Abstract
Anthropological Zoosemiotics represents the zoosemioticians’ contribution to the dicussion of the most critical topic in all studies concerning nature: the problem of the approach. Before starting any kind of discussion on other living forms, we should ask ourselves how to approach them. Is it possible, as humans, to study them in an adequate way? Are we able to observe other animals without being conditioned by a human interpretation of reality? Questions concerning the approach arise whenever zoosemiotic issues are discussed, and – as seen in Chapter 2, with the paragraph “Emic vs. Etic” – are unavoidable also at the level of Ethological Zoosemiotics. However, if in that case the question mostly requires biological (scientific in the strict sense) investigations, in AZ the problem appears in two clearly distinguished guises.
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.
To mention one, a similar discourse was made about the term “music” (Martinelli 2002: 147–63).
- 2.
Even in strictly taxonomic terms, consensus is not global. Some cultures, for instance, refer to cetaceans as fish, rather than mammals.
- 3.
Note that “frutti” is the Italian word for “fruit”.
- 4.
In Aristotelian terms, such a definition would be constituted by the so-called necessary and sufficient features, and it would be characterized by a closed category of the term, exactly like in a dictionary: I call “animal” always and only a concept provided with the features x, y and z. Just y and z would not be enough, and w, x, y and z would be too much.
- 5.
Such an affirmation implies Sebeok’s conviction that scientific experiments involving a trainer-trainee emotional relation are not serious. In this book, the issue will actually be approached in a different way.
- 6.
As already mentioned, a specific discourse on practical ethics will instead be proposed in Chapter 5 of this companion.
- 7.
Apologies for insisting on this point, but it really is the core of the matter, and there should be no misunderstanding whatsoever, in any of the topics discussed in this book. It seems this is the lesson semiotics is most resistant to learn.
- 8.
It will probably upset many colleagues that the reflections that will follow from now on are slightly, or sometimes openly, critical towards that part of Sebeok’s work that discussed ICE and CHE. Although within the rules of academic discussion there is never a need to justify these action, one should still remind how crucial every single theoretical formulation or reflection that Sebeok produced was for the development of zoosemiotics (and this whole book proves it). The fact that (very humbly) one portion of his work is criticized should only be read in the direction of encouraging a discussion that he himself activated.
- 9.
The hypertext of “people, paths and ideas” related to ICE is best started with the entry “Interspecific communication experiments”.
- 10.
I will never forget a lecture on the subject, given by one of the greatest living semioticians, in which subjects and methodologies of different ICE were quoted at absolute random: Washoe, who was trained with American Sign Language, was reported to have communicated with lexigrams (which, in reality, was the case with another chimpanzee, Lana); Koko, a gorilla, was quoted as a chimpanzee; and still Washoe, who was trained by Allen and Beatrix Gardner and Roger Fouts, was reported to have been trained by Herbert Terrace (who, in reality, was training another chimpanzee, Nim Chimpsky). Nobody is asking for indisputable precision, of course, but how seriously can we take – say – a musicologist who, during a lecture, claimed that Hey Jude was written by the Rolling Stones; Jimi Hendrix was the drummer for Led Zeppelin; and Abba was a German duo? (Martinelli 2006a). And, it must be feared, it is no coincidence that the only ICE scholar mentioned in that occasion was Herbert Terrace, since he is the one who was most often mentioned by Sebeok in his writings. Unfortunately, one has to infer that that lecture was exclusively based on second-hand material.
- 11.
A most remarkable exception to this rule is represented by Felice Cimatti, who indeed should not be considered a Sebeokian or a Peircean (his theoretical bases deriving more from the likes of Jakobson, Gozzano and others), and whose book Mente e linguaggio negli animali (1998) is a rather distinct case in the entire semiotic panorama. A short look at his list of references easily proves that Cimatti did his homework on Savage-Rumbaugh, Premack, Pepperberg & co. very well and accurately.
- 12.
See the extremely interesting Evans (1906).
- 13.
Which is 47, for the record.
- 14.
Possibly, a typical and evident display would be the opening of the eyes and mouth.
- 15.
This being said it with no negative connotation whatsoever. Only the greatest scholars become academic saints.
- 16.
As a general rule, not only in Gardners’ case, no visitor is allowed inside the enclosures where chimpanzees are kept. Chimpanzees are some seven times stronger than humans, and they also have denser bones and thicker skin. In most instances of interactions, chimpanzees must restrain themselves to avoid hurting humans. When playing, chimpanzees normally throw, slap and playbite each other. However, if these actions elicit laughter among them, a human would be seriously hurt. The fact that they may master a bit of human language, unfortunately does not mean that they will use rethorics and diplomacy when the situation becomes critical.
- 17.
The mentioned scholars are also the ones who have the greater media exposure.
- 18.
An entire chapter of Roger Fouts’ beautiful best-seller Next of Kin is devoted to the cruel conditions in which Washoe had to live during the period she moved from the Gardners’ house in Nevada, to William Lemmon’s laboratory in Oklahoma.
- 19.
For an extensive description of the concept of variation in zoomusicology, see Martinelli 2009: 145–53)
- 20.
The discussion on instinct should not end with this note, as the abuse of the notion is a real threat to scientific inquiry. Scholars should take a very critical approach towards those colleagues who so easily refer to this black box. In general, every application of the notion of instinct to complex multi-phased actions should be forbidden or accepted only if very convincingly and empirically motivated: it is all too easy to open the black box and put in processes and actions that we are not able to explain otherwise. Except that this is not science: it is much closer to religion. What is the difference between explaining a complex phenomenon with the existence of instinct and explaining it with the existence of God? And why not aliens? It is necessary to be very firm on this also because in order to protect the notion of instinct itself from massive trivialization. There is a number of human and non-human phenomena that originate at a pre-cognitive level and produce an actual physical action. But if one wants to make sense out of these instances, they first of all must be circumscribed: extemporaneous escape from danger, movements supporting physiological needs, innate competencies on immediate parental care … This is what should be called “instinct”. Hunting strategies, elaborate parental care, establishment of social relations… if one calls those instances “instinct”, there is no real need for any ethologist or zoosemiotician. A priest is enough.
References
Cimatti F (1998) Mente e linguaggio negli animali. Carrocci, Roma
Hill JH (1980) Apes and language. In: Sebeok TA, Umiker-Sebeok J (eds) Speaking of apes. Plenum, New York
Ingold T (1988) What is an animal? Unwin Hyman, London
Richard B (1967) Le determinisme de la construction des barrages chez le castor du Rhone. La Terre et la Vie 4:339–470
Mainardi D (ed) (1992) Dizionario di etologia. Einaudi, Torino
Evans EP (1906) The criminal prosecution and capital punishment of animals. Faber & Faber, London
Sebeok TA (2001b) The Swiss pioneer in nonverbal communication Studies: Heini Hediger (1908–1992) Legas, New York
Battaglia L (1997) Etica e diritti degli animali. Laterza, Bari-Roma
Bateson G (1969) Metalogue: what is an instinct? In: Sebeok T, Ramsay, A (eds) Approaches to animal communication. Mouton, The Hague, pp 11–30
Mainardi D (1975) L’animale culturale. Rizzoli, Milano
Wittgenstein L (1978) Philosophical investigations. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Regan T (1983) The case for animal rights. Routledge, London
Sebeok TA, Umiker-Sebeok J (eds) (1980) Speaking of apes. Plenum, New York
Sebeok TA (1990) Essays in zoosemiotics. Toronto Semiotic Circle, Toronto
Fisher JA (1990) The myth of anthropomorphism. In: Bekoff M, Jamieson D (eds) Interpretation and explanation in the study of animal behaviour. Westview, Boulder, CO, pp 96–116
Sebeok TA (1996) Signs, bridges, origins. In: Trabant J (ed) Origins of language. Collegium Budapest, Budapest
Patterson FG (1978) The gestures of a gorilla: language acquisition in another pongid. Brain Lang 5:72–97
MacCannell D (1976) The tourist: a new theory of the leisure class. Schocken Books, New York
Von Glasersfeld E (1978) Les chimpanzés et le langage. La Recherche 9:725–732
Sebeok TA, Danesi M (2000) The forms of meaning. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin
Gardner AR, Gardner BT (1969) Teaching sign language to a chimpanzee. Science 165:664–672
Gardner AR, Gardner BT, Van Cantfort TE (eds) (1989) Teaching sign language to a chimpanzee. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY
Trask RL (1995) Language: the basics. Routledge, London
Patterson F, Linden E (1981) The education of Koko. Holt, Rineheart and Winston, New York
Greimas A (1987) On meaning: selected writings in semiotic theory. Frances Pinter, London
Sebeok TA (1998) Come comunicano gli animali che non parlano. Edizioni dal Sud, Modugno
Masson JM, McCarthy S (1995) When elephants weep: the emotional lives of animals. Delacorte, New York
Cavalieri P (1999) La questione animale. Bollati Boringhieri, Torino
Bateson G (1972) Steps to an ecology of mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
Martinelli D (2002) How musical is a whale? – towards a theory of zoömusicology. International Semiotics Institute, Helsinki/Imatra
Hediger H (1968) The psychology and behavior of animals in zoos and circuses. Dover, New York
Hockett CF (1960b) Logical considerations in the study of animal communication. In: Lanyon W, Tavolga WN (eds) Animal sounds and communication. American Institute of Biological Sciences, Washington, pp 392–430
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Martinelli, D. (2010). Anthropological Zoosemiotics. In: A Critical Companion to Zoosemiotics:. Biosemiotics, vol 5. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9249-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9249-6_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9248-9
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-9249-6
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)