretically and empirically soundest approach to “taking the animal´s perspective”.

References

Buchanan, Brett (2008). Onto-Ethologies: The Animal Environments of Uexküll, Heidegger, Merleau, and Deleuze. New York: SUNY Press.

Brentari, Carlo (2015). Jakob von Uexküll: The discovery of the Umwelt between Biosemiotics and theoretical biology(Biosemiotics 9). Springer.

Farina, A., 2012. A Biosemiotic perspective of the resource criterion: toward a general theory of resources. Biosemiotics 5 (1), 17–32. 

Kleisner, Karel (2008). The semantic morphology of Adolf Portmann: A starting point for the biosemiotics of organic form? Biosemiotics1(2): 207–219.

Lestel, Dominique (2011). What capabilities for the animal? Biosemiotics4(1): 83– 102.

Martinelli, Dario (2010). A Critical Companion to Zoosemiotics: People, Paths, Ideas, (Biosemiotics 5). Berlin: Springer.

Maran, Timo (2010). Why was Thomas A. Sebeok not a cognitive ethologist? From “animal mind” to “semiotic self”. Biosemiotics 3(3): 315–329.

Maran, Timo; Martinelli, Dario; Turovski, Aleksei (eds.) (2011). Readings in Zoosemiotics, (Semiotics, Communication and Cognition 8). Berlin: DeGruyter Mouton.

Maran, Timo, Morten Tønnessen, Kristin Armstrong Oma, Laura Kiiroja, Riin Magnus, Nelly Mäekivi, Silver Rattasepp, Paul Thibault & Kadri Tüür (2016). Animal Umwelten in a changing world – Zoosemiotic perspectives(Tartu Semiotics Library 18) (eds. Timo Maran, Morten Tønnessen & Silver Rattasepp). Tartu: Tartu University Press.

Sebeok, Thomas A. (1972). Perspectives in Zoosemiotics(Janua Linguarum. Series Minor 122). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.

Sebeok, Thomas A. (1990). Essays in Zoosemiotics(Monograph Series of the TSC 5). Toronto: Toronto Semiotic Circle; Victoria College in the University of Toronto.

Tønnessen, Morten (2009). Umwelt transitions: Uexküll and environmental change. Biosemiotics2: 47–64.

von Uexküll, Jakob (1921). Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere. (2nd ed.) Berlin: Verlag von Julius Springer.

von Uexküll, Jakob (1934). Streifzüge durch die Umwelten von Tieren und Menschen: Ein Bilderbuch unsichtbarer Welten. Hamburg: Rowohlt. Reprinted in Jakob von Uexküll & Georg Kriszat (illustrations) 1956 [1934/1940], Streifzüge durch die Umwelten von Tieren und Menschen: Ein Bilderbuch unsichtbarer Welten. Bedeutungslehre, Hamburg: Rowohlt.

TSOAR intro cited in Buscemi 2018

Our article

Tønnessen, Morten and Kadri Tüür 2014. The semiotics of animal representations: Introduction. In Kadri Tüür and Morten Tønnessen (eds), The Semiotics of Animal Representations (Nature, Culture and Literature 10), Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi, p. 7–30. 

is cited (p. 5) in:

Buscemi, Francesco 2018. The Ancestral Room of the State? Scotland and the United Kingdom on Jamie’s Great Britain. Journal of Communication Inquiry. Published online  March 27th 2018. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859918766880.

Excerpt (p. 5):

Biosemiotics is a branch of semiotics that extends the theory of signs to the natural environment and to the relationships between humans and Nature. For biosemioticians, natural systems are composed of signs and codes that represent, communicate, and signify (Tønnesen & Tuur, 2014). Biosemiotics is of interest for this article because it also focuses on how humans perceive and represent the relationships between Nature and Culture and has interestingly challenged traditional theories which used to see the two concepts as separate and even in conflict.