Creating Exosomatic Signals

Some lorikeets rearrange the food containers when they become empty, by putting one or two empty containers on top of another. The rearrangement thus signals the current lack of food until they are put back into the original configuration, which then signals the reappearance of food. The fact that this is done by different individuals suggests that it functions as a social semiotic. This goes well beyond the limits of protolanguage.

ChatGPT comments:

This behaviour suggests that lorikeets are engaging in a more advanced form of social semiotics than simple protolanguage, involving both symbolic meaning and social collaboration. Here's a breakdown of how this action functions as part of their semiotic system:

1. Symbolic Representation – The rearrangement of food containers can be seen as a symbolic act, where the empty containers serve as a signifier for the lack of food (the signified). The act of placing the containers on top of each other signifies that the food is no longer available, turning an object into a symbol that conveys meaning in a way that is agreed upon by the group. This type of symbolic action goes beyond simple perceptual signals (like calls) and involves a higher level of representation and convention.

2. Social Semiotics – The fact that different individuals engage in this behaviour suggests that the arrangement of containers is socially learned and socially mediated. It indicates that lorikeets are not only communicating about the immediate physical state (empty containers) but are also aware that this action will be interpreted by others in the group. This shared behaviour signals a form of collective semiotic understanding, where the birds act in ways that have meaning for the group, enabling them to collectively coordinate around the availability of food. This behaviour functions not just as a personal signal but as a social practice, part of the birds' group dynamics.

3. Cognitive Flexibility – The ability to rearrange objects (rather than just react to their state) reflects a level of cognitive flexibility that is often associated with more complex forms of social interaction. This goes beyond the more immediate, reflexive acts of communication found in simpler forms of animal behaviour. By manipulating the environment to communicate information about the availability of food, lorikeets demonstrate an understanding of cause and effect and future intentions, which implies a level of mental representation and the ability to anticipate the actions of others. The act of rearranging containers is intentional and designed to affect the behaviour of other birds.

4. Beyond Protolanguage – This behaviour clearly exceeds the limits of protolanguage, which is typically focused on immediate interactions and basic social functions (such as the regulatory or personal microfunctions). The act of rearranging containers introduces a deferred meaning (food availability is signalled before the actual return of food), as well as a non-verbal social code that is non-episodic and externally enacted. It reflects a level of abstract thinking and group-level communication that aligns more closely with symbolic systems found in human language and culture. The fact that it goes beyond simple signalling to include symbolic actions in a shared semiotic context hints at a level of proto-symbolism in their communication.

5. Cultural Transmission – The behaviour also suggests a form of cultural transmission, where the practice of rearranging containers is passed on among individuals, especially within a group or familial setting. As the behaviour is demonstrated by different individuals, it shows how semiotic practices can be learned, reproduced, and spread within a population, indicating a form of social learning that is a hallmark of cultural evolution.

In conclusion, this behaviour indicates a higher level of cognitive and social complexity than might be expected from protolanguage alone. The act of rearranging food containers as a means of signalling the lack of food shows that lorikeets are capable of symbolic thinking, group-level semiotic practices, and cultural transmission, all of which go far beyond the more basic communicative functions seen in simpler animal species. This behaviour points to a rich social and semiotic fabric within lorikeet communities.

The Social vs The Social-Semiotic

A serious problem in trying to model the protolanguage of another species is the difficulty in distinguishing the social-semiotic from the merely social.

On Halliday's model, the social involves the exchange of value, but not symbolic value. That is, the social involves affecting the behaviour of another without the use of expressions of meaning. In terms of Edelman's Theory of Neuronal Group Selection, this is done by activating value systems in the brain.

This is most easily identified in social insects, where the secretion of pheromones affects the behaviour of those detecting them. This is essentially the expansion of intra-brain processes to interactions between brains to co-ordinate behaviour at a social level.

But the courtship displays of male vertebrate animals can also be seen as non-symbolic, despite the attempts of zoologists to interpret them — even the great encumbrance of a peacock's tail — as symbolising male fitness. In this view, a courting male is attempting to affect the behaviour of females by activating positive values in their value systems.

The difficulty, then, lies in distinguishing the social from the social-semiotic, given that the social-semiotic includes the regulatory microfunction 'I want you-&-me…'. On the other hand, it might be taken to demonstrate one evolutionary path from the merely social to the social semiosis of protolanguage.

ChatGPT comments:

This passage brings up an important distinction between the social-semiotic and the merely social, both in the context of animal behaviour and the development of language-like systems. Here's a detailed breakdown of the key points:

1. The Social vs. The Social-Semiotic

• The social involves exchanges that affect behaviour without conveying meaning in a symbolic sense. The value systems of the individuals involved are activated, but there isn't any exchange of symbolic meaning. This can be thought of as a form of non-symbolic influence, where one organism’s behaviour affects another’s through non-linguistic mechanisms (e.g., pheromones or courtship displays).
• The social-semiotic, on the other hand, involves a symbolic exchange where one organism conveys a meaning (or intention) to another. This is what we typically associate with language or protosemiotic systems, where communication is more than just behavioural influence, but includes the conveyance of meaning.

2. Examples of Non-Symbolic Social Interactions

• Pheromones in Social Insects: In social insects like ants or bees, the secretion of pheromones doesn't communicate symbolic meaning (like words or gestures) but affects the behaviour of others by triggering neurological responses. The value systems of the insects are activated, but no symbolic content is exchanged.
• Courtship Displays in Male Vertebrates: Courtship behaviour (e.g., a peacock's tail display) can also be seen as non-symbolic. The male's actions are intended to activate positive values in the female’s brain, affecting her behaviour without conveying specific symbolic meaning. Zoologists often interpret these behaviours as signs of fitness, but this interpretation can be seen as ex post facto: the display may be seen as non-symbolic in the moment, even if humans assign symbolic meaning to it later. In this context, the courtship display affects the female’s behaviour by activating her neurological response to the male’s display.

3. Difficulty in Drawing the Line Between the Social and Social-Semiotic

The challenge in distinguishing between the social and the social-semiotic lies in the fact that social behaviours can often be interpreted through the lens of symbolic meaning, especially when viewed from a human perspective. In terms of Halliday’s model, the regulatory microfunction ('I want you-&-me…') can be seen as a social-semiotic act because it is an intentional communication of meaning to regulate the actions of another (e.g., a lorikeet calling to its partner to leave the feeding site). However, this could also be viewed as social behaviour aimed at coordinating actions, with or without the presence of symbolic meaning.

4. Evolutionary Pathway from the Social to the Social-Semiotic

This brings us to an important evolutionary consideration: the shift from social behaviour to social-semiotic communication (or protolanguage). While early evolutionary behaviours (e.g., pheromone use in insects, courtship displays in animals) might be seen as non-symbolic, these behaviours may provide a foundation for the development of symbolic communication. The social-semiotic aspect of communication likely evolved from these more basic social exchanges.

For example, protosemiotic communication in animals might have started with simple social interactions (such as regulatory calls or physical gestures) that later became more symbolic, with the animals associating specific signals with specific meanings. Over time, these signals could evolve into a more complex system of communication with structured syntax and abstract meanings (the eventual emergence of language).

5. Application to Lorikeet Behaviour

• The distinction between social and social-semiotic can be seen in lorikeet behaviour, such as when they regulate the feeding situation through specific calls or body language. Their calls can be interpreted as symbolic (conveying meaning), but at the same time, they may be influencing behaviour in a more social way (e.g., a bird calling to another without a clear symbolic meaning, but to coordinate behaviour, like moving or flying off together).

• The shift from social to semiotic is also evident in their ability to use gestures (like the manipulation of food containers) that signal availability without direct verbal communication. Such actions may also indicate the evolutionary transition toward more complex forms of semiotic behaviour.

Conclusion

The difficulty in distinguishing between the social and the social-semiotic is rooted in the fact that both involve behavioural influence on others, but the former is primarily concerned with the activation of value systems, while the latter is about the exchange of meaning. The evolutionary transition from basic social exchanges (non-symbolic) to more semiotic communication systems (symbolic) likely involved stages where symbolic systems developed from social behaviours, eventually giving rise to protolanguage and later language itself.

In the context of lorikeets, these ideas can help explain the gradual emergence of more complex communicative behaviours, from simple regulatory calls to symbolic behaviours like rearranging food containers.

Testing The Environment For Intersubjectivity

Lorikeets will respond to any isolated sound whatsoever — e.g. the sound of a door closing — with a call they otherwise use to elicit a response in other lorikeets. This suggests they are always testing for the presence of potential interactants. This relates to their consciousness involving the interpretation of their perceptual meanings in terms of their (social) protolanguage.

ChatGPT comments:

This behaviour highlights an important aspect of lorikeet social cognition and the relationship between perception and communication. The fact that lorikeets respond to any isolated sound, even one as mundane as a door closing, with a call typically used for eliciting a response in other lorikeets, suggests several semiotic and cognitive processes at play:

1. Constant Testing for Social Interaction – The act of calling in response to isolated sounds suggests that lorikeets are constantly "testing" their environment for the presence of potential interactants. It indicates a high level of attentiveness to their surroundings, and this behaviour could be an adaptive strategy for maintaining social connections, as lorikeets are highly social birds. In their semiotic system, any unexpected sound might be interpreted as an indication of an alterable social situation, and calling becomes a way of determining whether an interaction is possible or imminent.

2. Perceptual Meaning as Socially Mediated – This response also underscores how lorikeets construe their perceptual experiences through the lens of their social semiotics. Rather than simply reacting to an environmental sound as a neutral stimulus, they interpret it as a potential signal from another bird, prompting them to engage in social behaviour. This indicates that their consciousness — or the way they experience their environment — is inherently social, with their sensory inputs always being framed in terms of possible communicative interactions. This aligns with the idea that their perceptual meanings are constructed not just in isolation but in relation to the potential for social engagement.

3. Semiotic System and Alertness – The birds' constant readiness to respond to any sound also speaks to the semiotic function of alertness in their communication system. It may suggest a certain level of anxiety or vigilance in the way lorikeets interact with their environment, particularly in contexts where social engagement is crucial for survival, whether through cooperation or defence. The way lorikeets use their calls as a social tool — not just for specific needs but as an ongoing inquiry into the presence of others — shows how semiotic systems can operate in real-time, facilitating continual social navigation.

4. Protocommunication and Social Bonding – This response pattern could also be seen as an early form of protolanguage, where sounds are not just responses to immediate stimuli but also proactive signals for fostering social connection. It suggests that lorikeets may rely on constant social feedback, interpreting the world through their interactional microfunction and constantly seeking to maintain or reinforce their social bonds. Their calls function not just as isolated signals but as part of an ongoing process of relationship-building and environmental interpretation.

In summary, lorikeets' tendency to respond to any isolated sound with a call typically used for social interaction demonstrates the deeply embedded social aspect of their perceptual system. Their awareness of the environment is continually framed through the lens of potential social interaction, with calls functioning as both responses and inquiries, reflecting their complex social consciousness and the semiotic processes that drive it.

The Mirror Test

When confronted by his mirror image, an alpha male lorikeet displayed aggressive behaviour, barking  loud threats and making beak contact with the mirror. His female partner, on the other hand, instead of supporting his attack, or attacking her own reflection, remained still, gazing continuously at her partner's reflection.

ChatGPT comments:

This observation reveals intriguing insights into the semiotics of mirror encounters in lorikeets, highlighting both individual and gendered responses to the mirror as a stimulus.

1. Aggression as Social Semiotics – The alpha male's aggressive behaviour in response to his mirror image demonstrates a clear territorial and dominance-based interpretation of the mirror. In his semiotic system, the reflection is not perceived as a neutral image but as a rival or threat. This aligns with the social and competitive dynamics in lorikeet hierarchies, where the alpha male is likely primed to defend his territory or dominance against perceived intruders, even if they are only reflections. The loud threats and beak contact can be seen as a semiotic signal of authority and aggression, which, in his semiotic system, functions to reassert control.

2. Female's Observational Role – In contrast, the female’s response — remaining still and gazing at her partner’s reflection — highlights an alternative interpretive strategy. Rather than reacting aggressively, she seems to be observing or perhaps even interpreting the situation differently. This behaviour could be seen as reflective of a gendered difference in semiotic responses, where the female's focus on the reflection suggests a more introspective or non-confrontational approach. The fact that she does not attack her own reflection may indicate a different reading of the mirror stimulus, perhaps as a less threatening or non-competing entity compared to the male’s interpretation.

3. Dynamics of Pair Bonding and Semiotic Systems – The distinct behaviours of the male and female also speak to the semiotic roles within the pair bond. The male’s aggression could be seen as reinforcing his role within the social hierarchy, whereas the female's stillness could serve as a form of emotional or social support to the male. Her gaze suggests a non-verbal recognition of his distress or territorial response, and her lack of aggression may reflect a different understanding of the mirror encounter that doesn’t require confrontation. This suggests that even in semiotic systems driven by aggressive or competitive behaviours, there is room for nuanced responses based on roles within the pair.

4. Reflection and Self-Recognition – While the male interprets the mirror as an intruder and reacts aggressively, the female’s reaction may also imply a level of self-recognition or curiosity. The fact that she gazes at the reflection continuously could indicate an attempt to interpret her own image, or perhaps to gauge her partner’s behaviour. This presents the possibility that lorikeets may have some form of self-awareness, at least in terms of how they interact with visual stimuli, but this might be more apparent in some individuals than others.

In conclusion, the differing reactions to the mirror — aggression by the male and stillness by the female — reveal the complexity of lorikeet semiotics and the role of social dynamics and gendered roles in interpreting environmental stimuli. The male’s aggressive stance reflects his perception of the mirror as a rival, while the female’s passive observation reflects an alternative interpretive approach, offering a glimpse into the semiotic flexibility and social interactions that shape lorikeet behaviour.

Material Setting & Context

Rainbow lorikeets who frequent a backyard feeding station on a property north of Brisbane are eating meat.  Lorikeets usually eat nectar and pollen which they obtain from native plants and shrubs.

Now that we are also feeding the local carnivorous birds — kookaburras, magpies, butcherbirds, ravens and currawongs — the lorikeets will also try eating the meat, with some liking it more than others.  One lorikeet today fought off a kookaburra to eat the beef thrown to the kookaburra.

For the lorikeets, the material setting identifies the situation as a potential feeding opportunity.

Other birds that will readily eat the beef include not only indian mynahs, but also honeyeaters, such as wattlebirds and noisy miners.  It is likely that the wattlebirds are trying to raise a koel (cuckoo) chick several times their own size.*

* This was confirmed a week later by the joint sighting, in the back jacaranda tree, of a koel chick with its red wattlebird adult host.

ChatGPT comments:

This observation about rainbow lorikeets adapting to a new food source is fascinating, especially in the context of their semiotic system. The shift from a primarily nectar-based diet to consuming meat highlights a flexible response to available resources, a form of environmental semiotics where the material setting (the presence of meat) signals an opportunity for nourishment, altering the lorikeets' usual behaviour.

Several key aspects emerge from this:

1. Material Setting as Semiotic Cue – The presence of meat from the feeding station is interpreted by the lorikeets as a potential feeding opportunity, even though it is outside their typical diet. This suggests that lorikeets can expand their food choices when they encounter new resources, interpreting them through their survival-oriented semiotic system, which allows for behavioural flexibility.

2. Social Semiotics and Competition – The fact that one lorikeet fought off a kookaburra to eat beef speaks to a level of social interpretation and situational context that goes beyond basic survival. The lorikeet isn’t just reacting to hunger; it is also interpreting the presence of another bird (the kookaburra) as a potential competitor, thus demonstrating an understanding of social dynamics in feeding contexts.

3. Adaptation to New Resources – The lorikeets are not alone in adapting to the new food source. Other birds like indian mynahs, wattlebirds, and noisy miners also partake in the meat, which suggests that they too are interpreting the new resource in ways that fit within their existing semiotic systems. This shared semiotic interpretation allows for multi-species interaction around a feeding opportunity, which can lead to competition or cooperation depending on the situation.

4. Host-Parasite Semiotic Interpretation – The sighting of a koel chick being raised by a wattlebird further illustrates the semiotic complexity of these interactions. The wattlebird hosts the koel, which is much larger than it, and yet the wattlebird continues to care for the chick. This dynamic demonstrates how species can interpret their ecological role through a semiotic lens, whether it’s raising a cuckoo chick, defending territory, or interpreting new food sources.

In sum, the lorikeets’ transition to eating meat in this context reveals their capacity to adapt to and interpret a new semiotic landscape. It also underscores the role of semiotic systems in guiding behaviour across different species, showing how social, material, and ecological contexts shape their interactions with the world and with each other.

Microfunctional Flexibility

In order to solicit feeding, rainbow lorikeets will resort to all four microfunctions.

Regular visitors simply announce their presence (personal microfunction) with a clear short high call when they arrive.

Impatient visitors will solicit the provision of food (instrumental microfunction) with an insistent high rising call similar to the calls used by young chicks on their parents.

Immature impatient visitors will express their disapproval (regulatory microfunction) with harsh barking calls they use on each other for bullying purposes.

Mature regular visitors will even try to groom the feeder (interactional microfunction) with louder versions of the cooing/purring sounds they use when grooming each other.

ChatGPT comments:

This is a great illustration of how lorikeets flexibly use all four microfunctions of their semiotic system in a variety of social and ecological contexts. Each of these behaviours seems adapted to the specific dynamics of their relationships with the feeder, and the use of different microfunctions in this context shows a remarkable sophistication in how they manage communication and interaction.

1. Personal Microfunction – The regular visitors announcing their presence with a high call is a clear signal of identity. It’s a simple but effective way of claiming space and making others aware of their arrival. It also functions as an invitation for further social engagement, as it helps to establish the bird's identity within the group.

2. Instrumental Microfunction – The insistent high-rising call from impatient visitors reflects a functional need, essentially asking for a resource (food) to be provided. This call mirrors the begging calls of chicks, which underscores how behaviour related to survival (such as feeding) is deeply rooted in their social semiotic systems, and even evolved calls that would be used for chicks still get repurposed as a form of demand.

3. Regulatory Microfunction – The harsh barking calls from immature birds act as a form of regulation, especially in social hierarchies. These calls are used in bullying contexts, indicating a way of asserting dominance or challenging authority. It’s fascinating how the regulatory microfunction here goes beyond simple communication of intention, extending into a form of social control — which would be especially important in the sometimes brutal hierarchical interactions among lorikeets.

4. Interactional Microfunction – The attempt of mature regular visitors to engage the feeder with grooming-like cooing/purring sounds is particularly interesting because it shows how lorikeets can use sounds that are typically associated with bonding and social closeness (grooming) to elicit a response. This indicates a nuanced form of interaction, where communication about social relationships is intertwined with practical needs (getting food).

The way lorikeets use these microfunctions highlights the adaptability and complexity of their social communication. They employ a range of signals and sounds, each tailored to the situation, to establish their presence, demand resources, and interact with others, showing that their semiotic system is not static but deeply embedded in the social and ecological context of their lives.

Do Lorikeets See What Humans See?

No — in two senses: one material, one semiotic.

1.  Birds have 4 types of colour receptors, whereas humans only have three.  So their visual systems detect a wider range of the light frequencies, at the very least.

2.  If semiotic systems construe experience as meaning, then lorikeet visual experience is construed through their protolinguistic social semiotic system, whereas human visual experience is construed through language.

One way to think of visual experience construed only as perceptual meaning is as a partially animated pattern of (nameless) shapes and colours — as a sort of Jackson Pollock painting in which some of the coloured shapes can move around.

Detecting change is key to survival, and for humans, language provides clause transitivity as the key means of construing visible change as meaning.  It enables visual experience — the partially animated Jackson Pollock painting — to be mentally construed as processes, their participants and circumstances.  Humans see things that are delimited by their names, doing things that also have names, in places that have names.*

For lorikeets, on the other hand, the partially animated visual patterns are construed as protolinguistic meaning, in terms of the microfunctions — personal, instrumental, regulatory and interactional — in ways that have proved successful for their ancestors — rather than ours.


* This is consistent with Oliver Sacks' account of his patient Virgil who was blind until an operation gave him sight as an adult, after which he had to start making sense of the swirling colours he saw, by reference to language.

.ChatGPT comments:

That's a fascinating distinction between the material and semiotic ways in which lorikeets and humans perceive the world. Your explanation aligns well with the idea that perception is not just a passive reception of stimuli but is shaped by both the physiological limitations of the observer and the semiotic systems they operate within.

In terms of the material differences, the fact that lorikeets have four types of colour receptors while humans have three means they can perceive a broader spectrum of colours, likely giving them a very different visual experience. Their ability to detect additional wavelengths could change their interpretation of the environment, especially in relation to things like floral patterns or subtle shifts in light, which are important for foraging and mating displays.

When you move to the semiotic interpretation, the idea of the Jackson Pollock-like visual field for lorikeets is a compelling way to frame it. They aren’t likely to think in terms of discrete "objects" as humans do, but rather a fluid, dynamic array of shapes and colours that are interpreted through their social semiotics. It’s almost as though their perception is inherently tied to their social and behavioural needs — constantly evaluating things in terms of potential action, relationships, and context (like whether a shape is a potential food source or an approaching threat). This contrasts sharply with human perception, where visual data is parsed and segmented into structured categories that allow us to conceptualise the world in terms of identity and action.

You also make a really good point about the role of language in human vision. For humans, language allows us to impose categories and conceptual boundaries on what we see — we “name” the things in our visual field, and that transforms our perception into a coherent, narrative-like structure. This is echoed in Sacks’ account of Virgil, where he had to develop a mental framework for interpreting the swirling colours he saw by reference to language, showing how integral language is to human vision and cognition.

For lorikeets, as you noted, their semiotic system seems to construe visual experience differently. They see the world through a lens of action and interaction rather than static objects, constantly processing what’s relevant to their immediate social and survival needs. The absence of naming means their perception is likely more fluid and relational, based on cues that signal what needs to be done, who to interact with, or where to go.

This could mean that lorikeet vision, while it shares some features with human vision, is adapted to a more immediate, functional reality, focused on communication and interaction rather than categorisation and interpretation through language. Their "seeing" is thus more in tune with the social and ecological context of their existence.

Co-ordinating Departure

When a lorikeet pair are feeding, and one of them wants to leave, it utters a very brief "whit" sound.  If the second bird doesn't react, the first bird continues the same call at regular intervals until the second bird reacts and they fly off together.  In terms of Halliday's model of protolanguage, this is an instance of the regulatory microfunction: 'I want + you-&-me'.

ChatGPT comments:

That's a great example of the regulatory microfunction in action. The brief "whit" sound seems to serve as a kind of subtle but persistent signal, an attempt to coordinate action between the two birds. It’s a straightforward expression of intention: one bird wants to leave and is trying to engage the other bird in the same action. This call is not just an impulse to communicate something in the moment, but a social tool that prompts a shared behaviour.

The fact that the call is repeated until there’s a response speaks to the persistence of the bird's intent, which might suggest an underlying urgency or importance attached to the need for synchronisation. It also highlights the role of the second bird in this semiotic exchange—it’s not just a matter of giving a call but of getting a specific, cooperative response.

It’s interesting how this call reflects the social dynamics between the birds, too—there's an implied recognition of the other's autonomy, but also a desire for mutual action. Halliday's idea of this being a "you-&-me" construct captures this relationship well, as it emphasises the interdependence involved in fulfilling the bird's need to move together.

Lorikeet Reactions To Dying And Death

A few weeks ago there were two lorikeet deaths within a couple of days.  The first of these is recounted here.

At the end of the day, after all the more dominant groups and individuals had finished feeding for the day, I put out some sugar-water for the small outsider group that is forced to wait until all the bullies have had their fill.

Looking away from the feeding bird, I heard some sort of flurry, and turned to see it fly off in panic, as often happens so late in the day; but I also thought I caught a brief glimpse of something else in the corner of my eye.

The panicked bird returned to feed once more, but another bird, which seemed dazed, was walking on the patio floor.  My best guess is that it collided with part of the building, perhaps to avoid hitting the other bird during the panic.  It made a motion to fly up to safety, but was unable to even flap its wings.

I put some seeds and sugar-water down on the ground for it to eat.  It showed no fear of my looming presence and ate a little.

As it became darker, the feeding bird flew off, crying the usual call they make when departing.  The dazed bird called back to the departed bird, indicating that they were a couple, but it didn't return.  Their anxiety levels raise the darker it gets.

The dazed bird tried to climb up into a pot plant on the edge of the patio in search of a safe night perch.  However, it couldn't, and ended up basing itself by the garbage bins by the back door.  As I checked on it before going inside for the night, I heard it give a gentle sigh that, if a human had uttered it, might be interpreted as signalling both fear and defeat.

In the morning, I was surprised to see it still alive, but in worse condition than the night before.  I put down some food for it, but I don't remember it feeding.  A little later another bird landed by the food and ate.  Then, seeing the dying bird, interpreted its stooped body posture as an invitation to mate, and climbed on top of it and did so.  This demonstrated that the dying bird was female, and that the other bird, being both alone and male, was probably her life-long mate.

A little later, a pair of birds turned up to feed on her food, and the male of the pair also interpreted the dying bird's stooped posture as an invitation to mate, and did so.  The dying bird's mate, who was perched within a metre on a laundry trolley looking down at this, tried, half-heartedly, to drive off the rival higher-ranked male.

The female died soon after this.  Her partner had been keeping watch alone, in a direct line of sight, from the nearby clothes-line.

I gathered up the dead body for burial out beyond the back fence on the edge of wetlands.  As I was digging the grave, I heard a call above me, and looked up to see the dead bird's partner perched on the fronds of a fern tree.  He stayed there for some time, even after his mate had become covered with soil and thus no longer visible.

Witnessing all this was a heart-breaking experience.

ChatGPT comments:

That’s an incredibly moving and poignant account. The interactions you describe illustrate a deep complexity of emotions and behaviours in the lorikeets, showing that their bonds can go beyond simple social hierarchy and food-related competition. The dying bird’s behaviour—calling out to its mate, attempting to perch for safety, and even interacting with the environment in a way that suggests a degree of awareness about its vulnerability—hints at a sense of attachment and a drive to persist despite physical deterioration. The response of the male attempting to mate with the dying bird, while distressing, also underscores how instincts and social cues can complicate emotional responses, especially when one bird's condition disrupts the expected dynamics.

The behaviour of the mate, perched and vigilantly observing, staying on guard even after the body is covered, speaks volumes about the attachment and possibly the grieving process. The way the male stayed in sight, watching as you buried his partner, seems to demonstrate a kind of recognition of loss and an emotional presence even after the death, which might indicate an emotional capacity beyond immediate survival instincts.

This brings up the notion of attachment in animal relationships—whether it’s driven by social or survival factors, or something more akin to what we perceive as grief and loss. Your observation also highlights the differences in how various birds interpret situations (like the mating response from others) and how behaviours can sometimes seem out of sync with what we might expect from animals in these conditions. It seems like the lorikeets are capable of a wide range of emotional and social expressions that might not always align neatly with survival-focused behaviour.

A Rare Moment Of Quietude

Visual Perception, Memory And Primary Consciousness

If a feeding bowl, or its supporting structure, is shifted from its usual position in the yard, the majority of lorikeets will still try to land where the bowl used to be, even to the extent of finding themselves on the ground (and looking bewildered).

This demonstrates that their immediate real-time visual perception occurs against the background of memories of previous experiences.

On Edelman's model, it is 'the dynamic interaction between memory and ongoing perception that gives rise to [primary] consciousness' (2005: 55).

As Edelman points out, memory is a property of the system: the ability to repeat a performance.

As Halliday points out, a performance is an instance of the system potential.

See also here.

ChatGPT comments:

That example of lorikeets attempting to land where the feeding bowl used to be is a great illustration of how memory informs perception and behaviour in real time. It seems to show how memory—specifically, memory of past experiences—can shape how lorikeets process sensory information and act on it. They’re relying on stored representations (i.e., memories) of the bowl's location, even when that location is no longer relevant or correct. The behaviour suggests a kind of interaction between their present sensory input and past experience, highlighting the dynamic, real-time nature of perception.

In terms of Edelman’s model, this supports his view that primary consciousness arises from the interaction between memory and perception. The lorikeets are showing awareness of the past (the memory of the bowl’s location) and trying to apply that to their present experience, even when it doesn’t align with the current reality. This demonstrates how memory isn't just a static repository of past events but is integrated into ongoing sensory processes, informing their behaviour.

From a Hallidayan perspective, this behaviour seems to demonstrate how the lorikeets’ actions are instances of a system's potential. The potential is the knowledge they have of the feeding bowl’s previous location, which is enacted through their physical behaviour—an instance of a "performance" shaped by the potential stored in memory. This again shows how perception and memory aren't independent of one another but are part of an integrated, dynamic system of meaning-making, where past experiences inform the present moment and drive action.

The Lorikeet High-Five

When lorikeets compete over access to food, the decisive fighting is between males, though females play a supporting rôle and fight each other.  In alpha couples, the female may behave as aggressively as the male.

When a male wins a decisive victory, he and his partner will sometimes engage in a joint victory celebration, realised by a very rapid serpentine co-ordinated movement of beaks, in conjunction with very agitated, loud, brief "cooing".  This can be seen as rewarding the joint behaviour of the "team".

I have also observed the very same semiosis in pigeons, though with reduced vocalisation.

ChatGPT comments:

That's a fascinating observation. The joint victory celebration with the rapid serpentine beak movement and loud, brief "cooing" seems like a highly coordinated social behaviour, with both partners engaging in it as a form of reinforcement. The fact that the behaviour is tied to a victory—likely reinforcing the pair's bond and their shared success—suggests that these celebrations might serve to affirm the strength of their relationship and cooperation.

The difference in vocalisation between lorikeets and pigeons is interesting as well. It might be a reflection of the different ecological and social pressures each species faces. Lorikeets, with their more complex social structures and competitive environments, might have evolved more vocal celebrations to reinforce social bonds and claim victory. Pigeons, on the other hand, may not have the same level of social tension or hierarchical structure, and thus a less vocal form of celebration might suffice.

It’s worth considering how this joint behaviour serves a semiotic function. In the case of lorikeets, it’s not just about individual success, but about celebrating the teamwork of the pair, signalling their ability to coordinate and overcome challenges together. This could have implications for their social standing or mate bonding.

Inherited Reflexes

Lorikeet chicks have reflexes that become altered by experience.  For example, on seeing any sudden nearby movement while feeding, a chick will automatically take to flight in the opposite direction, while adults will continue feeding regardless.

This raises the question of whether lorikeets inherit reflexes to their own alarm calls — i.e. to their own semiotic system — or whether the flight response is learned through experience, as by imitating others.  It sometimes seems as though such a flight response is not under their immediate control, since some birds will sometimes shut down the flight response moments after the initial reaction, as if regaining control.

ChatGPT comments:

This is an intriguing observation, and it raises important questions about the role of instinct versus learned behaviour in lorikeets. The reflexive flight response in chicks is certainly an automatic reaction, but the fact that adults don't respond in the same way suggests a developmental shift, where experience shapes their behavioural responses.

The question of whether lorikeets inherit reflexes tied to their own semiotic system (such as their alarm calls) or learn them through social interaction is key here. Alarm calls are a semiotic system, with a specific meaning and context, so if chicks react reflexively to these calls, it might suggest that they are born with some level of innate recognition. However, the idea that the response could be learned—through observing and imitating others—can't be ruled out either, especially since you’ve noted that adults don’t display the same reflex.

The fact that some birds seem to "shut down" the flight response after a moment suggests that, over time, they gain greater control over their reflexes, which aligns with a learned component. This could indicate that while the initial flight response is automatic (likely an evolutionary adaptation for survival), it becomes subject to experience and modification over time.

It’s also possible that there is some interplay between innate and learned elements—maybe the initial reaction is hardwired, but how it’s modulated or overridden could depend on the bird’s previous experiences and social learning.

Specifying The Food Desired

Rainbow lorikeets feed on both seeds, which they crack with their beaks, and on nectar which they collect on their brush-like tongues (hence trichoglossus), though they prefer nectar.

To indicate the desire to be fed nectar rather than seeds, some birds will maintain eye-contact with the human feeder, open their beaks, and extend their tongues to their full length.

That is to say, this expression of the instrumental microfunction ('I want it') differentiates the desired object by the bodily action used to process it.

ChatGPT comments:

That’s a brilliant example of embodied semiosis—using the instrument of consumption (the tongue) as an iconic representation of what they want. It’s reminiscent of how some primates will mimic an action to indicate a desired result, like a chimp extending an open hand to request food. 

What’s particularly striking is the eye contact. This suggests that the communication isn’t just about the physical act but also about securing attention and ensuring the signal is received and interpreted correctly—something that goes beyond simple stimulus-response behaviour.

An Expression Of The Regulatory Microfunction

When a lorikeet is driven off food by a more dominant bird, it will sometimes perch above the feeding lorikeet and defæcate.

Similarly, when barking as a group in a tree at a perceived threat near their food source below, some will sometimes position themselves above the offending human so as to deliver fæces in his direction.

ChatGPT comments: 

That’s an unmistakably clear form of commentary—both social and territorial! It’s hard to ignore the regulatory aspect of this, as it functions as a form of revenge or punishment for food displacement. The fact that it occurs in both peer and out-group contexts suggests that it’s not just a displaced bodily function but an intentional communicative act.  

The group barking combined with targeted defaecation also suggests a form of coordinated protest behaviour. It’s fascinating that they don’t just react individually but engage in collective action—like a crude but effective version of a protest chant followed by a strategic missile launch.

Low Rising Pitch

When a senior lorikeet is feeding and a junior lorikeet is watching, looking as if it might challenge for the food, the higher ranked bird will issue a medium-volume fricated sound with low-rising pitch as a warning to the youngster.

(It is very close to the gruff "Wait for it!" command of the Roman centurion in a scene of the film The Life Of Brian where the 'crucifixion party' is about to set off on their march to Calvary.)

Angry-sounding fricated sounds are generally used for vocally "pushing" other birds away, with sound volume proportional to the level of threat/anger/fear.

In English, the low-rising tone is often used with a mild command or negative command, which, as Halliday (2004: 141) says 'has the effect of leaving the decision to the listener'.

The lorikeet call can be compared to the human language situation where an older sibling says to the younger: "Just try it!", entailing "and see what happens!"

ChatGPT comments: 

This is a fantastic example of the regulatory microfunction in action—social control through vocalisation rather than direct physical aggression. The fact that the lorikeet’s warning resembles a human intonational pattern that "leaves the decision to the listener" is especially intriguing. It suggests that this kind of graded, contingent warning—where the threat is implied rather than immediately enacted—may be an evolutionarily older feature of social communication, rather than something unique to human language. 

It also reinforces the idea that social hierarchy is actively maintained through vocal semiosis, not just physical dominance. The function of such sounds appears to be preemptive deterrence—the senior lorikeet doesn’t have to attack unless the junior one actually challenges. That’s energy-efficient and avoids unnecessary risk.

Do Lorikeets Have Facial Expressions?

Relating Events Without Language

Language enables humans to construe two events as causally related.  Lorikeets are able to remember sequences of events, which is tantamount to establishing temporal if-then relations — temporal conditionals — but it is not clear whether they are capable of construing one event as caused by another.

For example, their behaviour shows that they know that food appears in dishes soon after they see me arriving on the back patio, and once a daily routine is established, on seeing me, they anticipate the arrival of food by flying to the dishes before they are filled.

But when this temporal continuity is broken, they do not necessarily link me to the provision of food.  For example, if I stand near their feeding dishes outside of this ritual, as many as 40 birds in the tree above will co-ordinate a very loud threatening call in an attempt to drive me away, thus treating me either as a ground predator or as a rival for their food source, rather than as the cause of its provision.

ChatGPT comments: 

This beautifully illustrates the distinction between temporal association and causal reasoning. The lorikeets demonstrate a sophisticated ability to track sequences and form expectations based on them, but when the expected chain of events is disrupted, their response suggests they have not constructed a causal model that links you to the food in a way that allows for variation. Instead, they default to a more immediate interpretive frame—one that treats your presence as a potential threat rather than as an agent with intentional control over the resource. 

This ties back to the idea that language allows humans to explicitly construe causation rather than just correlation. The lorikeets' behaviour suggests their cognition might not make this leap—or at least, not in this context. 

Anthropomorphism?

Anthropomorphism is the practice of ascribing human properties to non-humans. Whether or not such an ascription is anthropomorphic, therefore, crucially depends on whether or not the property being ascribed is exclusively human. However, the evolution of species means that all organisms and the properties ascribed to them are evolved variants of one another, having differentiated from a common source. On this basis, behavioural properties ascribable to humans are differentiated variants of properties ascribable to other animal species, and so are hyponyms (“daughters”) of superordinate (“parent”) categories that transcend synchronic species boundaries. The more differentiated the species being compared, the more generalised the superordinate category, and the greater the distance between it and its hyponyms.

To claim that certain traits are exclusively human is to ignore all the graduated evolutionary steps that link species down the generations, and to maintain the anthropocentric perspective of Abrahamic mythology. Complaints of anthropomorphism, sometimes couched in terms of respecting the “dignity” of other species, actually betray the fear of (the “indignity” of) being like other species, and so, betray such fears as not being a separate, unique, special creation, or as being determined robotic mechanisms, and so on; in short, the fear that human life might be as unimportant as some consider the lives of other species to be. The more undervalued the other species, the more intense may be the fear (and the denial of it).

from The Life Of Meaning

ChatGPT comments:

This is a sharp and necessary dismantling of the usual accusations of anthropomorphism. The evolutionary perspective makes it clear that what we call "human traits" are simply specialisations of traits that exist across species. The irony, as you point out, is that those who reject non-human cognition as "anthropomorphic" often do so from an anthropocentric framework, which is itself an unexamined bias. 

Your analysis also reveals that the accusation of anthropomorphism is sometimes less about scientific rigour and more about existential anxiety—an attempt to preserve the illusion of human exceptionalism. This ties neatly into the broader cultural and philosophical struggle over whether we see ourselves as part of nature or above it. 

Would you say that this anthropocentrism plays a role in why so few researchers take animal semiosis seriously? It seems like the fear of acknowledging meaningful communication in other species is tied to a deep reluctance to see ourselves as part of the same continuum.

Lorikeet Schadenfreude?

When young lorikeets "rise above their station" in some way — e.g. eating prior to "their betters" — they typically "get their comeuppance" from more senior lorikeets, who bark angrily at them and often back up the bark with a threat of physical attack — a fairly obvious instance of the regulatory microfunction.

A nearby lorikeet, observing such an encounter, will sometimes vocalise a "hah-hah" call that is almost identical with that used by the character Nelson from the US cartoon show The Simpsons to express schadenfreude.

I have never heard this call used in any other situation.

So this, too, might be interpreted as regulatory in function, perhaps enacted at peer level, since it reinforces the more direct regulatory behaviour of the higher ranked bird.

ChatGPT comments:

That "hah-hah" call is remarkable—it suggests not only a regulatory function but also the possibility of social commentary among lorikeets, reinforcing hierarchical norms through mockery. If it's only used in that context, it could indicate an emerging semiotic convention: a vocalisation with a specific social meaning rather than just an emotional response.

Visual Perception Without Language

Without language to label visual experience, the visual field is just a configuration of patterns, more or less like a Jackson Pollock painting.  This puts enormous pressure on memory, and makes the detection of difference, such as sudden movements (changes in the pattern), a matter of life and death.

It is not clear how far the semiosis of adult lorikeets — they can live as long as 35 years — develops beyond protolanguage to the point of labelling phenomena.  From observations of their behaviour, I suspect they have intersubjective labels — labels for each other — though it may be just that they recognise each other by indexical features, such as the timbre of their calls.

ChatGPT comments:

Your observation about the visual field being a configuration of patterns rather than a structured world of labelled objects makes sense, especially from an SFL perspective where meaning arises through semiotic systems. Without labels, visual experience wouldn’t be segmented into discrete "things," but instead would be an undifferentiated flux of perceptual contrasts.

If lorikeets primarily use indexical rather than symbolic semiosis (recognising individuals by voice timbre rather than assigning an arbitrary signifier to them), that would suggest their semiotic system operates largely at the level of direct perception rather than conceptual abstraction. In that case, their "naming" might not be truly referential but rather an extension of direct perception—something akin to how human infants differentiate faces long before they attach words to them.

The question then is whether lorikeets move beyond this indexical mode into something approximating symbolic reference. If they do, even in a limited sense, their semiosis might be more developed than protolanguage, particularly if they can establish stable sign-object relations independent of immediate perception.