Senders, Receivers, and Symbolic Artifacts

Abstract

A “sender–receiver” framework based on models developed in several fields can provide a general treatment of communicative and symbolic phenomena, replacing traditional semiotic theories that have failed to live up to the hopes of their advocates. Sender–receiver models have mostly been applied to linguistic behavior, gestures, and other ephemeral interactions between individuals. I look at the application of this framework to enduring artifacts, including pictures, using indigenous rock art in Australia as a case study.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    Saussure’s classic work is his Course in General Linguistics (1974). In the case of Peirce, who wrote about the topic in a more scattered way, the summary by Atkin (2013) is particularly useful.

  2. 2.

    For a range of examples, see the precursor to this article, Godfrey-Smith (2014a).

  3. 3.

    They might also be artifacts themselves, but in this article I’ll leave aside both artifactual and sub-personal “agents.” See my (2014b) paper for the sub-personal case.

  4. 4.

    For a note on the connection to Wittgenstein, see my (1988) review of Millikan’s book.

  5. 5.

    The Lewis model, especially as I have pictured it in Fig. 1, is reminiscent of Shannon’s mathematical theory of information (1948), and its famous diagram of a “general communication system.” Shannon has a “transmitter” on the left and a “receiver” on the right, where the transmitter is sensitive to an information “source” of some kind. Information is carried by a signal sent to the receiver whenever the signal reduces uncertainty about the source. The two models are complementary. Shannon took for granted the sender and receiver roles, and gave a theory of the channels that achieve coordination between them; Lewis took for granted the possibility of a channel, and gave a model of how agents could come to play the sender and receiver roles.

  6. 6.

    On the other side, the intrinsic properties of a sign can be important in “costly signaling” situations—see “Principle 2” below.

  7. 7.

    See, for example, Millikan (1984), Tomasello (2008), and Sterelny (2012).

  8. 8.

    See Godfrey-Smith and Martínez (2013), Martínez and Godfrey-Smith (2016).

  9. 9.

    See Planer (forthcoming) for further discussion of the relation between Gricean communication, the SR framework, and Scott-Philips’ arguments.

  10. 10.

    For a more filled-out version of these ideas, see Godfrey-Smith (forthcoming).

  11. 11.

    There are exceptions; above I noted that Leach (1976) set up a semiotic theory within a sender-receiver framework.

  12. 12.

    Here is Boardman’s formulation: “x is a work of art iff: (a) x is presented to a public audience for the purpose of their appreciation or contemplation of x and (b) a proper understanding of x requires recognition of (a)” (2016, Abstract). I am not sure about the importance of some minor differences with my version in the main text—for example, the role of “contemplation.” Note that this test is disjunctive.

  13. 13.

    Discussion at the City University of New York Graduate Center Science Studies seminar in 2016 helped with this treatment. For further discussion of the evolution of evaluative behaviors and art, see Wilson (2016).

  14. 14.

    I have in mind the fact that artistic traditions, especially recent Western traditions, embrace many deliberately disruptive moves.

  15. 15.

    See Maynard Smith and Harper (2003) and Godfrey-Smith (2013) for more detailed discussions of the relations between cues and signals in biological contexts.

  16. 16.

    Skyrms (2010) made essentially this point, not about Peirce but about Grice and “natural meaning.”

  17. 17.

    I am going to use “reference” very loosely in this passage, in comformity with the framework being discussed.

    Sterelny (personal communication 2016) notes a possible counterexample to my generalization: if a fine example of an artifact made for practical use, such as a handaxe or basket, was kept around as a template to guide other producers of that sort of artifact, then an iconic role of quite a sophisticated kind could arise without it being intended by the producer.

  18. 18.

    As well as the work on common interest cited earlier, see Huttegger et al. (2010) for a detailed exploration of conditions under which communication prevails in a Lewis model.

  19. 19.

    My attempt to do this distillation here is partly a response to challenges in Sterelny (forthcoming), who sees the SR framework as limited in its application.

  20. 20.

    See McDonald and Veth (2012a, b, 2013), Veth et al. (2011), and Hiscock (2008).

  21. 21.

    “Maynard’s model saw an evolution from a pan-continental stylistically-homogenous (i.e., non-figurative)... style assemblage of engravings/petroglyphs replaced by a set of regional Simple Figurative styles and regional Complex Figurative styles” (McDonald and Veth 2012a, p. 991).

  22. 22.

    “What is clear is that there is an older—predominantly geometric—art form present across Australia, which is replaced in some areas by one or more figurative art vocabularies; while in other areas this iconography appears to endure” (McDonald and Veth 2012a, p. 992).

  23. 23.

    Making cupules is hard work and takes time. The number of cupules at a site will at least be a cue (a natural indicator) of the number of people and/or hours involved in their production, and might also be a communicative signal of such facts.

  24. 24.

    Steven Kuhn (in discussion at the “Symbols II” workshop—see Acknowledgments) tells me that cupules in some American Indian cultures have a more culturally specific role in fertility rituals, featuring placement of the afterbirth.

References

  1. Atkin A (2013) Peirce’s theory of signs. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Zalta EN (ed). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/peirce-semiotics/

  2. Barrett J (2009) The evolution of coding in signaling games. Theor Decis 67:223–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barthes R ([1957]1984) Mythologies, translated by A. Lavers. Hill and Wang, New York

  4. Bednarik R (2008) The origins of symboling. Signs 2:82–113

    Google Scholar 

  5. Boardman F (2016). Art as display. CUNY Academic Works. http://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/1222. (PhD dissertation)

  6. Clottes J, Lewis-Williams D (1998) The shamans of prehistory: trance and magic in the painted caves. Harry Abrams, New York

    Google Scholar 

  7. Crawford V, Sobel J (1982) Strategic information transmission. Econometrica 50:1431–1451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gallie W (1956) Essentially contested concepts. Proc Aristot Soc 56:167–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Godfrey-Smith P (1988) Review of Ruth Millikan’s language thought other biological categories. Aust J Philos 66:556–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Godfrey-Smith P (2013) Information and influence in sender–receiver models, with applications to animal behavior. In: Stegmann U (ed) Animal communication theory: information and influence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 377–396

    Google Scholar 

  11. Godfrey-Smith P (2014a) Signs and symbolic behavior. Biol Theory 9:78–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Godfrey-Smith P (2014b) Sender–receiver systems within and between organisms. Philos Sci 81:866–878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Godfrey-Smith P (forthcoming) Primates, cephalopods, and the evolution of communication. In: Michael LP (ed) The social origins of language. Princeton University Press, Princeton

  14. Godfrey-Smith P, Martínez M (2013) Communication and common interest. PLoS Comput Biol 9:e1003282. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003282&gt

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Grice HP (1957) Meaning. Philos Rev 66:377–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hiscock P (2008) Archaeology of ancient Australia. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hovers E, Ilani S, Bar-Yosef O, Vandermeersch B (2003) Ochre use by modern humans in Qafzeh Cave. Curr Anthropol 44:491–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Huttegger S, Skyrms B, Smead R, Zollman K (2010) Evolutionary dynamics of Lewis signaling games: signaling systems vs. partial pooling. Synthese 172:177–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Johnson M (forthcoming) Systems of dress: Communication through body adornment

  20. Leach E (1976) Culture and communication: the logic by which symbols are connected. An introduction to the use of structuralist analysis in social anthropology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lewis DK (1969) Convention. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  22. Martínez M, Godfrey-Smith P (2016) Common interest and signaling games: a dynamic analysis. Philos Sci 83(2016):371–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Maynard L (1979) The archaeology of Australian aboriginal art. In: Mead S (ed) Exploring the visual art of Oceania. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu, pp 83–110

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  25. McDonald J, Veth P (2012a) Pleistocene rock art: a colonizing repertoire for Australia’s earliest inhabitants. In: Proceedings of the IFRAO Congress: L’art pléistocène dans le monde/Pleistocene art of the world/Arte pleistoceno en el mundo. Actes du Congrès Ifrao, Tarascon-sur-Ariège

  26. McDonald J, Veth P (2012b) The social dynamics of aggregation and dispersal in the Western Desert. In: McDonald J, Veth P (eds) A companion to rock art. Blackwell, London, pp 90–102

    Google Scholar 

  27. McDonald J, Veth P (2013) Rock art in arid landscapes: Pilbara and Western Desert petroglyphs. Aust Archeol 77:66–81

    Google Scholar 

  28. Millikan R (1984) Language, thought, and other biological categories. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  29. Planer R (forthcoming) Symbolic cognition, metarepresentation, and language

  30. Prum R (2013) Coevolutionary aesthetics in human and biotic artworlds. Biol Philos 28:811–832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Saussure F (1974) Course in general linguistics. Translated and annotated by R. Harris. Open Court, La Salle

    Google Scholar 

  32. Scott-Philips T (2014) Speaking our minds: why human communication is different, and how language evolved to make it special. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills

    Google Scholar 

  33. Shannon C (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Math J 27:379–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Skyrms B (1996) Evolution of the social contract. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  35. Skyrms B (2010) Signals: evolution, learning, & information. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  36. Spence M (1973) Job market signaling. Q J Econ 87:355–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sperber D, Wilson D (1986) Relevance: communication and cognition. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  38. Sterelny K (2012) The evolved apprentice: how evolution made humans unique. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  39. Sterelny K (forthcoming) The sender–receiver framework and the evolution of language

  40. Tomasello M (2008) Origins of human communication. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  41. Veth P, Stern N, McDonald J, Balme J, Davidson I (2011) The role of information exchange in the colonization of Sahul. In: Whallon R, Lovis W, Hitchcock E (eds) Information and its role in hunter-gatherer bands. UCLA/Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, Los Angeles, pp 203–220

    Google Scholar 

  42. Wilson C (2016) Another Darwinian aesthetics. J Aesthet Art Crit 74:237–252

    Google Scholar 

  43. Wright D, May S, Taçon P, Stephenson B (2014) A scientific study of a new cupule site in Jabiluka, Western Arnhem Land. Rock Art Res 3:92–100

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to everyone who took part in the workshop “Symbols and Communicative Behaviour in Pleistocene Hominins (Symbols II)” at the University of Sydney in 2015. Special thanks to Peter Hiscock and Kim Sterelny for organizing this event, for valuable discussion of all these topics, and for comments on an earlier draft. Thanks also to Ron Planer and Manolo Martínez for many discussions bearing on the second section of this article.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Godfrey-Smith.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Godfrey-Smith, P. Senders, Receivers, and Symbolic Artifacts. Biol Theory 12, 275–286 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-017-0276-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Archaeology
  • Communication
  • Peirce
  • Rock art
  • Semiotics
  • Symbols