Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Redefining animal signaling: influence versus information in communication

  • Published:
Biology & Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Researchers typically define animal signaling as morphology or behavior specialized for transmitting encoded information from a signaler to a perceiver. Although intuitively appealing, this conception is inherently metaphorical and leaves concepts of both information and encoding undefined. To justify relying on the information construct, theorists often appeal to Shannon and Weaver’s quantitative definition. The two approaches are, however, fundamentally at odds. The predominant definition of animal signaling is thus untenable, which has a number of undesirable consequences for both theory and practice in the field. Theoretical problems include conceptual circularity and running afoul of fundamental evolutionary principles. Problems in empirical work include that research is often grounded in abstractions such as signal honesty and semanticity, and thereby distracted from more basic and concrete factors shaping communication. A revised definition is therefore proposed, making influence rather than transmission of encoded information the central function of animal signaling. This definition is conceptually sound, empirically testable, and inclusive, yet bounded. Implications are considered in both theoretical and empirical domains.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. The terms “signaling” and “communication” are used interchangeably in this article, as they typically are in the animal-signaling literature. The focus throughout is on non-humans, as human communication processes such as language can be fundamentally different. A requisite goal is to emphasize that animal signaling should be defined and studied in its own right, and not by reference to human behavior.

  2. This article is primarily grounded in the ethological literature and does not explicitly integrate related work by philosophers such as Millikan (1995, 2004), Stegmann (2005, 2009), and others. However, some points arguably also apply to this other work as well, including relying on an undefined notion of information, viewing animal communication as inherently representational, and implicitly or explicitly using human language to understand signaling in other species.

  3. “Signaler” and “perceiver” are being used in place of the more common terms “sender” and “receiver” because the latter derive from the Shannon–Weaver theory of communication that we argue has been misapplied in animal studies. The commodity being "sent" and "received" is information, thus implying a particular view of the communication process. The terms "signaler" and "perceiver" are more agnostic.

  4. Bradbury and Vehrencamp (1998) discuss information extensively, yet never offer a specific definition of this term. They do provide a specific, unequivocal definition of communication—with information given a central role.

  5. Shannon and Weaver’s approach is arguably metaphorical as well, in this case a “transmission” metaphor. However, their usage “is a radical departure from the container and conduit metaphors, [including] that meanings reside in human understanding, not in the signals transmitted” (Krippendorff 1993: 10).

References

  • Bereczkei T (2001) Maternal trade-off in treating high-risk children. Evol Hum Behav 22:197–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (1998) Principles of animal communication. Sinauer, Sunderland

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (2000) Economic models of animal communication. Anim Behav 59:259–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks RA (1999) Cambrian intelligence. MIT, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bugnyar T, Kijne M, Kotrschal K (2001) Food calling in ravens: are yells referential signals? Anim Behav 61:949–958

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capranica RR (1977) Auditory processing in anurans. Fed Proc 37:2324–2328

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (1990) How monkeys see the world. University of Chicago, Chicago

  • Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (1996) Function and intention in the calls of non-human primates. Proc Br Acad 88:59–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (1998) Why animals don’t have language. In: Pearson GB (ed) The Tanner lectures on human values. University of Utah, Salt Lake City, pp 173–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (2005) Constraints and preadaptations in the earliest stages of language evolution. Linguist Rev 22:135–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM, Palombit R (1996) The function and mechanisms underlying baboon ‘contact’ barks. Anim Behav 52:507–518

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng M-F (2008) The role of vocal self-stimulation in female responses to males: implications for state-reading. Horm Behav 53:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng M-F, Peng JP (1997) Reciprocal talk between the auditory thalamus and hypothalamus: an antidromic study. NeuroReport 8:653–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings ME (2007) Sensory trade-offs predict signal divergence in surfperch. Evolution 61:530–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins R, Krebs JR (1978) Animal signals: information or manipulation? In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 282–309

    Google Scholar 

  • de Lanarolle NC, Lang FF (1988) Functional neural pathways for vocalization in the domestic cat. In: Newman JD (ed) The physiological control of mammalian vocalization. Plenum, New York, pp 21–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Dong S, Clayton DF (2009) Habituation in songbirds. Neurobiol Learn Mem 92:183–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dretske FI (1981) Knowledge and the flow of information. MIT, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Endler JA, Basolo AL (1998) Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol 13:415–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans CS (1997) Referential signals. In: Owings DH, Beecher MD, Thompson NS (eds) Perspectives in ethology: vol 12 communication. Plenum, New York, pp 99–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt HC, Schwartz JJ (2001) Auditory tunings and frequency preferences in anurans. In: Ryan MJ (ed) Anuran communication. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, pp 73–85

  • Goethals P (2003) The conduit metaphor and the analysis of meaning. In: Simon-Vandenbergen AM, Taverniers M, Ravelli L (eds) Grammatical metaphor. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 369–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould JL (1982) Ethology. WW Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Green S, Marler P (1979) The analysis of animal communication. In: Marler P, Vandenbergh JG (eds) Handbook of behavioral neurobiology, vol 3: social behavior and communication. Plenum, New York, pp 73–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenewalt C (1968) Bird song: acoustics and physiology. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenfield MD (2002) Signalers and receivers: mechanisms and evolution in arthropod communication. Oxford University, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths PE, Neumann-Held EM (1999) The many faces of the gene. Bioscience 49:656–660

    Google Scholar 

  • Grothe B (2003) New roles for synaptic inhibition in sound localization. Nat Rev Neurosci 4:540–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gyger M, Marler P, Pickert R (1987) Semantics of an avian alarm call system: the male domestic fowl, Gallus domesticus. Behaviour 102:15–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haig D (1993) Genetic conflicts in human pregnancy. Q Rev Biol 68:495–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrington F, Asa CS (2003) Wolf communication. In: Mech LD, Boitani L (eds) Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. University of Chicago, Chicago, pp 66–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartshorne C (1973) Born to sing. Indiana University, Bloomington

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser MD (1996) The evolution of communication. MIT, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertenstein MJ, Verkamp JM, Kerestes AM, Holmes RM (2006) The communicative functions of touch in humans, nonhuman primates, and rats: a review and synthesis of the empirical research. Genet Soc Gen Psychol Monogr 132:5–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzog M, Hopf S (1984) Behavioral responses to species-specific warning calls in infant squirrel monkeys reared in social isolation. Am J Primatol 7:99–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone RA (2001) Eavesdropping and animal conflict. Proc Nat Acad Sci 98:9177–9180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jürgens U (1998) Neuronal control of mammalian vocalization with special reference to the squirrel monkey. Naturwissen 85:376–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kam Y-C, Hui WA (2002) Female–offspring communication in a Taiwanese tree frog, Chirixalus eiffingeri (Anura: Rhacophoridae). Anim Behav 64:881–886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krebs J, Dawkins R (1984) Animal signals: mind-reading and manipulation. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach, 2nd edn. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 380–402

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff K (1993) Major metaphors of communication and some constructivist reflections on their use. Cybern Hum Knowing 1:3–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff G, Johnson M (1980) Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago, Chicago

  • LeDoux J (2000) Emotion circuits in the brain. Annu Rev Neurosci 23:155–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leger DW (1993) Contextual sources of information and responses to animal communication signals. Psychol Bull 113:295–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin RC, Carroll SB (2001) In the beginning was the word. Science 291:1293–1295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman P (2002) On the nature and evolution of the neural bases of human language. Yearb Phys Anthropol 45:36–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macedonia JM (1990) What is communicated in the antipredator calls of lemurs: evidence from playback experiments with ringtailed and ruffed lemurs. Ethology 86:177–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makagon MM, Funayama ES, Owren MJ (2008) An acoustic analysis of laughter produced by congenitally and normally hearing college students. J Acoust Soc Am 124:472–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manser MB, Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL (2002) Suricate alarm calls signal predator class and urgency. Trends Cogn Sci 6:55–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marler P (1955) Characteristics of some animal calls. Nature 176:6–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marler P, Evans CS, Hauser MD (1992) Animal signals: motivational, referential, or both? In: Papousek H, Jürgens U, Papousek M (eds) Nonverbal vocal communication: comparative and developmental approaches. Cambridge University, New York, pp 66–86

  • Maynard Smith J, Harper D (2003) Animal signals. Oxford University, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • McCowan B, Hanser SF, Doyle LR (1999) Quantitative tools for comparing animal communication systems: information theory applied to bottlenose dolphin whistles. Anim Behav 57:409–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGaugh JL (2003) Memory and emotion: the making of lasting memory. Columbia University, New York

  • Millikan RG (1995) A bet with peacock. In: Macdonald C, Macdonald G (eds) Philosophy of psychology: debates on psychological explanation. Oxford University, Oxford, pp 285–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Millikan RG (2004) The varieties of meaning. MIT, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton ES (1975) Ecological sources of selection on avian sounds. Am Nat 109:17–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell S (2006) Polybia wasp biting interactions recruit foragers following experimental worker removals. Anim Behav 71:709–715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otte D (1974) Effects and function in the evolution of signaling systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 5:385–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owings DH (1994) How monkeys feel about the world: a review of “How monkeys see the world”. Lang Commun 14:15–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owings DH, Morton E (1997) The role of information in communication: an assessment/management approach. In: Owings DH, Beecher MD, Thompson NS (eds) Perspectives in ethology: vol 12 communication. Plenum, New York, pp 359–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Owings DH, Morton E (1998) Animal vocal communication: a new approach. Cambridge University, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Owren MJ, Rendall D (1997) An affect-conditioning model of nonhuman primate vocal signaling. In: Owings DH, Beecher MD, Thompson NS (eds) Perspectives in ethology: vol 12 communication. Plenum, New York, pp 299–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Owren MJ, Rendall D (2001) Sound on the rebound: bringing form and function back to the forefront in understanding nonhuman primate vocalization. Evol Anthropol 10:58–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oyama S (2000) Ontogeny of information: developmental systems and evolution, 2nd edn. Duke University, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  • Page R, Ryan MJ (2008) The effect of signal complexity on localization performance in bats that localize frog calls. Anim Behav 76:761–769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penn DC, Povinelli DJ (2007) On the lack of evidence that chimpanzees possess anything remotely resembling a ‘theory of mind’. Philos Trans R Soc B 362:731–744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piccinini G, Scarantino A (in press) Computation vs. information processing: why their difference matters to cognitive science. Stud Hist Philos Sci

  • Pierce JR (1980) An introduction to information theory, symbols, signals and noise, 2nd edn. Dover, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Reddy MJ (1979) The conduit metaphor—a case of frame conflict in our language about language. In: Ortony A (ed) Metaphor and thought. Cambridge University, New York, pp 284–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Rendall D, Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL (2000) Proximate factors mediating “contact” calls in adult female baboons (Papio cynocephalus). J Comp Psychol 114:36–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rendall D, Owren MJ, Ryan MJ (2009) What do animal signals mean? Anim Behav 78:233–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan MJ (1990) Sensory systems, sexual selection, and sensory exploitation. Oxf Surv Evol Biol 7:157–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan MJ (1998) Receiver biases, sexual selection and the evolution of sex differences. Science 281:1999–2003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan MJ, Cummings M (2005) Animal signals and the overlooked costs of efficacy. Evolution 59:1160–1161

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan MJ, Rand AS (1993) Sexual selection and signal evolution: the ghost of biases past. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B, Biol Sci 340:187–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan MJ, Rand AS (2003) Mate recognition in túngara frogs: a review of some studies of brain, behavior, and evolution. Acta Zool Sinica 49:713–726

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott-Phillips TC (2008) Defining biological communication. J Evol Biol 21:387–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searcy WA (1992) Song repertoire and mate choice in birds. Am Zool 32:71–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Searcy WA, Nowicki S (2005) The evolution of communication: reliability and deception in animal signaling systems. Princeton University, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebeok TA (1977) How animals communicate. Indiana University, Bloomington

    Google Scholar 

  • Seehausen O, Terai Y, Magalhaes I, Carleton K, Mrosso H, Miyagi R, van der Sluijs I, Schneider M, Maan M, Tachida H (2008) Speciation through sensory drive in cichlid fish. Nature 455:620–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seeley TD (1995) The wisdom of the hive. Harvard University, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL (1980) The ontogeny of vervet monkey alarm calling behavior. Z Tierpsychol 54:37–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL (1986) Vocal development in vervet monkeys. Anim Behav 34:1640–1658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL (2003) Signalers and receivers in animal communication. Ann Rev Psych 54:145–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL, Marler P (1980) Vervet monkey alarm calls: semantic communication in a free-ranging primate. Anim Behav 28:1070–1094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shakti L, Chandrasekhar K, Gadagkar R (2008) Signaling hunger through aggression—the regulation of foraging in a primitively eusocial wasp. Naturwissen 95:677–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949) A mathematical model of communication. University of Illinois, Urbana

    Google Scholar 

  • Slocombe KE, Zuberbühler K (2005) Functionally referential communication in a chimpanzee. Curr Biol 15:1779–1784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith WJ (1977) The behavior of communicating. Harvard University, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith WJ (1997) The behavior of communicating, after twenty years. In: Owings DH, Beecher MD, Thompson NS (eds) Perspectives in ethology: vol 12 communication. Plenum, New York, pp 7–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon NP, Luschei ES, Liu K (1995) Fundamental frequency and tracheal pressure during three types of vocalizations elicited from anesthetized dogs. J Voice 9:403–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stegmann U (2005) John Maynard Smith’s notion of animal signals. Biol Philos 20:1011–1025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stegmann U (2009) A consumer-based teleosemantics for animal signals. Philos Sci 76:864–875

    Google Scholar 

  • Templeton CN, Greene E, Davis K (2005) Allometry of alarm calls: black-capped chickadees encode information about predator size. Science 308:1934–1937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen N (1951) The study of instinct. Oxford University, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Trivers RL (1974) Parent-offspring conflict. Am Zool 14:249–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Voland E (1998) Evolutionary ecology of human reproduction. Annu Rev Anthropol 27:347–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Frisch K (1967) The dance language and orientation of bees. Harvard University, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenner A (2002) The elusive honey bee dance “language” hypothesis. J Insect Behav 15:859–878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilczynski W, Chu J (2001) Acoustic communication, endocrine control, and the neurochemical systems of the brain. In: Ryan MJ (ed) Anuran communication. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, pp 23–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilczynski W, Lynch KS, O’Bryant EL (2005) Current research in amphibians: studies integrating endocrinology, behavior, and neurobiology. Horm Behav 48:440–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson EO (1975) Sociobiology. Harvard University, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection—a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol 53:205–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahavi A, Zahavi A (1997) The handicap principle, a missing piece of Darwin’s puzzle. Oxford University, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuberbühler K (2003) Referential signalling in non-human primates: cognitive precursors and limitations for the evolution of language. Adv Study Behav 33:265–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This article is based in part on the workshop “Information and Representation in Signaling using Sound” on November 8, 2008 at Georgia State University, organized by Michael J. Owren and Walt Wilczynski, and sponsored by the Center for Behavioral Neuroscience under the STC Program of the National Science Foundation, Agreement No. IBN-9876754. Preparation of the article was partially supported by a CBN Venture Grant to Michael J. Owren, as well as a GSU RCALL Seed Grant. We thank the NIH and the NSF of the United States and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada for generous grant support over the years. Thanks to Andrea Scarantino for many helpful discussions and comments on this work, as well as to Kim Sterelny, an anonymous reviewer, and Anais Stenson.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 5010, Atlanta, GA, 30302-5010, USA

    Michael J. Owren

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, AB, Canada

    Drew Rendall

  3. Section of Integrative Biology, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA

    Michael J. Ryan

Authors
  1. Michael J. Owren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Drew Rendall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael J. Ryan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael J. Owren.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Owren, M.J., Rendall, D. & Ryan, M.J. Redefining animal signaling: influence versus information in communication. Biol Philos 25, 755–780 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-010-9224-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-010-9224-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation