Zoosemiotics

They way humans communicate with each other is what defines the species. Language is the ultimate manifestation of the mind. In it, one can see the mind’s structure, operation, capabilities, and limits. It reflects how an individual perceives the world. It shows how the human mind groups these perceptions into categories. It displays, with each language variety, how cultures adapt to different environments by different patterns of communication. Through language, the human species has been able to retain and build upon the vast body of knowledge throughout human history. Through communication, the species has dominated the planet and forever changed the face of it. Language has not only been the showcase of the human mind, but also its primary tool. “Zoosemiotics” is the term Thomas Sebeok coined to describe the study of how
animals perceive and communicate the world. For Sebeok, the field would span the
disciplines of linguistics, biology, cognitive science, and others to produce some of the
most important studies of the future (Sebeok 1972). Zoosemiotics would answer such
questions as: What is possessed in the animal mind? Is there pre-linguistic logic which
language is a by-product of or is language the foundation of semiosis and logical
thought? What is the nature of animal communication and what makes human
communication unique? The field has wide implications.
Throughout the last century, most chimpanzee research with respect to language
ability have focused on imposing human created language systems onto chimpanzees.
First, chimps were trained to use their own vocal apparatuses to produce human words.
One chimp was able to say the words “papa” and “cup”, yet was unable, physically, to
phonetically produce anything more complex (Furness 1916). Later, chimpanzees were
taught versions of American Sign Language in hopes that, without the physical
limitations, they would communicate fluently. On this, they were far more successful.
They even paralleled, in some respects, the early phrasing patterns of human children
(Gardner 1975). Yet, in all of these sign language studies, the chimps were not able to
grasp the proper syntax of human language. Their grammar was descriptively adequate at
best. Perhaps the most impressive of these studies were those involving “lexigrams”, a
table of arbitrary symbols which could be constructed to form phrases. A bonobo named
Kanzi showed remarkable ability to learn and create phrases out of this lexigram (even
embedding clauses). Kanzi showed an ability to understand grammatical relationships
and to communicate using them (Rumbaugh 1994).
The problem with all of this type of language research is that it is truly not a fair
or accurate assessment of a chimpanzee’s natural ability or tendency toward a complex
communication system. The researchers in these studies are training chimps to perform
tasks that are created by human agency and not present in the natural chimpanzee world.
The chimps involved will never be able to measure up to what human beings can do.
They become novelties which are judged on how human-like they can act, a goal which
will always fall short. It is the equivalent of a chimpanzee teaching a human being to pant
hoot. To the chimpanzee researcher, the human will never sound enough like a
chimpanzee to be mistaken for one.
Why, instead, isn’t the focus on what the chimpanzees are doing in their own
worlds, in their own terms? Why not look to how the chimpanzees are communicating
with each other and analyze that? It would seem a far more powerful account of
chimpanzee communication to study what they are saying and what they are doing
without the interference of human researchers or the imposition of human communication
systems. Why not study them as chimpanzees instead of lesser humans?
Zoosemiotics has wide implications in the field of linguistics. By exploring how
animals communicate without the use of language, we can get a feel for the importance of
language in the human species. Is there semiosis without language? Is there pre-linguistic
logic? In the case of primate communication, what is the evolutionary root of our own
language ability? Can we find a generative grammar in another species communication
patterns? Are there “dialects” in the vocal communication of other species? Are
vocalizations ever learned in the animal world or are they always genetic? If they are
learned, what then do we use to define “language”. What makes a chimpanzee, with
learned, population-specific, vocalizations different from humans with language? All of
these questions can be answered by zoosemiotics. Zoosemiotics studies not only the
process of how other species communicate but also the means in which other animals
perceive the world.
Zoosemiotics can be useful in assessing the complexities of the closest relative to
the human species, the chimpanzee. Primate communication systems are extremely
complex. Group-specific vocalizations show a degree of arbitrariness in another animal’s
communication system. Just what is being communicated through these vocalizations?
Are there, in fact, phonemes in the vocalizations which can be combined to create several
different meanings? If this is the case, is there a universal grammar in chimpanzee
communication? Do chimpanzees have their own x-bar parameters which are subject to
the population specific vocalization structure they are born into? At this point the line
must be clearly defined as to what features make human vocal communication a language
and leaves out the group-specific communications of chimpanzees.
The study of chimpanzee communication then opens the door to other species. If
certain language abilities are shared between humans and chimpanzees, what is then
shared between chimpanzees and other species. Why did chimpanzees and humans need
to evolve the capabilities to pass down vocalizations to successive generations?
Semiotic perceptions are how the brain can make sense of the world around it.
When one sees a chair, he is automatically categorizing the perception into a sign. That
sign is “chair”. In doing this, he creates a family of like-perceptions - a family of chair
perceptions. These signs allow the mind to understand the properties of what is perceived
by relating them to other similar perceptions. In this, the individual is able to relate to his
perceptions. He can make abstract analyses about them. He can imagine them without
them being there. He can create using these semiotic perceptions as a model. For
example, one can build a chair. This is all part of our semiotic ability.
How, exactly, are other species perceiving the world? Are these other animals
perceiving the world without the benefit of language? When they are communicating, are
they communicating a semiotic perception or are they just communicating a genetic
response? When bees are dancing to communicate the whereabouts of pollen to other
bees, is there a semiotic perception going on or is it merely genetic programming? If
other animals have the ability for semiotic perception, can they relate to the world in a
similar way a humans can?
Zoosemiotics is the all encompassing field which can explore the answers to these
questions. When science can begin to look at other animals on their own terms, to see
what they are doing in their own world without human interference, an exploration into
this enormous world may begin. As Thomas Sebeok pointed out, language is a very small
part of semiotics (Sebeok 1991).