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.

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.

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.

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.

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.