Zoosemiotics

The Zoosemiotik [ ʦo.o, not: ʦo ː -] (Greek zoon of " animal " and semiotics as a teaching and license plate) examines how animals form characters and use.

Classification of the topic

A classification is not easy: The Zoosemiotik explores communication systems of animals such as primates animal languages ​​and language. In contrast to Zoosemiotik the Anthroposemiotik explicitly concerned with human communication systems. The Humansemiotik again divided into two sub- areas: The anthroposemiotische branch examines the language and zoosemiotische discipline deals with paralinguistic, proxemic, and other non-verbal expression systems. Since the Zoosemiotik of research in biology and behavioral research is dependent, it is only due to be regarded as a subject of research in linguistics.

Disciplines

The Zoosemiotik comprises three main research areas:

• The Zoopragmatik (Greek: action) shall investigate the various factors, conditions and effects of the use of signs of animals.
• The Zoosemantik (Greek: belonging to the character ) deals with the importance of animal characters and their object relations.
• The Zoosyntax ( Greek: Summary Procedure) again explores the spatiotemporal siting of characters in the animal world as well as the rules by which the characters are combined.

Communication typology

The animalistic communication is divided into several types:

• Is a living at the same time the transmitter and receiver of a message, so it is car communication (also: Proprioceptive communication). One example is the echolocation in whales, dolphins and bats.
• Interspecific communication takes place between animals of different species, such as in parasitism, mimicry, symbiosis, as well as aggression and defense rituals.

• Communicate animals of a kind to each other, then the intraspecific communication. Intraspecific communication can only succeed if all parties use the same code and apply the same rules. The knowledge of code and rules may be innate ability from birth, trained an innate disposition, which has been trained or learned. Runs intraspecific communication in only one direction from the transmitter to the receiver, then it is unidirectional communication. Bees dancing again to tell their fellows the location of a food source. The message danced runs unidirectional, because the dance no symbolic response in other bees triggers, but a practical response causes.
• In contrast to the unidirectional communication is the symmetric communication, which shows potential possibilities of dialogue skills. One example is the behavior of dogs during the ritual to contact us.

The contents of the animal signal is often ambiguous and depends on the context. The position of the sun plays an important role for the transmitted information by bees of the distance and direction of the food source. May have significance, the relative position of the interacting animals among themselves or relative position in the perceptual field. Thus, the distance to other dogs, to the food source, the construction or the nest influence the content of the message.

Difference to Human Communication

Animal and human communication differ significantly. The animal communication lacks the possibility of double outline. In addition, animals are unable to metalinguistic or reflexive communication, as their communication is situational. Moreover, the animal capacity for dialogue is formed only rudimentary.

Charles Hockett in 1963 a total of 16 features ( design features ) worked out to determine the peculiarities of human and animal communication. The model of Hockett, William Thorpe 1972, apart from slight variations, confirmed. Thorpe examined while nine species and three human communication systems, namely the American sign language of the deaf, the form of the written language and paralinguistic features.