Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dicent Symbols in Non-Human Semiotic Processes

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biosemiotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Against the view that symbol-based semiosis is a human cognitive uniqueness, we have argued that non-human primates such as African vervet monkeys possess symbolic competence, as formally defined by Charles S. Peirce. Here I develop this argument by showing that the equivocal role ascribed to symbols by “folk semiotics” stems from an incomplete application of the Peircean logical framework for the classification of signs, which describes three kinds of symbols: rheme, dicent and argument. In an attempt to advance in the classifying semiotic processes, Peirce proposed several typologies, with different degrees of refinement. Around 1903, he developed a division into ten classes. According to this typology, symbols can be further analysed in three subclasses (rheme, dicent, argument). I proceed to demonstrate that vervet monkeys employ dicent symbols. There are remarkable implications of this argument since ‘symbolic species theory’ fails to explore the vast Peircean semiotic philosophy to frame questions regarding the emergence and evolution of symbolic processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. I follow the practice of citing from the Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Peirce 1931–35, 1958) by volume number and paragraph number, preceded by CP; the Essential Peirce, by volume number and page number, preceded by EP. References to the Annotated Catalogue of the Papers of Charles S. Peirce (1967) will be indicated by MS, followed by the manuscript number and pages.

  2. We will hereafter refer to this triad as S, O, I.

References

  • Atkin, A. (2005). Peirce on the index and indexical reference. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 41(1), 161–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergman, T. J., Beehner, J. C., et al. (2003). Hierarchical classification by rank and kinship in baboons. Science, 302(5648), 1234–1236.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bickerton, D. (2009). Adam’s Tongue: How human made language, how language made humans. New York: Hill and Wang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burch, R. (2010). Charles Sanders Peirce. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/] Accessed 7 oct 2011.

  • Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (1990). How monkeys see the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (1998). Why monkeys don’t have language. The Tanner lectures on human values. G. Petersen (Vol. 19, pp. 173–210). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. (2006). Language, embodiment, and the cognitive niche. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10(8), 370–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deacon, T. (1997). The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, C. S. (1997). Referential signals. In D. Owings, M. Beecher, & N. Thompson (Eds.), Perspectives in ethology (pp. 99–143). New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farias, P., & Queiroz, J. (2000). Notes for a dynamic diagram of Charles Peirce’s classifications of signs. Semiotica, 131(1/2), 19–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farias, P., & Queiroz, J. (2003). On diagrams for Peirce’s 10, 28, and 66 classes of signs. Semiotica, 147(1/4), 165–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freadman, A. (2001). The classifications of signs (II): 1903. In J. Queiroz & R. Gudwin (Eds.), Digital encyclopedia of C.S.Peirce. [http://www.digitalpeirce.fee.unicamp.br] Accessed 19 set 2011.

  • Freadman, A. (2004). The machinery of talk—Charles Peirce and the sign hypothesis. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, D. R. (1992). Animal minds. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, M. D. (2000). A primate dictionary? Decoding the function and meaning of another species vocalizations. Cognitive Science, 24(3), 445–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilpinen, R. (1992). On Peirce’s philosophical logic: propositions and their objects. Transactions of the Charles Sanders Peirce Society, 28(3), 467–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hookway, C. (1985). Peirce. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hookway, C. (2002). Truth, rationality, and pragmatism: Themes from Peirce. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houser, N. (1992). On Peirce’s theory of propositions: a response to Hilpinen. Transactions of the Charles Sanders Peirce Society, 23(3), 489–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houser, N. (1997). Introduction: Peirce as logician. In N. Houser, D. Roberts, & J. V. Evra (Eds.), Studies in the logic of Charles Sanders Peirce (pp. 1–22). Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurford, J. (2007). The origins of meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaminski, J., Call, J., et al. (2004). Word learning in a domestic dog: evidence for “fast mapping”. Science, 304(5677), 1605–1606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langs, R., Badalamenti, A. F., et al. (1996). Two mathematically defined expressive language structures in humans and chimpanzees. Behavioral Science, 41(2), 124–135.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, P. (1984). The biology and evolution of language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, P. (1998). Eve spoke: Human language and human evolution. New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loula, A., Gudwin, R., El-Hani, C., & Queiroz, J. (2010). Emergence of self-organized symbol-based communication in artificial creatures. Cognitive Systems Research, 11, 131–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrell, F. (1996). Signs grow: Semiosis and life processes. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphey, M. (1993). The development of Peirce’s philosophy. Indianapolis: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, K. (1998). The continuity of Peirce’s thought. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1931–1935). The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. In C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (Eds.) Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Vols. VII–VIII [A. W. Burks (Ed.) Cambridge-MA: Harvard University Press, 1958].

  • Peirce, C. S. (1967). Annotated Catalogue of the papers of Charles S. Peirce. R. Robin (Ed.) Amherst-MS: University of Massachusetts.

  • Pepperberg, I. M. (2002). In search of king Solomon’s ring: cognitive and communicative studies of Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus). Brain, Behavior and Evolution, 59(1–2), 54–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pepperberg, I. M. (2004). Evolution of communication from an avian perspective. In D. Kimbrough Oller & U. Griebel (Eds.), Evolution of communication systems (pp. 171–192). Cambrigde: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollick, A. S., Gouzoules, H., Waal, D., & Frans, B. (2005). Audience effects on food calls in captive brown capuchin monkeys, Cebus apella. Animal Behavior, 70, 1273–1281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, V. (1997). Charles S. Peirce: On norms and ideals. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Queiroz, J. (2003). Comunicação simbólica em primatas não-humanos: uma análise baseada na semiótica de C.S.Peirce. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, 25(Supl II), 2–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Queiroz, J. (2004). Semiose segundo Peirce. São Paulo: EDUC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Queiroz, J., & El-Hani, C. (2006). Towards a multi-level approach to the emergence of meaning processes in living systems. Acta Biotheoretica, 54(3), 174–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Queiroz, J., & Ribeiro, S. (2002). The biological substrate of icons, indexes, and symbols in animal communication. In M. Shapiro (Ed.), The Peirce seminar papers – The state of the art (Vol. V, pp. 69–78). New York: Berghan Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribeiro, S., Loula, A., Araújo, I., Gudwin, R., & Queiroz, J. (2007). Symbols are not uniquely human. Biosystems, 90, 263–272.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, D. G., Wolz, J. P., et al. (1984). Vocal mimicry of computer-generated sounds and vocal labeling of objects by a bottlenosed dolphin, Tursiops truncatus. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 98(1), 10–28.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S., Rumbaugh, D. M., et al. (1978). Symbolic communication between two chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Science, 201(4356), 641–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Savage-Rumbaugh, S., M. A. Romsky, et al. (1989). Symbol acquisitionand use by Pan troglodytes, Pan paniscus, Homo sapiens. In P. G. H. L. A. Marquardt (Ed.), Understanding chimpanzees (pp. 266–295). Harvard University Press.

  • Savan, D. (1987). An introduction to C. S. Peirce full system of semeiotic. (Monograph Series of the Toronto Semiotic Circle 1). Toronto: Victoria College.

  • Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (1980). The ontogeny of vervet monkey alarm-calling behavior: a preliminary report. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 54, 37–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (1986). Vocal development in vervet monkeys. Animal Behaviour, 34, 1640–1658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seyfarth, R. M., Cheney, D. L., et al. (1980). Monkey responses to three different alarm calls: evidence of predator classification and semantic communication. Science, 210(4471), 801–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Short, T. (2007). Peirce’s theory of signs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stjernfelt, F. (2011). Signs conveying information: on the range of peirce’s notion of propositions: dicisigns. International Journal of Signs and Semiotic Systems, 1(2), 40–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Struhsaker, T. T., & Hunkeler, P. (1971). Evidence of tool-using by chimpanzees in the Ivory Coast. Folia Primatologica, 15(3), 212–219.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaud, P. (1996). Peirce’s concept of proposition. In I. Angelelli & M. Cerezo (Eds.), Studies on the history of logic (pp. 257–279). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: the origins of cultural cognition. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 675–735.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vauclair, J. (1995). L’intelligence de l’animal. Éditions du Seuil.

  • Whiten, A., Goodall, J., et al. (1999). Cultures in chimpanzees. Nature, 399(6737), 682–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wurz, S. (2010). Middle stone age stone tools from Klasies River main site and symbolic cognition. In A. Nowell & I. Davidson (Eds.), Stone tools and the evolution of human cognition (pp. 135–157). Colorado: University Press of Colorado.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xia, L., Emmerton, J., et al. (2001). Pigeons (Columba livia) learn to link numerosities with symbols. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 115(1), 83–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

J.Q. is indebted to the State of Minas Gerais Foundation for Research Support (FAPEMIG).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Arts and Design, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Campus Universitário – Bairro Martelos, Juiz de Fora, MG, Brazil, CEP 36036-330

    João Queiroz

Authors
  1. João Queiroz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to João Queiroz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Queiroz, J. Dicent Symbols in Non-Human Semiotic Processes. Biosemiotics 5, 319–329 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-011-9138-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-011-9138-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation