Advertisement

Biosemiotics

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 121–138 | Cite as

Animal Studies in the Language Sciences

  • Prisca Augustyn
Article
  • 119 Downloads

Abstract

This paper explains how recent changes in the ways we study other animals to better understand the human faculty of language are indicative of changing narratives concerning the intelligence of other animals. Uexküll’s concept of Umwelt as a species-specific model of the world is essential to understanding the semiotic abilities of all organisms, including humans. From this follows the view that human language is primarily a cognitive tool for making models of the world. This view is consistent with the basic premises of cognitive linguistics. The rejection of behaviorism in linguistics represents a turning point in the history of animal studies. The resulting criticism of long-term studies with primates illustrates this shift concerning the study of wild animals within the language sciences and beyond. New insights in dog cognition and research on the processing of human language in canines are reflective of a change in focus away from anthropocentrism towards the species-specific semiotic abilities of animals in the twenty-first century. This new orientation away from comparing animal sign-systems to human language and the importance of studying intelligent wild animals in the wild instead of in captivity have lead to an important re-evaluation of our relationship with other animals and our views of their cognitive and semiotic profiles. This leads to questions such as what role non-human organisms can play in the language sciences, and what our limitations are of studying the sign systems of other animals. Recent research on the signifying abilities of wild dolphins, for instance, has identified a new set of characteristics by which to study intelligence in other species.

Keywords

Animal studies Linguistics Semiotics Umwelt Non-human intelligence Animal linguistics 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abramson, J. Z., et al. (2018). Imitation of novel conspecific and human speech sounds in the killer whale (Orcinus Orca), Proceeding of the Royal Society Biological Sciences. January, 31, 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.2681.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, M., & Merrell, F. (Eds.). (1991). On semiotic modeling. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  3. Andics, A., Gábor, A., Gácsi, M., Faragó, T., Szabó, D., & Miklósi, Á. (2016). Neural mechanisms of lexical processing in dogs. Science, 353(6303), 1030–1032.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrews, E. (2011). Language and brain: Recasting meaning in the definition of human language. Semiotica, 184(1), 11–32.Google Scholar
  5. Augustyn, P. (2009). Uexküll, Peirce, and other affinities between biolinguistics and biosemiotics in. Biosemiotics, 3(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Augustyn, P. (2013). What connects biolinguistics and biosemiotics? Biolinguistics 7(4). Open Journal Systems, 96–111.Google Scholar
  7. Berreby, D. (2014). What makes an alien intelligent? The New Yorker April, 21, 2014.Google Scholar
  8. Bomey, N. (2016). Seaworld to phase out killer whale shows. captivity In USA Today, (March 17, 2016).Google Scholar
  9. Bradshaw, J. (2011). In defense of dogs. Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  10. Čadková, L. (2015). Do they speak language? Biosemiotics, 8(1), 9–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of Verbal behavior by B.F. Skinner. Language, 35(1), 26–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chomsky, N. (2006). Language and mind (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chomsky, N. (2007). Biolinguistic explorations: Design, development, and evolution. International Journal of Philosophical Studies., 15(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chomsky, N. (2009 [1966]). Cartesian linguistics: A chapter in the history of rationalist thought, 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cowperthwaite, G. (2013). Blackfish. Magnolia Pictures: Documentary.Google Scholar
  17. Cucchiaro, M. A. (2007/2008). On the myth of ape language. Interview with Noam Chomsky, retrieved December 2016 https://chomsky.info/2007____/
  18. Ecolinguistics. (2016). Retrieved December 2016 from http://ecolinguistics-association.org
  19. Family Dog Project. Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary. Retrieved December 2016 http://etologia.elte.hu/en/home-2/
  20. Fillmore, C. F. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 280, 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gardner, R. A., & Gardner, B. T. (1984). A vocabulary test for chimpanzees. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 98, 381–404.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. London: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  23. Halloran, A. (2012). The song of the ape. Understanding the languages of chimpanzees. St Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hauser, M. D., & Bever, T. G. (2008). A biolinguistic agenda. Science, 322, 1057–1059.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569–1579.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Herzing, D. (2014). Profiling non-human intelligence: An exercise in developing unbiased tools for describing other “types” of intelligence on earth. Acta Astronautica, 94(2), 676–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Herzing, D. (2015). Dolphin communication and cognition. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hinchman, L. P., & Hinchman, S. K. (2007). What we owe the romantics. Environmental Values, 16(3), 333–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hockett, C., (1982[1960]). The origin of speech. Wang, W.S-Y. (ed.) Human Communication: Language and its Psychobiological Bases, Scientific American, 1982 (Paper originally published in Scientific American, 1960).Google Scholar
  30. Hodson, H. (2014). Dolphin whistle instantly translated by computer, Technology News, 26 march 2014.Google Scholar
  31. Hoffmeyer, J. (2008). Biosemiotics. Explorations into the life of signs and the signs of life. Scranton: University of Scranton Press.Google Scholar
  32. Horowitz, A. (2009). Inside of a dog. What dogs see, smell, and know. New York: Simon and Shuster.Google Scholar
  33. Jenkins, L. (2000). Biolinguistics. Exploring the biology of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kharlamov, V., Campbell, K., & Kazanina, N. (2011). Behavioural and electrophysiological evidence for early and automatic detection of phonological equivalence in variable speech inputs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(11), 3331–3342.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Kull, K. (2003). Ladder, tree, web: Ages of biological understanding, Sign Systems. Studies, 31(2), 589–602.Google Scholar
  36. Ladefoged, P. (2004). Phonetics and phonology in the last 50 years, UCLA Working. Papers in Linguistics, 103, 1–11.Google Scholar
  37. Lakoff, G. (2009). The political mind: A cognitive scientist’s guide to your brain and its politics. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  38. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Latour, B. (1993 [1991]). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  41. Linden, E. (1987). Silent partners: The legacy of the ape language experiments. Balantine Books.Google Scholar
  42. Lorenz, K. (1941). Kants Lehre vom apriorischen im Lichte gegenwärtiger Biologie. Blätter für Deutsche Philosophie, 15, 94–125.Google Scholar
  43. Lorenz, K. (1971). Studies in animal and human behaviour 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Magnus, R. (2015). The semiotic grounds of animal assistance: Sign use of guide dogs and their visually impaired handlers. Dissertation. Tartu University.Google Scholar
  45. Marsh, J. (2011). Project Nim. BBC Films: Documentary.Google Scholar
  46. McConnell, P. (2003). The other end of the leash. Why we do what we do around dogs. Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  47. Miklosi, A. (2015). Dog behaviour, evolution, and cognition. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Ohala, J.J. (1996). Ethological theory and the expression of emotion in the voice, Proceedings of the ICSLP 96, October 3–6, 1996 Wilmington: University of Delaware 3, 1812–1815.Google Scholar
  49. Ohala, J. J. (2004). Phonetics and phonology then, and then, and now. H. Quene and V. Van Heuven (Eds.) On speech and language: Studies for Sieb G. Nooteboom. LOT Occasional Series, 2, 133–140.Google Scholar
  50. Owens, L. (2018). Scientists teach orca to talk, but there is a darker side. In Newshub. http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2018/02/scientists-teach-orca-to-talk-but-there-is-a-darker-side.html
  51. Peirce, C.S. (1935-1966). Collected papers. C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss, and A.W. Burks (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (References to volumes and paragraphs).Google Scholar
  52. Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S. (1986). Ape language: From conditioned response to symbol. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Sebeok, T. A., & Danesi, M. (2000). The forms of meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sebeok, T. A., & Umiker-Sebeok, J. (1980). Speaking of apes. A critical anthology of two-way communication with man. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  55. Skinner, B. F. (1959). Verbal behavior. Copley Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  56. Terrace, H. S. (1979). Nim. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  57. von Uexküll, G. (1964) Jakob von Uexküll. Seine Welt und seine Umwelt. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
  58. University of Wollongong Job advertisement retrieved November 2016 http://uow.employment.com.au/jobs/Lecturer---Senior-Lecturer--English-Language-and-Linguistics/2414
  59. Verhagen, F. C. (2008). Worldviews and metaphors in the human-nature relationship: An ecolinguistic exploration through the ages. Language and. Ecology, 2, 1–18.Google Scholar
  60. von Uexküll, J. (1902). Psychologie und Biologie in ihrer Stellung zur Tierseele. Ergebnisse der. Physiologie, 1, 212–233.Google Scholar
  61. von Uexküll, J. (1920). Theoretische Biologie. Heidelberg: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  62. von Uexküll, T. (1982). Introduction: Meaning and science in Jakob von Uexküll’s concept of biology. Semiotica, 42(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wade, N. (1980). Does man alone have language? Apes reply in riddles, and a horse says neigh. Science, 208, 1349–1351.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Weber, A. (2008) Alles Fühlt. Mensch, Natur, und die Revolution der Lebenswissenschaften. Berlin: Berl. Verlag.Google Scholar
  65. Wirth, L. (1928). Theoretical biology by J. von Uexküll; D. L. Mackinnon transl. (book review). The American Journal of Sociology, 33(6), 995–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Florida Atlantic UniversityBoca RatonUSA

Personalised recommendations