Abstract
Relying on interviews and fieldwork observations, the article investigates the choice of signs made by guide dogs and their visually impaired handlers while the team is on the move. It also explores the dependence of the choice of signs on specific functions of communication and examines the changes and development of sign usage throughout the team’s work. A significant part of the team’s communication appears to be related to retaining the communicative situation itself: to the establishment of intrateam contact; to keeping the other prone to receive messages and to establish adequate sign relations; to giving and receiving feedback. The signs used for the purpose of retaining contact are analyzed in the article mainly with the handler in the role of the addresser. Signs also vary according to the character and aim of the team’s referential communication. Searching for objects and places, orientation and avoidance of obstacles can be discerned as three major functional frames that determine the choice of signs. As the team’s cooperation evolves, so also do the means of communication. The analysis shows that intrateam communication becomes less segmented and the signs used in referential communication shift from symbolic to symptomatic signs (e.g. body movement instead of verbal communication) and become harder to detect for an outside observer.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
However, as most of the experiments and studies with dogs have been carried out on pet dogs, the information thereby gained has to be treated with caution. The special task of service animals encompasses significantly different principles in training as well as in the further development of the dog-handler relationship than by the pet dogs.
The word sign-vehicle is used throughout the article in the meaning given to it by Charles Morris, who defined it as follows: “A particular physical event — such as a given sound or mark or movement — which is a sign will be called a sign-vehicle” (Morris 1971: 96).
Here and throughout the paper, the letter f stand for a female interviewee and m for a male respondent. The number indicates the age of the interviewee.
The classification proposed by Morris has later been used by the zoologist Peter Marler to categorize animal signs (called signals by him) (Marler 2012 [1961]). Marler uses them in order to distinguish between different types of information content, whereby the response of the receiver is crucial for determining the type in the first place. Marler also notes that: “The categories are not mutually exclusive, so that one signal might convey one or all of the different types of information” (Marler 2012 [1961]: 257).
It has to be noted though that this example is rather an exceptional case, as it demands high acoustic attention to the surrounding traffic from the handler.
References
Bateson, G. (1973). Steps to an ecology of mind. Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution and epistemology. St Albans: Frogmore.
Braem, M. D., & Mills, D. S. (2010). Factors affecting response of dogs to obedience instruction: a field and experimental study. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 125, 47–55.
Bystrova, N.A. 2010 Семиотика межвидовых взаимодействий (на примере слепого и собаки проводника). St. Petersburg, Baltic State Technical University D.F.Ustinova (Voenmeh), Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. M.A. thesis.
Calabrò, S. (1999). Der blindenführhund. Aspekte einer besonderen Mensch-tier-Beziehung in geschichte und Gegenwart. Berlin: Wissenschaft und Technik Verlag.
Deshen, S., & Deshen, H. (1989). On social aspects of the usage of guide dogs and long-canes. Sociological Review, 37, 89–103.
Fallani, G., Previde, E. P., & Valsecchi, P. (2006). Do disrupted early attachments affect the relationship between guide dogs and blind owners? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 100, 241–257.
Gaunet, F. (2008). How do guide dogs of blind owners and pet dogs of sighted owners (Canis familiaris) ask their owners for food? Animal Cognition, 11, 475–483.
Gazzano, A., Mariti, C., Sighieri, C., Ducci, M., Ciceroni, C., & McBride, E. A. (2008). Survey of undesirable behaviors displayed by potential guide dogs with puppy walkers. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 3, 104–113.
Goddard, M. E., & Beilharz, R. G. (1986). Early prediction of adult behaviour in potential guide dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 15, 247–260.
Godley, C. A., & Gillard, M. A. (2011). Assisting handlers following attacks on Dog guides: implications for Dog guide teams. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 105, 601–611.
Hännestrand, B. (1995). Manniskan, samhallet och ledarhunden: studier i ledarhundsarbetets historia (Acta universitatis upsaliensis: uppsala studies in economic history 36). Uppsala: Academiae Ubsaliensis.
Hauser, M. D. (1996). The evolution of communication. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Ittyerah, M., & Gaunet, F. (2009). The response of guide dogs and pet dogs (Canis familiaris) to cues of human referential communication (pointing and gaze). Animal Cognition, 12, 257–265.
Marler, Peter 2012 [1961]. The Logical Analysis of Animal Communication. In: Maran, Timo; Martinelli, Dario; Turovski, Aleksei Readings in Zoosemiotics. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter; 253–277
Miklósi, Á. 2007. Dog Behaviour, Evolution, and Cognition. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press
Miklósi, Á., Kubinyi, E., Topál, J., Gácsi, M., Virányi, Z., & Csányi, V. (2003). A simple reason for a big difference: wolves do not look back at humans but dogs do. Current Biology, 13, 763–766.
Miklósi, A., Polgárdi, R., Topád, J., & Csónyi, V. (2000). Intentional behaviour in dog-human communication: an experimental analysis of “showing” behaviour in the dog. Animal Cognition, 3, 159–166.
Morris, C. (1971). Writings on the general theory of signs. Paris: Mouton.
Murphy, J. A. (1995). Assessment of the temperament of potential guide dogs. Anthrozoös, 8, 224–228.
Pongrácz, P., Miklósi, Á., Timár-Geng, K., & Csányi, V. (2004). Verbal attention getting as a key factor in social learning between dog and human. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 118, 375–383.
Sarris, E. G. (1935). Ein neues verfahren, führhunde für blinde auszubilden. Der Naturforscher, 12, 260–265.
Sebeok, T. (1991). A sign is just a sign. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Soproni, K., Miklósi, A., Topal, J., & Csanyi, V. (2001). Comprehension of human communicative signs in pet dogs (Canis familiaris). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 115(2), 122–126.
Stork, R. (1988). Der blindenführhund: aufkommen und rückgang in deutschland; geschichtliche und international vergleichende untersuchung. Universität Düsseldorf: Diss. med. dent.
Takeuchi, Y., Hashizume, C., Arata, S., Inoue-Murayama, M., Maki, T., Hart, B. L., & Mori, Y. (2009). An approach to canine behavioural genetics employing guide dogs for the blind. Animal Genetics, 40, 217–224.
Tembrock, G. (1971). Biokommunikation (Informationsübertragung im biologischen Bereich). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Uexküll, T. v. (1997). Biosemiose. In R. Posner (Ed.), Semiotik : ein handbuch zu den zeichentheoretischen grundlagen von natur und kultur = semiotics : a handbook on the sign-theoretic foundations of nature and culture (Halbband, Vol. 1, pp. 447–457).
Uexküll, J. v., & Sarris, E. G. (1931). Der Führhund der Blinden. Die Umschau, 35, 1014–1016.
Virányi, Z., Topál, J., Gácsi, M., Miklósi, Á., & Csányi, V. (2004). Dogs respond appropriately to cues of humans’ attentional focus. Behavioural Processes, 66, 161–172.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank all the informants, who kindly contributed to this study as well as the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. This research was supported by the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund (Centre of Excellence CECT, Estonia), and by research grants EMP151 and IUT2–44
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Transcripts
28 interviews with guide-dog users. Digital sound files, transcripts. Author’s archive, 353 p
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Magnus, R. The Function, Formation and Development of Signs in the Guide Dog Team’s Work. Biosemiotics 7, 447–463 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-014-9199-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-014-9199-7