摘要
Iconicity and mimicry represent two distinct but related fields in semiotic studies. Academic history shows both fields have crossed the border between Nature and Culture and have thus blurred the distinction of the two domains in certain aspects. In terms of etymology and history of ideas, both terms are traceable to classical antiquity: one to Plato, the other to Aristotle. In modern research history, iconicity and mimicry have curiously converged in Peirce. For all their supposedly close relationship, the two areas have rarely crisscrossed and to date there has not been sufficient attention paid to "iconicity in mimicry" or "mimicry as icon"—except in biosemiotic studies, probably because of the empirical visibility, transparency and hence selfevidence of their identification. As to the fledgling applied science of biomimetics, for all its enviable achievements in engineering and industry, researchers in the field have shown little interest in the conceptual history of mimicry, let alone that of iconicity. The pages that follow will offer a philological excursus, which hopes to bring Peirce into rapport with Plato, and link current "biomimicry" to its classical prototype in Aristotle's writings on animals.
Iconicity and mimicry represent two distinct but related fields in semiotic studies. Academic history shows both fields have crossed the border between Nature and Culture and have thus blurred the distinction of the two domains in certain aspects. In terms of etymology and history of ideas, both terms are traceable to classical antiquity: one to Plato, the other to Aristotle. In modern research history, iconicity and mimicry have curiously converged in Peirce. For all their supposedly close relationship, the two areas have rarely crisscrossed and to date there has not been sufficient attention paid to "iconicity in mimicry" or "mimicry as icon"—except in biosemiotic studies, probably because of the empirical visibility, transparency and hence selfevidence of their identification. As to the fledgling applied science of biomimetics, for all its enviable achievements in engineering and industry, researchers in the field have shown little interest in the conceptual history of mimicry, let alone that of iconicity. The pages that follow will offer a philological excursus, which hopes to bring Peirce into rapport with Plato, and link current "biomimicry" to its classical prototype in Aristotle's writings on animals.
