Strengths and Flaws of Ethological and Biological Methodology

  • Pauline Delahaye
Part of the Biosemiotics book series (BSEM, volume 19)


Creation sub-question n°2: what are the parts, strengths or flaws, of the pre-existing animal study methodology upon which our model must be built?

This chapter will present the points of hybridization of the semiotic model with life sciences, starting with the strengths. It will thus get back to the seniority and the methodological solidity of the field of life sciences, to what makes its methodology particularly evolutionary and to the fact that semiotics adapt especially well to a science based on observations. The chapter will then examine the weak points, including the controversy about the place of the laboratory in the studies on complex aspects of animals. This second part will also tackle the issue of disruptions related to observation, as well as the issue of awareness of ideological positions, still relatively strong among this disciplinary field.


Biological methodology Ethological methodology Intertheoricity Interdisciplinary models Ideological biases Methodology of observations 


  1. Alexeev, A., et al. (Eds.). (2017). Questions Actuelles de la Neurophilosophie (translation from Russian title). Moscou: IINTELL.Google Scholar
  2. Béata, C. (Ed.). (2009). Zoopsychiatrie : L’attachement. Marseille: Solal Editeurs.Google Scholar
  3. Bekoff, M. (2009). Les émotions des animaux. Paris: Éditions Payot & Rivages.Google Scholar
  4. Bertier, J. (1994). Histoire des animaux : Traduction, présentation et notes. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  5. Bickle, J. (Ed.). (2009). The Oxford handbook of philosophy and neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford university press.Google Scholar
  6. Bodamer, M., & Gardner, A. (2002). How cross-fostered chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) initiate and maintain conversations. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 116(1), 12–26.Google Scholar
  7. Boesch, C. (2007). What makes us human (Homo sapiens)? The challenge of cognitive cross-species comparison. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121, 227–240.Google Scholar
  8. Bradshaw, I. G. (2004). Not by bread alone: Symbolic loss, trauma, and recovery in elephant communities. Society and Animals, 12(2), 143–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chamayou, G. (1999). L’essai “contre placebo” et le charlatanisme. Pour la science, 38, 14–17.Google Scholar
  10. Christen, Y. (2011). L’Animal est-il une personne ? Barcelone: Flammarion.Google Scholar
  11. Danchin, E., Giraldeau, L.-A., & Cézilly, F. (Eds.). (2005). Écologie comportementale: cours et questions de réflexion. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
  12. Darwin, C. (1872). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. Londres: John Murray.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Fontenay, E. (1998). Le Silence des bêtes. Lonrai: Fayard.Google Scholar
  14. De Waal, F. (2013). Le Bonobo, Dieu et nous. Lonrai: Les Liens qui Libèrent.Google Scholar
  15. De Waal, F., & Robert, M. (2002). De la réconciliation chez les primates. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
  16. Delahaye, P. (2017). Cognition, langage, émotion : faut-il sortir du laboratoire ? In A. Alexeev et al. (Eds.), Questions Actuelles de la Neurophilosophie (translation from Russian title). IINTELL: Moscou.Google Scholar
  17. Despret, V. (2009). Il est temps d’en finir avec Harlow. In C. Béata (Ed.), Zoopsychiatrie : L’attachement (p. 13). Marseille: Solal Editeurs.Google Scholar
  18. Forsberg, N., Burley, M., & Hämäläinen, N. (Eds.). (2012). Language, ethics and animal life. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  19. Fouts, R., & Mills, S. T. (1998). L’école des chimpanzés: ce que les chimpanzés nous apprennent sur l’humanité. Paris: J. C. Lattès.Google Scholar
  20. Fouts, R., & Rigby, R. (1977). In T. Sebeok (Ed.), How animals communicate (p. 1049). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Freeberg, T. M. (2012). Geographic variation in note composition and use of chick-a-dee calls of Carolina Chickadees (Poecile carolinensis). Ethology, 118, 555–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gallup, G. G. (1977). Self-recognition in primates: A comparative approach to the bidirectional properties of consciousness. American Psychologist, 32, 329–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gardner, A. R., & Gardner, B. T. (1969). Teaching sign language to a chimpanzee. Science, 165(3894), 664–672.Google Scholar
  24. Grandgeorge, M., Le Pévédic, B., & Pugnières-Saavedra, F. (2013). Interaction et Intercompréhension : une approche comparative homme-homme, animal-homme-machine, homme-machine. Bruxelles: E.M.E.Google Scholar
  25. Griffin, D. (1977). In T. Sebeok (Ed.), How animals communicate (p. 29). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Guyomarc’h, J.-C. (1980). Abrégé d’éthologie (p. 1980). Paris: Masson.Google Scholar
  27. Lorenz, K. (1967). Évolution et Modification du comportement: l’inné et l’acquis. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
  28. Machamer, P. (2009). Learning, neuroscience, and the return of behaviorism. In J. Bickle (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy and neuroscience (p. 175). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Morin, E. (Ed.). (1974). L’Unité de l’homme : invariants biologiques et universaux culturels. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
  30. Moss, C. (1989). La Longue Marche des éléphants. Paris: Robert Laffont.Google Scholar
  31. Nissani, M. (2006). Do Asian elephants (Elephasmaximus) apply causal reasoning to tool-use tasks? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 32(1), 91–96.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Passelegue, P. (2009). Épidémiologie des hyperattachements. In C. Béata (Ed.), Zoopsychiatrie : L’attachement (pp. 71–76). Solal Éditeurs: Marseille.Google Scholar
  33. Pepperberg, I. (1999). Alex studies. Cognitive and communicative abilities of grey parrot. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Premack, A. J., & Premack, D. (1972). Teaching language to an ape. Scientific American, 227(4), 92–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Prior, H., Schwarz, A., & Güntürkün, O. (2008). Mirror-induced behavior in the magpie (Pica pica): Evidence of self-recognition. PLoS Biology, 6, e202. Scholar
  36. Pruetz, J. D. (2011). Targeted helping by a wild adolescent male chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes verus): Evidence for empathy? Journal of Ethology, 29, 365–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rattasepp, S. (2018). The human mirror. A critique of the philosophical discourse on animals from the position of multispecies semiotics. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rosenthal, R. (1970). Le préjugé du maître et l’apprentissage de l’élève. Revue française de pédagogie, 13, 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ryabov, V. A. (2016). The study of acoustic signals and the supposed spoken language of the dolphin. St. Petersburg Polytechnical University Journal: Physics and Mathematics, 2(3), 231–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sebeok, T. A. (1976). Studies in semiotics: Contributions to the doctrine of signs. Bloomington: Indiana university press.Google Scholar
  41. Sebeok, T. (Ed.). (1977). How animals communicate. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Smith, A. (Yankelovich, D.). (1972). Supermoney. New York: Popular Library.Google Scholar
  43. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1989). La pertinence: communication et cognition. Paris: les Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
  44. Terrace, H. S. (1987). Nim. New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
  45. Velmezova, E. (2018). About the (semiotic) limits of the human language: Discussing the case of Pirahã. Sign Systems Studies, 46(2/3), 392–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. von Uexküll, J. (1934). Mondes animaux et monde humain. Théorie de la signification. Paris: Denoël.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pauline Delahaye
    • 1
  1. 1.Paris-Sorbonne UniversityParisFrance

Personalised recommendations