The zoosemiotic is a branch of the Zoologie and Sémiotique which studies the animal communication, except for that of the Homme. This aspect as for him is studied by the Anthroposémiotique.

The zoosémiotique one is an important part of the ethology who studies the animal behavior as a whole, but also of the Sociobiologie and the study of the animal Intelligence.

The animal communication can take many forms which are as well visual, that olfactive/chemical, which acoustic or tactile.

It intervenes at many key times of the life of an animal and can affect its behavior. This communication can as well be inter-species as intra-species.

The existence of an animal language

The animal language is a complex question to know at which point the animals have capacities of communication close to the human language.

It was a bitterly discussed question and today it reaches a consensus among the researchers working on this question, to say that the human language is more complex than any form of animal communication.

Principles

In order to study this question, one initially sought to know which were the fundamental properties of the language. One can in particular release:

  • the arbitrary one of the sign: there is no bond between a sound and its significance (this arbitrarity is reduced in the case of the Onomatopée S).
  • cultural transmission: the use of a language is transmitted from generation to generation spontaneously.
  • discretivity: the language is composed of discrete units which combined create the significance.
  • the displacement: the language can be used to convey ideas on things which are not present spatially or temporally.
  • duality.
  • metalinguistics: we are able to speak about the language itself.
  • the productivity: starting from a finished number of words, we are able to create an infinity of sentences.

Animal communication and human language

In 1952, the linguist Emile Benveniste publishes an article in Diogène , entitled “animal Communication and human language”. This article is a reaction to the discoveries fundamental (and very modern for the time) of the zoologist Karl von Frisch on the communication of the bees.

The Swiss linguist analyzes the differences between the “language” of the bees and that of the human ones. The stake is considerable, since it is a question of knowing if the human being has, from a linguistic point of view, similar about ground:

“for the first time we can represent the operation of “animal language an”. It can be useful to briefly mark in what it is or it is not a language, and how these observations on the bees help to define, by resemblance or contrast, the human language. ”

The differences raised by benvenist are the following ones:

  • “the message of the bees consists entirely in the dance, without intervention of “a vocal” apparatus, whereas there is no message without voice” (this difference is undoubtedly the only contestable one among all those raised, the vocal system being only one system like another; however to or not know if the Langue of the signs is a language is another - and very length - debate);

  • “the message of the bees does not call any answer of the entourage, if not a certain control, which is not an answer”: the Dialog (and the Intersubjectivité which is essential for him) are a condition of the language;
  • “the message of a bee cannot be reproduced by others”: the function Métalinguistique of the language is ignored bees;
  • “in the human language, the symbol in general does not configure the data of the experiment”: the sign in the bees is not arbitrary since there is correspondence between the quantity of dances and the distance from the flower;
  • “the message of the bees is not let analyze”: there is no Morphologie “language” of the bees. In the human language, “a rather reduced number of porphèmes allows a considerable number of combinations, from which is born the variety from the human language, which is capacity all to say”.

The “language” of the bees is thus only one capacity to be communicated, but neither to answer, neither to bring back another message, nor still to manufacture an infinity of it.

In the Diagram of Jakobson, the bees know the referential function of the communication. They do not know really the conative function since there is not possibility of lialogist, and not of attention to the other individuals (if not on the hive as a whole). The bees are unaware of the phatic function since they do not check that the contact takes place well; they are unaware of also the functions metalinguistics and expressive since they can neither speak about them nor to speak about the language. The difference with the human language is thus considerable. benvenist concludes the article while noticing: “It is not the least interest of not discovered K. von Frisch, in addition to the revelations that they bring to us on the world of the insects, to indirectly clarify the conditions of the human language and the symbolism which it supposes”.

Studied examples

Also let us note that one studies much the Perroquet S and Mainate S because they are practically the only animals with being able to be expressed in our language, which is a key asset when one tries to include/understand theirs…

Examples of attempts at training of the language

  • Washoe : first attempt at training of the American Sign Language in a chimpanzee.
  • Nim Chimsky : second attempt.
  • Kanzi : bonobo having aptitudes for the language.
  • Koko : gorilla speaking the sign language.
  • Alex the parrot: parrot having a wide vocabulary and including/understanding the concept of zero.
  • Hans malignant the: horse which one believed that it could count (what appeared false…)
  • Kisi: parrot.

References

Random links:Jacques-Cartier college | Telebreaker | Platylophus galericulatus | Dindéfelo | Lake Alaotra