Cover not available
Part of
The Complexity of Social-Cultural Emergence: Biosemiotics, semiotics and translation studies
Edited by Kobus Marais, Reine Meylaerts and Maud Gonne
[Benjamins Translation Library 164] 2024
► pp. 12–31

Chapter 1
Towards a protyposis-based semiotic theory of translation

| University of Salamanca
This contribution presents a semiotic theory of translation based on protyposis that bridges the gap between quantum physics, semiotics, and translation studies. Protyposis, an elementary quantum structure, underlies all possibilities for generating meaningful information. The theory critiques traditional notions of information and examines its development from the communication theory of Shannon and Weaver to more complex biosemiotic perspectives. It addresses the interplay between protyposis and semiotic processes and shows how meaning emerges from relationships and functions that go beyond the quantum level. It integrates Marais’ work on semiotic translation theory, which proposes translation as a negentropic semiotic process that works within constraints to create relations. The study culminates in the advocacy of a transdisciplinary approach underpinned by protyposis to comprehensively understand the complexity of translation and information processes, opening a new perspective for understanding communication, perception and knowledge construction in different scientific fields.
Keywords: information, qubits, protyposis, semiotics, biosemiotics, information theory, translation, translation studies, transdisciplinarity, negentropy
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Theoretical framework: Marais’ semiotic theory of translation
  • Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 3 May 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.164.01cru
References (45)
References
Barbieri, M. 2013. “The Paradigms of Biology.” Biosemiotics 6, no. 1: 33–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Basarab, N. 1996. La Transdisciplinariedad. Manifiesto [Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity]. Du Rocher.Google Scholar
Bateson, G. 1967. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Ballantine.Google Scholar
Battail, G. 2013. “Biology Needs Information Theory.” Biosemiotics 6, no. 1: 77–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brier, S. 2015. “Finding an Information Concept Suited for a Universal Theory of Information.” Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 119, no. 3: 622–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brier, S., and C. Joslyn. 2013a. “Information in Biosemiotics: Introduction to the Special Issue.” Biosemiotics 6, no. 1: 1–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013b. “What Does it take to Produce Interpretation? Informational, Peircean and Code-Semiotic Views on Biosemiotics.” Biosemiotics 6, no. 1: 143–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cannizzaro, S. 2009. “The Line of beauty: On Natural Forms and Abduction.” In Semiotics 2008, edited by L. Sbrocchi, and J. Deely, 849–57. Legas Publishing.Google Scholar
2013. “Where did Information Go? Reflections on the Logical Status of Information in a Cybernetic and Semiotic Perspective.” Biosemiotics 6, no. 1: 105–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. “The Philosophy of Semiotic Information.” In The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Information, edited by L. Floridi, 289–303. Routledge.Google Scholar
Cronin, M. 2017. Eco-translation: Translation and Ecology in the Age of the Anthropocene. New Perspective in Translation and Interpreting Studies. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deacon, T. W. 2011. Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter. W. W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
El-Hani, C. N., and J. Queiroz. 2007. “On Peirce’s Notion of Information: Remarks on De Tienne’s Paper ‘Information in Formation’”. Cognitio 8, no. 2.Google Scholar
Görnitz, T. 2005. “Materie und Bewußtsein aus abstrakter, bedeutungsfreier Quanteninformation (protyposis): Zweite erweitete Fassung eines Vortrages am Zentrum für Philosophie der Universität Gießen” [Matter and Consciousness from Abstract, Meaningless Quantum Information (Protyposis): Second expanded version of a lecture at the Center for Philosophy at the University of Giessen]. PhilosophiaNaturalis 42, no. 2: 255–83.Google Scholar
2019. Protyposis – eine Einführung: Bewusstsein und Materie aus Quanteninformation [Protyposis – An Introduction: Consciousness and Matter from Quantum Information]. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden (Essentials). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Görnitz, T., and B. Görnitz, 2006. “Protyposis – die naturwissenschaftliche Grundlage für die Freiheit des Willens [Protyposis – The Scientific Basis for Freedom of the Will].” In Willensfreiheit – eine Illusion? Naturalismus und Psychiatrie [Free Will – An Illusion? Naturalism and Psychiatry], edited by M. Heinze, T. Fuchs, and F. M. Reischies, 121–54. Parodos.Google Scholar
. 2008. Die Evolution des Geistigen: Quantenphysik, Bewusstsein, Religion [The Evolution of the Spiritual: Quantum Physics, Consciousness, Religion]. Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.Google Scholar
. 2016. Von der Quantenphysik zum Bewusstsein: Kosmos, Geist und Materie [From Quantum Physics to Consciousness: Cosmos, Mind and Matter]. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmeyer, J. 1996. Signs of Meaning in the Universe. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
2008. Biosemiotics: An Examination into the Life of Signs and the Signs of Life. University of Scranton Press.Google Scholar
Kull, K., T. Deacon, C. Emmeche, J. Hoffmeyer, and F. Stjernfelt. 2009. “Theses on biosemiotics: prolegomena to a theoretical biology.” Biological Theory 4: 167–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marais, K. 2019. A (Bio)Semiotic Theory of Translation: The Emergence of Social-Cultural Reality. Routledge Advances in Translation and Interpreting Studies. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020. “Putting Meaning Back into Development; or (Semio) Translating Development.” Journal for Translation Studies in Africa 1: 43–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marais, K., and K. Kull. 2016. “Biosemiotics and Translation Studies.” In Border Crossings: Translation Studies and Other Disciplines, edited by Y. Gambier, and L. van Doorslaer, 169–88. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marais, K., and R Meylaerts (Eds.) 2019. Complexity Thinking in Translation Studies: Methodological Considerations. Routledge Advances in Translation and Interpreting Studies, 38. Routledge.Google Scholar
Marais, K., and Meylaerts, R. 2021. Exploring the Implications of Complexity Thinking for Translation Studies. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsuno, K. 2013. “Toward Accommodating Biosemiotics with Experimental Sciences.” Biosemiotics 6, no. 1: 125–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merrell, F. 2000. Change Through Signs of Body, Mind and Language. Prospect Heights: Waveland.Google Scholar
Morin, E. 1978. El paradigma perdido, el paraiso olvidado: Ensayo de bioantropología [The Lost Paradigm, the Forgotten Paradise: Bioanthropology Essay]. Kairós.Google Scholar
1998. “Sobre la interdisciplinariedad” [About interdisciplinarity]. Boletín Num. 2, Centre International de Recherches et Etudes Transdisciplinaires (CIRET), Paris, France.Google Scholar
Pattee, H. H. 2013. “Epistemic, Evolutionary, and Physical Conditions for Biological Information.” Biosemiotics 6, no. 1: 9–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Queiroz, J., C. Emmeche, and C. N. El-Hani. 2005. “Information and Semiosis in Living Systems: A Semiotic Approach.” In Essential Readings in Biosemiotics, edited by D. Favareau. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Queiroz, J. and F. Merrell. 2006. “Semiosis and Pragmatism: Toward a Dynamic Concept of Meaning.” Sign System Studies 34, no. 1: 37–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
dC Rubin, S. S. 2017. “From the Cellular Standpoint: Is DNA sequence Genetic “Information”?” Biosemiotics 10, no. 2, 247–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schumacher, B. 2015. The Science of Information: From Language to Black Holes. Teaching Company.Google Scholar
Sebeok, T. A., and M. Danesi. 2000. The Forms of Meaning: Modeling Systems Theory and Semiotic Analysis. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shannon, C., and W. Weaver. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press. (Reprint with a new introduction by Weaver, of Shannon’s work by the same name in 1948).Google Scholar
Sharov, A., and M. Tønnessen. 2021. Semiotic Agency: Science Beyond Mechanism. Springer International Publishing (Biosemiotics). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharov, A. A. 2010. “Functional Information: Towards Synthesis of Biosemiotics and Cybernetics.” Entropy. An International and Interdisciplinary Journal of Entropy and Information Studies 12, no. 5: 1050–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Von Uexküll, J. 1982. “The Theory of Meaning.” Semiotica 42, no. 1: 26–33; 52–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. The Theory of Meaning. De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Von Uexküll, J. J. 2014. “J. v. Uexküll: Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere” [J. v. Uexküll: Environment and the Inner World of Animals]. In Uexküll: Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere [Environment and the Inner World of Animals], edited by F. Mildenberger, and B. Herrmann, 213–242. Klassische Texte der Wissenschaft. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vitti-Rodrigues, M., and C. Emmeche. 2021. “Abduction and Styles of Scientific Thinking.” Synthese 198, no. 2, 1397–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. “Abduction: Can Non-Human Animals Make Discoveries?” Biosemiotics 10, no. 2, 295–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilden, A. 1980. “Epistemology and Ecology.” In System and Structure: Essays in Communication and Exchange, edited by A. Wilden, 202–29. Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar