[
Amphaeris, J., Shannon, G., and Tenbrink, T., 2021. Cognitive Linguistics Support for the Evolution of Language from Animal Cognition. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 43, pp. 2609-2615.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Beger A., Smith, T. H., 2020. Introduction. In Beger A., Smith, T. H. (Eds.), How Metaphors Guide, Teach and Popularize Science. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 1-37.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bird, J., 2020. BlueWorldTV, available at: https://www.youtube.com/@BlueWorldTV.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bybee, J.L. and Beckner, C. 2015. Usage-Based Theory. In B. Heine and H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis 2. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp.953–980.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Byrne, R.A., Kuba M.J., Mather, J.A., et al., 2006. Does Octopus Vulgaris Have Preferred Arms?. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 120(3), 198–204, available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.120.3.198.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Caleidoskopable, 2017. Mimic Octopus (Thaumoctopus mimicus). iNaturalist, available at: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/201121147.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Castro, L., Wasserman, E., 2012. Animal Cognition. In Ramachandran V.S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Behavior 2, 145–153, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-375000-6.00024-0.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Cienki, A., 2008. Why Study Metaphor and Gesture?, In Cienki A., Müller, C. (Eds.), Metaphor and Gesture, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 5–25.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Colombetti, G., 2014. The feeling body affective science meets the enactive mind, Cambridge, London: MIT Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Dahl, C.D, Adachi, I., 2013. Conceptual Metaphorical Mapping in Chimpanzees (Pan Troglodytes).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
eLife, available at: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.00932.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Delahaye, Pauline. 2019. A Semiotic Methodology for Animal Studies. Biosemiotics 19. Springer Cham, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28813-6.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Eco, Umberto. 1976. A Theory of Semiotics (Advances in Semiotics). Sebeok T. A. (Ed.), Bloomington, Indiana UP.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
El-Hani, C.N., Queiroz J., Stjernfelt, F., 2009. Firefly Femmes Fatales: A Case Study in the Semiotics of Deception. Biosemiotics 3(1), 33–55, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-009-9048-2.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Evans, V., Green, M., 2006. Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Fabbri-Destro, M, Rizzolatti, G., 2008. Mirror Neurons and Mirror Systems in Monkeys and Humans. Physiology 23(3), 171–79, available at: https://doi.org/10.1152/physiol.00004.2008.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Fauconnier, G., Turner, M., 2003. Conceptual Blending, Form and Meaning. Recherches en Communication 19, 57-86.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Favareau, D, Kull, K., Wheeler, W., et al. 2017. How Can the Study of the Humanities Inform the Study of Biosemiotics?. Biosemiotics 10(1), 9–31, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-017-9287-6.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Fiorito, G., Affuso, A., Anderson, et al., 2014. Cephalopods in Neuroscience: Regulations, Research and the 3Rs. Invertebrate Neuroscience 14(1), 13–36, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10158-013-0165-x.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Forceville, C.J., Urios-Aparisi, E., 2009. Introduction. In Forceville, C.J., Urios-Aparisi, E. (Eds.), Multimodal Metaphor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 3-14, available at: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110215366.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gallese, V., Lakoff, G., 2005. The Brain’s concepts: the role of the Sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3-4), 455–479, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290442000310.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Geeraerts, D., Cuyckens, H., 2010. Introducing Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford University Press, available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.013.0001.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gibbs, R.W., 2005. Embodiment in Metaphorical Imagination. In Pecher, D., Zwaan, R. A. (Eds.), Grounding Cognition. The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 65–91.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gibbs, R.W., 2008. Metaphor and Gesture. Some Implications for Psychology. In Cienki A., Müller, C. (Eds.), Metaphor and Gesture. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 291–301.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Givón, T., 2002. The Visual Information-Processing System as an Evolutionary Precursor of Human Language. In Givón, T., Malle, B.F. (Eds.), The Evolution of Language out of Pre-Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 3-50.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gómez-Moreno, J.M.U., 2014. The Role of Image Schemas and Superior Psychic Faculties in Zoosemiosis. Biosemiotics 7(3), 405–427, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-014-9200-5.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gómez-Moreno, J.M.U., 2019. The ‘Mimic’ or ‘Mimetic’ Octopus? A Cognitive-Semiotic Study of Mimicry and Deception in Thaumoctopus Mimicus. Biosemiotics 12(3), 441–467, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-019-09362-y.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gómez-Moreno, J.M.U., 2020. Non-Verbal and Multimodal Metaphors Bring Biology into the Picture. In Beger A., Smith, T. H. (Eds.), How Metaphors Guide, Teach and Popularize Science. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 175–207.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gutnick, T., Mather, J.A., Kuba, M.J., Shomrat, T., 2016. The Cephalopod Brain: Motion Control, Learning, and Cognition. In Saleuddin, S., Mukai, S. (Eds.), Physiology of Molluscs 2. New York: Apple Academic Press, pp. 137–177, available at: https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315207117-5.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hoffmeyer, J., 2015. Introduction: Semiotic Scaffolding. Biosemiotics 8(2), 153–58, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-015-9236-1.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hoffmeyer, J., Stjernfelt, F., 2015. The Great Chain of Semiosis. Investigating the Steps in the Evolution of Semiotic Competence. Biosemiotics 9(1), 7–29, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-015-9247-y.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
How, M.J., Norman, M.D., Finn, J., et al., 2017. Dynamic Skin Patterns in Cephalopods. Frontiers in Physiology, 8:393. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2017.00393.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Johnson, M., 1987. The Body in the Mind. The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago, London: The University Of Chicago Press. Klein, C.. n.d. 7 Fun Facts About The Majestic Mimic Octopus!, available at: https://octonation.com/mimic-octopus-facts/.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kövecses, Z., 2016. Conceptual metaphor theory. In Demjén, Z., Semino, E. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Metaphor and Language. London: Routledge, pp.31–45.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kövecses, Z., 2017. Levels of Metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics 28(2), 321–347.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kövecses, Z., 2020. An Extended View of Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 18(1), 112–130, available at: https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00053.kov.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kövecses, Z., 2022. Some Recent Issues in Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Routledge EBooks, 29–41. available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003184041-3.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kuiter, R. (n.d.). Mimic Octopus mimicking Stingray Photo. Oceanwideimages.com, available at: https://oceanwideimages.com/Large-Image.asp?pID=6533&rp=search%252Easp%253Dmimic%Boctopus%256p%253D2.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kull, K., Emmeche, C., Favareau, D., 2008. Biosemiotic Questions. Biosemiotics 1(1), 41–55, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-008-9008-2.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kull, K., Velmenoza, E., 2015. Language, Linguistics: Life, Biosemiotics…. In Kull, K., Velmenoza, E., Cowley, S.J., Biosemiotic Perspectives on Language and Linguistics. Springer Cham, pp. 1–10.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kull, K., 2018. On the Logic of Animal Umwelten: The Animal Subjective Present and Zoosemiotics of Choice and Learning. Semiotics of Animals in Culture 17, 135–48, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72992-3_10.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lakoff, G., Johnson, M., 1980. METAPHORS We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lakoff, G., 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lakoff, G., 1990. The Invariance Hypothesis: Is Abstract Reason Based on Image-Schemas? Cognitive Linguistics 1(1), 39–74, available at: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lakoff, G., 2014. Mapping the brain’s metaphor circuitry: metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8:958, available at: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00958.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Langacker, R.W, 2005. Dynamicity, Fictivity, and Scanning: The Imaginative Basis of Logic and Linguistic Meaning. In Pecher, D., Zwaan, R. A. (Eds.), Grounding Cognition. The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 164–197.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Langacker, R.W., 2008a. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Langacker, R.W. 2008b. Metaphoric Gesture and Cognitive Linguistics. In Cienki A., Müller, C. (Eds.), Metaphor and Gesture. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 249–252.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Le Bris, S., 2013. Mimic Octopus (Thaumoctopus mimicus). iNaturalist., available at: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/148472353.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lemmens, M., 2015. Cognitive Semantics. In Riemer N. (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Semantics. London, New York: Routledge, pp. 90-105, available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/2589-6229_eslo_com_032520.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mandler, J.M., 1994. Precursors of Linguistic Knowledge. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 346(1315), 63–69, available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/56020.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mandler, J.M., 2007. On the Origins of the Conceptual System. American Psychologist 62(8), 741–51, available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.62.8.741.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Maran, T., 2010. Becoming a Sign: The Mimic’s Activity in Biological Mimicry. Biosemiotics 4(2), 243–257, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-010-9095-8.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Maran, T., Kleisner, K., 2010. Towards an Evolutionary Biosemiotics: Semiotic Selection and Semiotic Co-Option. Biosemiotics 3(2), 189–200, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-010-9087-8.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Maran, T., Martinelli, D., Turovski, A., 2011. Readings in Zoosemiotics. Berlin, Boston: Walter de Gruyter. Maran, T., 2014. Dimensions of Zoosemiotics: Introduction. Semiotica 198, 1–10, available at: https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2013-0098.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Maran, T., 2015. Scaffolding and Mimicry: A Semiotic View of the Evolutionary Dynamics of Mimicry Systems. Biosemiotics 8(2), 211–22, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-014-9223-y.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Maran, T., 2017. Mimicry and Meaning: Structure and Semiotics of Biological Mimicry. London: Springer Nature.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Martinelli, D., 2010. A Critical Companion to Zoosemiotics: People, Paths, Ideas. Biosemiotics 5. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mather, J.A., Kuba, M.J, 2018. Octopuses – Minds in the Water. In Bueno-Guerra, N., Amici, F. (Eds.), Field and Laboratory Methods in Animal Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 308–28.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mather, J.A., Kuba, M.J., 2013. The Cephalopod Specialties: Complex Nervous System, Learning, and Cognition. Canadian Journal of Zoology 91(6), 431–49, available at: https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-2013-0009.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mittelberg, I., 2006. Metaphor and Metonymy in Language and Gesture: Discourse Evidence for Multimodal Models of Grammar. PhD thesis, Cornell University, ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mittelberg, I., 2008. Peircean Semiotics Meets Conceptual Metaphor: Iconic Modes in Gestural Representations of Grammar. In Cienki A., Müller, C. (Eds.), Metaphor and Gesture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 115–154.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mittelberg, I., 2013. The Exbodied Mind: Cognitive-Semiotic Principles as Motivating Forces in Gesture. In Cienki A., Müller, C., Fricke, E., Ladewig, et al. (Eds.), Body – Language – Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction. Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 38(1). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 750-779.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mittelberg, I., Hinnell, J., 2022. Gesture Studies and Semiotics. In Cobley, P. (Ed.), Semiotic Movements. Bloomsbury Semiotics 4. London: Bloomsbury Academic, (in press).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Müller, C., 2008. What Gestures Reveal about the Nature of Metaphor. In Cienki A., Müller, C. (Eds.), Metaphor and Gesture. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 219–145.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
[n.a.], 2017. Mimic Octopus: Master of Disguise. YouTube, available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wos8kouz810.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nad, M., 2008. The Indonesian Mimic Octopus. YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8oQBYw6xxc&t=4s&ab_channel=marcelnad.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nahmad-Rohen, L., Qureshi, Y.H., Vorobyev, M., 2022. The Colours of Octopus: Using Spectral Data to Measure Octopus Camouflage. Vision 6(4), 59-84, available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/vision6040059.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Norman, M.D., Julian. F., Tregenza, T., 2001. Dynamic Mimicry in an Indo–Malayan Octopus. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 268(1478), 1755–1758., available at: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1708.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Olteanu, A., 2021. Multimodal Modeling: Bridging Biosemiotics and Social Semiotics. Biosemiotics 14, 783–805, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09463-7.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Pecher, D., Zwaan, R.A., 2005. Introduction to Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking. In Pecher, D., Zwaan, R.A. (Eds.), Grounding Cognition. The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking. Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–7.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Praszkier, R., 2014. Empathy, Mirror Neurons and SYNC. Mind & Society 15(1), 1–25., available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-014-0160-x.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rizzolatti, G., Fabbri-Destro, M., Gerbella, M., 2019. The Mirror Neuron Mechanism. In Stein, J. (Ed.), Reference Module in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Psychology.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sebeok, T.A., 2001. Signs: An Introduction to Semiotics 2. Toronto: University Of Toronto Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sharov, A. Tønnessen, M., 2021. Semiotic Agency: Science beyond Mechanism. Biosemiotics 25. Springer Cham, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89484-9.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Shettleworth, S.J. 2001. Animal Cognition and Animal Behaviour. Animal Behaviour 61(2), 277–86 available at: https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2000.1606.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sonesson, G., 2012. Semiosis Beyond Signs. On Two or Three Missing Links on the Way to Human Beings. In Schilhab, T., Stjernfelt, F., Deacon, T. (Eds.), The Symbolic Species Evolved, London: Springer Nature, pp.81–93, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2336-8_5.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Spivey, M.J., Gonzalez-Marquez, M., Richardson, D.C., 2005. On the Perceptual-Motor and Image-Schematic Infrastructure of Language. In Pecher, D., Zwaan, R.A. (Eds.), Grounding Cognition. The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 246–81.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Stephen, M., 2021. Nine Brains Are Better Than One: An Octopus’ Nervous System. Biomechanics in the Wild. University of Notre Dame, available at: https://sites.nd.edu/biomechanics-in-the-wild/2021/04/07/nine-brains-are-better-than-one-an-octopus-nervous-system/.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Stickles, E. 2016. The Interaction of Syntax and Metaphor in Gesture: A Corpus-Experimental Approach. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Stiefel, K., 2011. Mimic Octopus. Flickr. available at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/41059842@N03/6234370217.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Stjernfelt, F., 2014. Dicisigns. Peirce’s semiotic doctrine of propositions. Synthese, 192(4), 1019–1054, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0406-5.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Talmy, L., 1988. Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition. Cognitive Science 12(1), 49–100, available at : https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Thiebaud, S., 2023. Mimic Octopus (Thaumoctopus mimicus). iNaturalist., available at: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/153655025.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Uexküll, J., Kriszat, G., 1956. Streifzüge Durch Die Umwelten von Tieren Und Menschen. Bedeutungslehre. Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Vicente, P.N., 2020. Conceptual Metaphor Theory. In Merskin D.L. (Ed.), The SAGE International Encyclopedia of Mass Media and Society 5. London: SAGE Publications, pp. 371-371, available at: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483375519.n145.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Yong, E., 2009. The mimic octopus. ScienceBlogs, available at: https://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/12/13/the-mimic-octopus-my-first-ever-post.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zlatev, J., 2000. The Mimetic Origins of Self-Consciousness in Phylo-, Onto- and Robotogenesis. Industrial Electronics Society. 26th Annual Conference of the IEEE 4, 2921–28, available at: https://doi.org/10.1109/iecon.2000.972462.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zlatev, J., 2008. The co-evolution of intersubjectivity and bodily mimesis. In J. Zlatev, T. Racine, C. Sihna et al. (Eds.), The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 215–244.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zlatev, J., 2009. Levels of Meaning Embodiment and Communication. Cybernetics and Human Knowing 14(3-4), 149–74.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zlatev, J., 2018. Meaning making from life to language: The semiotic hierarchy and phenomenology. Cognitive Semiotics 11(1), 169–200, available at: . https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2018-0001.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zlatev, J., Jacobsson, G., Paju, L., 2021. Desiderata for Metaphor Theory, the Motivation & Sedimentation Model and Motion-Emotion Metaphoremes. In Da Silva, A.S., (Ed.), Figurative Language – Intersubjectivity and Usage. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 41–74, available at: https://benjamins.com/catalog/ftl.11.02zla.
]Search in Google Scholar
