[
Barbieri, M., 2009. A Short History of Biosemiotics. Biosemiotics, 2, 221–245, available at: < https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-009-9042-8 >.10.1007/s12304-009-9042-8
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Barbieri, M., 2015. Code Biology: A New Science of Life. New Jersey: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-14535-8
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bartlett, S., Wong, M. L., 2020. Defining Lyfe in the Universe: From Three Privileged Functions to Four Pillars. Life, 10, 41, available at: < https://doi.org/10.3390/life10040042 >.10.3390/life10040042
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bateson, G., 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bennett, J., 2010. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham: Duke University Press.10.1215/9780822391623
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Capra, F., 1996. The Web of Life. New York: Anchor.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Capra, F., Luisi, L. F., 2014. The System View of Life: A Unifying Vision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511895555
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Champagne, M., 2013. A Necessary Condition for Proof of Abiotic Semiosis. Semiotica, 197, 283–287.10.1515/sem-2013-0092
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Cimatti, F., 2018. A Biosemiotic Ontology. The Philosophy of Giorgio Prodi. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-97903-8
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Cimatti, F., 2019. Linguaggio e natura nell’Italian Thought: il dibattito sulla “soglia semiotica” fra Umberto Eco e Giorgio Prodi. Amalgama, 38, 60–69.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Coletta, J., 2016. The ‘Irrelevance’ of Habit Formation: Stjernfelt, Hofstadter, and Rocky Paradox of Peircean Physiosemiosis. In West, D., Anderson, M. (Eds.), Consensus on Peirce’s Concept of Habit. Before and Beyond Consciousness. Cham: Springer, 65–80.10.1007/978-3-319-45920-2_4
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Deacon, T., 2021. How molecules became signs. Biosemiotics, 14, 537–559, available at: < https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09453-9 >.10.1007/s12304-021-09453-9
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Deely, J., 1990. Basic of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Deely, J., 2001. Physiosemiosis in the semiotic spiral: A play of musement. Sign Systems Studies, 29 (1), 27–47, available at: < https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2001.29.1.03 >.10.12697/SSS.2001.29.1.03
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Eco, U., 1976. Codice. Versus, 14, 1–38.10.1007/BF03287333
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Eco, U., 1999. Kant and the Platypus: Essay in Language and Cognition. San Diego: A Harvest Book.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Eco, U., 2018. Giorgio Prodi and the lower threshold of semiotics. Sign System Studies, 46 (2/3), 343–351, available at: < https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2018.46.2-3.07>.10.12697/SSS.2018.46.2-3.07
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Emmeche, C., 1994. The computational notion of life. Theoria – Segunda Epoca, 9 (21), 1–30.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Emmeche, C., 1999. The biosemiotics of emergent properties in a pluralist ontology. In Taborsky, E. (Ed.), Semiosis, Evolution, Energy: Towards a Reconceptualization of the Sign. Aachen: Shaker Verlag, 89–108.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Farina, A., Belgrano, A., 2004. The eco-field: A new paradigm for landscape ecology. Ecological Restoration, 19, 107–110.10.1111/j.1440-1703.2003.00613.x
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Farina, A., Belgrano, A., 2005. The Eco-field Hypothesis: Toward a Cognitive Landscape. Landscape Ecology, 21, 5–17, available at: < https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-005-7755-x >.10.1007/s10980-005-7755-x
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Farina, A., 2012. A biosemiotic perspective of the resource criterion: Toward a general theory of resources. Biosemiotics, 5 (1), 17-32, available at: < https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-011-9119-z >.10.1007/s12304-011-9119-z
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Farina, A., 2021. Ecosemiotic Landscape. A Novel Perspective for the Toolbox of Environmental Humanities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108872928
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Froese, T., 2022. To Understand the Origin of Life We Must First Understand the Role of Normativity. Biosemiotics, 14, 657–663, available at: < https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09467-3 >.10.1007/s12304-021-09467-3
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gadd, G. M., 2021. Fungal biomineralization. Current Biology, 31 (24), 1557-1563, available at: < https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.10.041 >.10.1016/j.cub.2021.10.041
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kauffman, S., 1993. The Origins of Order. Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1007/978-94-015-8054-0_8
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kauffman, S., Logan, R. K., Este, R. et al., 2008. Propagating organization: An inquiry. Biology and Philosophy, 23, 27–45.10.1007/s10539-007-9066-x
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Koch, W. A., 1987. A plea for evolutionary cultural semiotics. In Eschbach, A., Koch, W. A. (Eds.), A Plea for Cultural Semiotics. Bochum: Brookmeyer, 53–131.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krampen, M., 1986. Phytosemiotics. In Sebeok, T. (Ed.), Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 726–730.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kull, K., 1999. On the history of joining bio with semio: F. S. Rothschild and the biosemiotics rules. Sign Systems Studies, 27, 128–138, available at: < https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.1999.27.06 >.10.12697/SSS.1999.27.06
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kull, K., 2000. An introduction to phytosemiotics: Semiotic botany and vegetative sign systems. Sign Systems Studies, 28, 326–350, available at: < https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2000.28.18 >.10.12697/SSS.2000.28.18
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kull, K., Emmeche, C. & Favareau, D., 2008. Biosemiotic question. Biosemiotics, 1 (1), 41–55, available at: < https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-008-9008-2 >.10.1007/s12304-008-9008-2
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kull, K., Pattee, H., 2009. A biosemiotic conversation: Between physics and semiotic. Sign System Studies, 37, (1/2), 311–331, available at: < https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2009.37.1-2.12 >.10.12697/SSS.2009.37.1-2.12
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Latour, B., 2006. Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artefacts. In Bijker, E., Law, J. (Eds), Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge: MIT Press, 225–258.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Latour, B., 2015. Facing Gaia: eight lectures on the new climatic regime. Cambridge: Polity Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
LeDoux, J., 2019. The Deep History of Ourselves. The Four-Billion-Year Story of How We Got Conscious Brains. New York: Viking.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lotman, J., 1985. La semiosfera. L’asimmetria e il dialogo nelle strutture pensanti. Venezia: Marsilio Editore.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lovelock, J., 1979. Gaia. A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Malafouris, L., 2013. How Things Shape the Mind. A Theory of Material Engagement. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9476.001.0001
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Maran, T., 2020. Ecosemiotics. The Study of Sign in Changing Ecologies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108942850
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Maturana, H., Varela, F., 1980. Autopoiesis and Cognition. The Realization of the Living. Dordrecht: Riedel Publishing Company.10.1007/978-94-009-8947-4
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nöth, W., 1999. Ecosemiotics and the semiotics of nature. Semiosis, Evolution, Energy: Towards a Reconceptualization of the Sign. Aachen: Shaker Verlag.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nöth, A., 2000. Umberto Eco’s semiotic threshold. Sign System Studies, 28 (1), 50–61, available at: < https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2000.28.03 >.10.12697/SSS.2000.28.03
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nöth, A., 2001. Protosemiotics and physicosemiosis, Sign System Studies, 29 (1), 13–27, available at: < https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2001.29.1.02 >.10.12697/SSS.2001.29.1.02
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nurse, P., 2020. What Is Life? Understanding Biology in Five Steps. Oxford: David Fickling Books.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Prodi, G., 1976. Le basi materiali della significazione. Versus, 13, 69–93.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Prodi, G., 1988. La biologia come semiotica naturale. In Herzfeld, M., Melazzo, L. (Eds.), Semiotic Theory and Practice. Proceeding of the Third International Congress of the IASS Palermo, Vol. I. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 929-951.10.1515/9783110868883-095
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Prodi, G., 2010. Sign and Codes in Immunology. In Favareau, D. (Ed.), Essential Readings in Biosemiotics. New York: Springer, 323-337.10.1007/978-1-4020-9650-1_10
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Prodi, G., 2021. Le basi materiali della significazione. Milano: Mimesis.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sebeok, T., 1963. Communication in animals and men. Language, 39, 448–466.10.2307/411126
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sebeok, T., 1988. Communication, language, and speech: evolutionary considerations. In Herzfeld, M., Melazzo, L. (Eds), Semiotic Theory and Practice: Proceedings of the Third International Congress of the IASS Palermo, Vol. II. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1083–1091.10.1515/9783110868883-109
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Stoffregen, T. A., 2000. Affordances and events. Ecological Psychology, 12 (1), 1–28.10.1207/S15326969ECO1201_1
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Swenson, R., Turvey, M., 1991. Thermodynamic Reasons for Perception-Action Cycles. Ecological Psychology, 4 (3), 317–348.10.1207/s15326969eco0304_2
]Search in Google Scholar
[
von Uexküll, J., 1913. Baustein zu einer biologischen. Burckmann: München.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
von Uexküll, J., 1921. Umwelt und Innerwelt der Tiere. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-3-662-24819-5
]Search in Google Scholar
[
von, Uexküll, J., 1982. The theory of meaning. Semiotica, 42 (1), 1–87.10.1515/semi.1982.42.1.1
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Weber, A., 2001. The “surplus of meaning”. Biosemiotic aspects in Francisco J. Varela’s philosophy of cognition. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 9 (2), 11–29.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zámečník, L., H., Krbec, J., 2019. Describing Life: Towards the Conception of Howard Pattee. Linguistic Frontiers, 2 (1), 1–9, available at: < https://doi.org/10.2478/lf-2018-0012 >.10.2478/lf-2018-0012
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zengiaro, N., 2022. Ecosemiotic of the city. Designing the post-Anthropocene. European Journal of Creative Practices in Cities and Landscape, 5 (2), (article accepted).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zengiaro, N., 2022a. The Time of Materials: Rethinking the Anthropocene from Stones. Versus, 135 (2), 283–300.
]Search in Google Scholar