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.

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.

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?