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.