Philosophical zoosemiotics

Human homo sapiens sapiens sapiens languages (such as English, etc.) are characterized for having a double articulation (in the characterization of French linguist André Martinet).

It means that complex linguistic expressions can be broken down in meaningful elements (such as morphemes and words), which in turn are composed of smallest phonetic elements that affect meaning, called phonemes.

Animal signals, however, do not exhibit this dual structure.

In general, animal utterances are responses to external stimuli, and do not refer to matters removed in time and space.

Plants are even more dependent on the environment, and they even can't (Kant -- Grice spells this) move.

Matters of relevance at a distance, such as distant food sources, tend to be indicated to other individuals by body language instead, for example wolf activity before a hunt, or the information conveyed in honeybee dance language.

It is therefore unclear to what extent utterances are automatic responses and to what extent deliberate intent plays a part.

Human language is largely learned culturally, while animal communication systems are known largely by instinct and reflexes. What Grice calls 'nonvoluntary'.

In contrast to human language, animal communication systems are usually not able to express conceptual generalizations. (Cetaceans and some primates may be notable exceptions).

Human languages combine elements to produce new messages (a property known as creativity).

One factor in this is that much human language growth is based upon conceptual ideas and hypothetical structures, both being far greater capabilities in humans than animals.

This appears far less common in animal communication systems, although current research into animal culture is still an ongoing process with many new discoveries.

A recent and interesting area of development is the discovery that the use of syntax in language, and the ability to produce "sentences", is not limited to humans either.

The first good evidence of syntax in non-humans, reported[12] in 2006, is from the greater spot-nosed monkey

Cercopithecus nictitans

of Nigeria.

This is the first evidence that some animals can take discrete units of communication, and build them up into a sequence which then carries a different meaning from the individual "words":

The putty-nosed monkeys have two main alarm sounds.

A sound known onomatopoeiacally as the

pyow

warns against a lurking leopard, and a coughing sound that scientists call a

hack

is used when an eagle is hovering nearby.

Observationally and experimentally we have demonstrated that this sequence [of up to three 'pyows' followed by up to four 'hacks'] serves to elicit group movement.

p p p h


the 'pyow-hack' sequence means something like "let's go!" [a command telling others to move]...

p h

h h p

p p h

h h p h

etc.

The implications are that primates at least may be able to ignore the usual relationship between an individual alarm call, and the meaning it might convey under certain circumstances.

To our knowledge this is the first good evidence of a syntax-like natural communication system in a non-human species.

Similar results have also recently been reported in the Campbell's Mona Monkey[13]