Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nosology and Semiotics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Organ Crosstalk in Acute Kidney Injury

Abstract

Semiotic concepts such as ‘sign’ and ‘symptom’ have been applied in medicine since ancient Greece. Against this background, a semiotic perspective on nosology may be relevant and informative, particularly regarding the recognition of diseases. This chapter provides an overview of key works in semiotics on the study of medicine in general and nosology in particular. It presents a biosemiotic perspective on human health, starting with the ‘Umwelt,’ the organism’s subjectively experienced lifeworld, and ending with ‘endosemiosis,’ the sign processes that are internal to the body and relate to somatic phenomena. The chapter contributes to biosemiotic medicine by commenting on how such an approach can be understood as process-based medicine, the way in which it can bridge human and animal health studies, and how it can be understood as involving a conception of the human being as a system of interrelated sign systems. It concludes by discussing how organ crosstalk can be understood within a biosemiotic framework.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    2011:9.

  2. 2.

    2011:9,10.

  3. 3.

    2019:825.

  4. 4.

    2019:827.

  5. 5.

    2019:2203.

  6. 6.

    2019:4.

  7. 7.

    2019:3,5.

  8. 8.

    2006:76.

  9. 9.

    2001:75.

  10. 10.

    The latter includes a selected bibliography.

  11. 11.

    1999:649.

  12. 12.

    1986:204.

  13. 13.

    2004:374.

  14. 14.

    1982:212.

  15. 15.

    2017:1.

  16. 16.

    The latter offers a biosemiotic take on neurosemiotics.

  17. 17.

    2019:86.

  18. 18.

    2005:193.

  19. 19.

    1996:364.

  20. 20.

    1996:368.

  21. 21.

    1999:653.

  22. 22.

    1986:215.

  23. 23.

    1993:942.

  24. 24.

    1986:205.

  25. 25.

    1986:215.

  26. 26.

    The latter includes discussion of different views on humans’ capabilities and place in nature.

  27. 27.

    2008:379.

  28. 28.

    2008:175,169.

  29. 29.

    2020:369.

  30. 30.

    1993:1.

  31. 31.

    1909:12.

  32. 32.

    1909:5.

  33. 33.

    2015:60.

  34. 34.

    2015:77.

  35. 35.

    1993:283.

  36. 36.

    1993:283.

  37. 37.

    1993:286.

  38. 38.

    1993:302.

  39. 39.

    1993:283.

  40. 40.

    1993:299.

  41. 41.

    1993: 299.

  42. 42.

    1993:300.

  43. 43.

    1996:107–108.

  44. 44.

    2021:155.

  45. 45.

    2021:158.

  46. 46.

    2021:158,157.

  47. 47.

    1993:284.

  48. 48.

    The latter offers a portrayal of human ontogeny in an Umwelt perspective.

  49. 49.

    2005:2143.

  50. 50.

    2016:413.

  51. 51.

    2019:30.

  52. 52.

    1986:211.

  53. 53.

    2021:158.

  54. 54.

    2021:176,158.

  55. 55.

    Urination is also performed by voluntary control in many animals. In some species, such as wolves, dogs, rats and mice, urination has additional functions beyond disposal of waste material, in that urine is left at specific locations as a sign with social or practical significance, for their own perusal or that of fellow specimen.

  56. 56.

    Parasites are another example of organisms that can take up residence in the human body.

  57. 57.

    2017:75,78.

  58. 58.

    2017:72–73.

  59. 59.

    2017:73.

  60. 60.

    2017:66,78.

  61. 61.

    2018:5.

  62. 62.

    2018:5.

  63. 63.

    2018:5, emphasis added.

  64. 64.

    The latter addresses ‘Umwelt transitions.’

  65. 65.

    2021:160.

  66. 66.

    2021:168,174.

References

  1. Anderson M, Deely J, Krampen M, Ransdell J, Sebeok TA, von Uexküll T. A semiotic perspective on the sciences: steps toward a new paradigm. Semiotica. 1984;52(1/2):7–47.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sharov A, Tønnessen M. Semiotic agency: science beyond mechanism. Cham: Springer Nature; 2021.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Pelkey J, Walsh Matthews S. Semiotics in the natural and technical sciences (Bloomsbury semiotics volume 2). London: Bloomsbury Academic; 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  4. APA dictionary of psychology. Nosology. American Psychological Association, 2021. https://dictionary.apa.org/nosology.

  5. Moriyama IM, Loy RM, Robb-Smith AHT. Development of the classification of diseases. In: Rosenberg HM, Hoyert DL, editors. History of the statistical classification of diseases and causes of death. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2011. p. 9–22.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Reiss J, Ankeny RA. Philosophy of medicine. In: Zalta EN, editor. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy; 2016. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/medicine. Accessed 05 Dec 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Zachar P, Kendler KS. The philosophy of nosology. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2017;13:49–71. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032816-045020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. George CRP. The rise and fall of acute tubular necrosis – an exercise in medical semiotics. Giornal italiano di nefrologia. 2018;35(Supplement 70):138–42.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Thomas ME, Blaine C, Dawnay A, Devonald MAJ, Ftouh S, Laing C, et al. The definition of acute kidney injury and its use in practice. Kidney Int. 2015;87:62–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Capalbo O, Giuliani S, Ferrero-Fernández A, Casciato P, Musso CG. Kidney–liver pathophysiological crosstalk: its characteristics and importance. Int Urol Nephrol. 2019;51:2203–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-019-02288-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Musso CG, Musso-Enz VP, Musso-Enz GM, Capalbo MO, Porrini S. Organic crosstalk: a new perspective in medicine. Biosemiotics. 2022;14:829–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09459-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Armutcu F. Organ crosstalk: the potent roles of inflammation and fibrotic changes in the course of organ interactions. Inflamm Res. 2019;68:825–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00011-019-01271-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Danesi M, Zukowski N. Medical semiotics: medicine and cultural meaning. München: Lincom; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Tredinnick-Rowe J, Stanley DE. Semiotics in health and medicine. In: Pelkey J, Walsh Matthews S, editors. Semiotics in the natural and technical sciences (Bloomsbury semiotics volume 2). London: Bloomsbury Academic; 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cowley S, Major JC, Steffensen SV, Dinis A. Signifying bodies: biosemiosis, interaction and health. Braga: Portuguese Catholic University; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Goli F, editor. Biosemiotic medicine: healing in the world of meaning (studies in neuroscience, consciousness and spirituality 5). Cham: Springer; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Baer E. Medical semiotics. Lanham: University Press of America; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Deely J. On ‘semiotics’ as naming the doctrine of signs. Semiotica. 2006;158:1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sebeok TA. Signs: an introduction to semiotics. 2nd ed. London: University of Toronto Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hess V. Medical semiotics in the 18th century: a theory of practice? Theor Med Bioeth. 1998;19:203–13. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1009957730860.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Annandale C. The Imperial dictionary of the English language. London: London Blackie & Son; 1883.

    Google Scholar 

  22. von Uexküll J. Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere. Berlin: Verlag von Julius Springer; 1909.

    Google Scholar 

  23. von Uexküll J. Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere. 2nd ed. Berlin: Verlag von Julius Springer; 1921.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. von Uexküll J. Die Biologie in ihrer Stellung zur Medizin. Written by Kowitz Klin Wochenschr. 1927;6(24):1164–5.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kull K, Hoffmeyer J. Thure von Uexküll 1908–2004. Sign Syst Stud. 2005;33(2):487–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tiivel T, Kull K. Thure von Uexküll: Symbiosis of biology, medicine, and semiotics. In: Wagner E, et al., editors. From symbiosis to eukaryotism. Geneva: University of Geneva; 1999. p. 657–61.

    Google Scholar 

  27. von Uexküll T. Semiotics and medicine. Semiotica. 1982;38(3/4):205–15.

    Google Scholar 

  28. von Uexküll T. Medicine and semiotics. Semiotica. 1986;61:201–17.

    Google Scholar 

  29. von Uexküll T. The relationship between semiotics and mechanical models of explanation in the life sciences. Semiotica. 1999;127(1/4):647–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. von Uexküll T. Eye witnessing Jakob von Uexküll’s umwelt theory. Sign Syst Stud. 2004;32(1/2):374–5.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Tuffs A. Thure von Uexküll: a pioneer of psychosomatic medicine. Obituary BMJ. 2004;329(7473):1047.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Tredinnick-Rowe J. The (re)-introduction of semiotics into medical education: on the works of Thure von Uexküll. Med Humanit. 2017;43:1–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Andersch N. Semiotics in psychiatry and psychology. In: Pelkey J, Walsh Matthews S, editors. Semiotics in the natural and technical sciences (Bloomsbury semiotics volume 2). London: Bloomsbury Academic; 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Tønnessen M. Beyond the human animal: Towards a cross-species neurosemiotics. In: García A, Ibanez A, editors. The Routledge Handbook of Semiosis and the Brain, 82–96. Routledge; 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Staiano-Ross K. The symptom. Biosemiotics. 2012;5:33–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-011-9112-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kirmayer LJ. Culture, context and experience in psychiatric diagnosis. Psychopathology. 2005;38:192–6. https://doi.org/10.1159/000086090.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Nessa J. About signs and symptoms: can semiotics expand the view of clinical medicine? Theor Med Bioeth. 1996;17(4):363–77.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Burnum JF. Medical diagnosis through semiotics: giving meaning to the sign. Ann Intern Med. 1993;119:939–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Soldati G, Smargiassi A, Mariani AA, Inchingolo R. Novel aspects in diagnostic approach to respiratory patients: is it the time for a new semiotics? Multidiscip Respir Med. 2017;12:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40248-017-0098-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. von Uexküll J. Bedeutungslehre (Bios. Abhandlungen zur theoretischen Biologie und ihrer geschichte sowie zur Philosophie der organischen Naturwissenschaften Bd. 10). Verlag von J. A. Barth; 1940.

    Google Scholar 

  41. von Uexküll J. A foray into the worlds of animals and humans with a theory of meaning. In: O’Neil JD, editor. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minneapolis Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Jaroš F, Maran T. Humans on top, humans among the other animals: narratives of anthropological difference. Biosemiotics. 2019;12(3):381–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Magnus R. Biosemiotics within and without biological holism: a semio-historical analysis. Biosemiotics. 2008;1(3):379–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-008-9021-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Hoffmeyer J. The semiotic body. Biosemiotics. 2008;1(2):169–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-008-9015-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Giorgi F, Tramonti F, Fanali A. A biosemiotic approach to the biopsychosocial understanding of disease adjustment. Biosemiotics. Universitätsverlag Dr. Norbert Brockmeyer. 2020;13(3):369–83.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Grzybek P. Psychosemiotics – Neurosemiotics: what could/should it be? In: Grzybek P, editor. Psychosemiotik – Neurosemiotik. Bochum, Universitätsverlag Dr. Norbert Brockmeyer; 1993. p. 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Brentari C. Jakob von Uexküll: the discovery of the umwelt between biosemiotics and theoretical biology (biosemiotics 9). Dordrecht: Springer; 2015.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  48. von Uexküll T, Geigges W, Herrmann J. Endosemiosis. In: Favareau D, editor. Essential readings in biosemiotics – anthology and commentary (biosemiotics 3). Springer; 2010. p. 283–321. First published in Semiotica 1993;96(1/2):5–51.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Sebeok TA. Signs, bridges, origins. In: Trabant J, editor. Origins of language. Budapest: Collegium Budapest; 1996. p. 89–115.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Nowlin DM. The role of biosemiosis and dysfunctional signaling processes in human pathology. In: Hendlin YH, Hope J, editors. Food and medicine: a biosemiotic perspective (biosemiotics 22). Springer; 2021. p. 155–82.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  51. Musso CG. Biosemiotic medicine: from an effect-based medicine to a process-based medicine. Arch Argent Pediatr. 2020;118(5):e449–53. https://doi.org/10.5546/aap.2020.eng.e44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Tønnessen M. The ontogeny of the embryonic, foetal and infant human umwelt. Sign Syst Stud. 2014;42(2/3):281–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Day MJ. One health: the importance of companion animal vector-borne diseases. Parasites Vectors. 2011;4:49.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Zinsstag J, Schelling E, Wyss K, Mahamat MB. Potential of cooperation between human and animal health to strengthen health systems. Lancet. 2005;366:2142–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Wondwossen A, et al. The global one health paradigm: challenges and opportunities for tackling infectious diseases at the human, animal, and environment interface in low-resource settings. PLoS Neglected Trop Dis. 2014;8(11):e3257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Pinillos RG, Appleby M, Manteca X, Scott-Park F, Smith C, Velarde A. One welfare – a platform for improving human and animal welfare. Vet Rec. 2016;179:412–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Knight R, Callewaert C, Marotz C, Hyde ER, Debelius JW, McDonald D, et al. The microbiome and human biology. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2017;18:65–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Tønnessen M. Umwelt transitions: Uexküll and environmental change. Biosemiotics. 2009;2(1):47–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Studies, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway

    Morten Tønnessen

Authors
  1. Morten Tønnessen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Nephrology Division, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Carlos Guido Musso

  2. Grigore T. Popa University of Medicine, Iasi, Romania

    Adrian Covic

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tønnessen, M. (2023). Nosology and Semiotics. In: Musso, C.G., Covic, A. (eds) Organ Crosstalk in Acute Kidney Injury. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36789-2_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36789-2_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-36788-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-36789-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation