In: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 1Towards a protyposis-based semiotic theory of translation
Published online: 3 May 2024
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.164.01cru
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.164.01cru
Abstract
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.
Article outline
- Introduction
- Theoretical framework: Marais’ semiotic theory of translation
- Conclusion
References
References (45)
Basarab, N. 1996. La
Transdisciplinariedad. Manifiesto [Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity]. Du Rocher.
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.
Brier, S., and C. Joslyn. 2013a. “Information
in Biosemiotics: Introduction to the Special
Issue.” Biosemiotics 6, no. 1: 1–7.
. 2013b. “What
Does it take to Produce Interpretation? Informational, Peircean and Code-Semiotic Views on
Biosemiotics.” Biosemiotics 6, no. 1: 143–59.
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.
2013. “Where
did Information Go? Reflections on the Logical Status of Information in a Cybernetic and Semiotic
Perspective.” Biosemiotics 6, no. 1: 105–23.
2016. “The
Philosophy of Semiotic Information.” In The Routledge
Handbook of Philosophy of Information, edited by L. Floridi, 289–303. Routledge.
Cronin, M. 2017. Eco-translation:
Translation and Ecology in the Age of the Anthropocene. New Perspective in Translation and
Interpreting Studies. Routledge.
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.
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.
2019. Protyposis –
eine Einführung: Bewusstsein und Materie aus Quanteninformation [Protyposis – An Introduction: Consciousness and
Matter from Quantum Information]. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden (Essentials).
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.
. 2008. Die
Evolution des Geistigen: Quantenphysik, Bewusstsein, Religion [The Evolution of the Spiritual: Quantum Physics,
Consciousness, Religion]. Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
. 2016. Von
der Quantenphysik zum Bewusstsein: Kosmos, Geist und Materie [From Quantum Physics to Consciousness: Cosmos, Mind and
Matter]. Springer.
2008. Biosemiotics:
An Examination into the Life of Signs and the Signs of Life. University of Scranton Press.
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.
Marais, K. 2019. A
(Bio)Semiotic Theory of Translation: The Emergence of Social-Cultural
Reality. Routledge Advances in Translation and Interpreting Studies. Routledge.
2020. “Putting
Meaning Back into Development; or (Semio) Translating Development.” Journal for
Translation Studies in
Africa 1: 43–58.
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.
Marais, K., and R Meylaerts (Eds.) 2019. Complexity
Thinking in Translation Studies: Methodological Considerations. Routledge Advances in
Translation and Interpreting
Studies, 38. Routledge.
Marais, K., and Meylaerts, R. 2021. Exploring
the Implications of Complexity Thinking for Translation
Studies. Routledge.
Matsuno, K. 2013. “Toward
Accommodating Biosemiotics with Experimental
Sciences.” Biosemiotics 6, no. 1: 125–41.
Morin, E. 1978. El
paradigma perdido, el paraiso olvidado: Ensayo de bioantropología [The Lost Paradigm, the Forgotten Paradise:
Bioanthropology Essay]. Kairós.
1998. “Sobre
la interdisciplinariedad” [About interdisciplinarity]. Boletín Num. 2, Centre
International de Recherches et Etudes Transdisciplinaires (CIRET), Paris, France.
Pattee, H. H. 2013. “Epistemic,
Evolutionary, and Physical Conditions for Biological
Information.” Biosemiotics 6, no. 1: 9–31.
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.
Queiroz, J. and F. Merrell. 2006. “Semiosis
and Pragmatism: Toward a Dynamic Concept of Meaning.” Sign System
Studies 34, no. 1: 37–64.
dC Rubin, S. S. 2017. “From
the Cellular Standpoint: Is DNA sequence Genetic
“Information”?” Biosemiotics 10, no. 2, 247–64.
Sebeok, T. A., and M. Danesi. 2000. The
Forms of Meaning: Modeling Systems Theory and Semiotic Analysis. Mouton de Gruyter.
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).
Sharov, A., and M. Tønnessen. 2021. Semiotic
Agency: Science Beyond Mechanism. Springer International Publishing (Biosemiotics).
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.
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.
