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.

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.