Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In this case, it was a scientific recording for teaching purposes. Part of this recording can be found on the website of the Gorilla Foundation, under the title of “All Ball”.
References
Alexeev, A., et al. (Eds.). (2017). Questions Actuelles de la Neurophilosophie (translation from Russian title). Moscou: IINTELL.
Béata, C. (Ed.). (2009). Zoopsychiatrie : L’attachement. Marseille: Solal Editeurs.
Bekoff, M. (2009). Les émotions des animaux. Paris: Éditions Payot & Rivages.
Bertier, J. (1994). Histoire des animaux : Traduction, présentation et notes. Paris: Gallimard.
Bickle, J. (Ed.). (2009). The Oxford handbook of philosophy and neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford university press.
Bodamer, M., & Gardner, A. (2002). How cross-fostered chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) initiate and maintain conversations. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 116(1), 12–26.
Boesch, C. (2007). What makes us human (Homo sapiens)? The challenge of cognitive cross-species comparison. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121, 227–240.
Bradshaw, I. G. (2004). Not by bread alone: Symbolic loss, trauma, and recovery in elephant communities. Society and Animals, 12(2), 143–158.
Chamayou, G. (1999). L’essai “contre placebo” et le charlatanisme. Pour la science, 38, 14–17.
Christen, Y. (2011). L’Animal est-il une personne ? Barcelone: Flammarion.
Danchin, E., Giraldeau, L.-A., & Cézilly, F. (Eds.). (2005). Écologie comportementale: cours et questions de réflexion. Paris: Dunod.
Darwin, C. (1872). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. Londres: John Murray.
de Fontenay, E. (1998). Le Silence des bêtes. Lonrai: Fayard.
De Waal, F. (2013). Le Bonobo, Dieu et nous. Lonrai: Les Liens qui Libèrent.
De Waal, F., & Robert, M. (2002). De la réconciliation chez les primates. Paris: Flammarion.
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.
Despret, V. (2009). Il est temps d’en finir avec Harlow. In C. Béata (Ed.), Zoopsychiatrie : L’attachement (p. 13). Marseille: Solal Editeurs.
Forsberg, N., Burley, M., & Hämäläinen, N. (Eds.). (2012). Language, ethics and animal life. New York: Bloomsbury.
Fouts, R., & Mills, S. T. (1998). L’école des chimpanzés: ce que les chimpanzés nous apprennent sur l’humanité. Paris: J. C. Lattès.
Fouts, R., & Rigby, R. (1977). In T. Sebeok (Ed.), How animals communicate (p. 1049). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
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.
Gallup, G. G. (1977). Self-recognition in primates: A comparative approach to the bidirectional properties of consciousness. American Psychologist, 32, 329–338.
Gardner, A. R., & Gardner, B. T. (1969). Teaching sign language to a chimpanzee. Science, 165(3894), 664–672.
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.
Griffin, D. (1977). In T. Sebeok (Ed.), How animals communicate (p. 29). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Guyomarc’h, J.-C. (1980). Abrégé d’éthologie (p. 1980). Paris: Masson.
Lorenz, K. (1967). Évolution et Modification du comportement: l’inné et l’acquis. Paris: Payot.
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.
Morin, E. (Ed.). (1974). L’Unité de l’homme : invariants biologiques et universaux culturels. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
Moss, C. (1989). La Longue Marche des éléphants. Paris: Robert Laffont.
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.
Passelegue, P. (2009). Épidémiologie des hyperattachements. In C. Béata (Ed.), Zoopsychiatrie : L’attachement (pp. 71–76). Solal Éditeurs: Marseille.
Pepperberg, I. (1999). Alex studies. Cognitive and communicative abilities of grey parrot. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Premack, A. J., & Premack, D. (1972). Teaching language to an ape. Scientific American, 227(4), 92–99.
Prior, H., Schwarz, A., & Güntürkün, O. (2008). Mirror-induced behavior in the magpie (Pica pica): Evidence of self-recognition. PLoS Biology, 6, e202. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060202.
Pruetz, J. D. (2011). Targeted helping by a wild adolescent male chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes verus): Evidence for empathy? Journal of Ethology, 29, 365–368.
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.
Rosenthal, R. (1970). Le préjugé du maître et l’apprentissage de l’élève. Revue française de pédagogie, 13, 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.
Sebeok, T. A. (1976). Studies in semiotics: Contributions to the doctrine of signs. Bloomington: Indiana university press.
Sebeok, T. (Ed.). (1977). How animals communicate. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Smith, A. (Yankelovich, D.). (1972). Supermoney. New York: Popular Library.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1989). La pertinence: communication et cognition. Paris: les Éditions de Minuit.
Terrace, H. S. (1987). Nim. New York: Columbia University.
Velmezova, E. (2018). About the (semiotic) limits of the human language: Discussing the case of Pirahã. Sign Systems Studies, 46(2/3), 392–397.
von Uexküll, J. (1934). Mondes animaux et monde humain. Théorie de la signification. Paris: Denoël.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Delahaye, P. (2019). Strengths and Flaws of Ethological and Biological Methodology. In: A Semiotic Methodology for Animal Studies. Biosemiotics, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28813-6_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28813-6_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-28812-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-28813-6
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)