Sobaka requests a homework break, photograph taken by author
Voloshinov, Valentin Nikolaevich. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Trans. Ladislav Matejka and I. R. Titunik. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973.
Voloshinov writes, “Signs can arise only on interindividual territory. [...] Signs do not arise between any two members of the species Homo sapiens. It is essential that the two individuals be organized socially, that they compose a group (a social unit); only then can the medium of signs take shape between them (Voloshinov12). In his book Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, Voloshinov is rightly critiquing Sausurrean and romantic/expressionist linguistics for not acknowledging the social aspect of language, but he also does not allow for the same process of social sign formation to take place in other species.
This becomes even more apparent in a later section of his book when he makes a distinction between what he calls signs and signals. His definitions appear as follows:
Only a sign can be understood; what is recognized is a signal. A signal is an internally fixed, singular thing that does not in fact stand for anything else, or reflect or refract anything, but is simply a technical means for indicating this or that object (some definite, fixed object) or this or that action (likewise definite and fixed). (Voloshinov 68)
A sign, therefore, must be adaptable, rather than stable and self-equivalent. Voloshinov specifically mentions animal subjects in a statement shortly thereafter in which he associates them with signal reflexology. He writes, “[Reflexology] signals, taken in relation to the organism of the animal subject, i.e., as signals for that subject, have no relation to techniques of production. In this capacity they are not signals but stimuli of a special kind” (Voloshinov 68). Signals, then, are unidirectionally received by animals and only indicate definite, fixed objects or actions. Since more modern research into the communicative social practices of dogs and wolves has become available since Voloshinov wrote his book, his ideas about social signs may be most apt to explain how intra- and inter-species communication takes place.
Firstly, the limitation of animal reflexology must be problematized. In some research reported by the University of Veterinary Medicine in Vienna, wolves and dogs had to solve various tasks based on observation or communication with ‘conspecies’ or humans and in one research situation, “Wolves followed the gaze of humans. To solve the task, the animals may need to be capable of making a mental representation of the “looker’s” perspective. Wolves can do this quite well” (Kautschitsch). This example indicates at the very least that dogs and wolves have the ability to interpret socially-based signification.
Literature on search and rescue and scent dog training reveals further signification that dogs not only interpret, but participate in socially constructing. Interestingly, the words ‘sign’ and ‘signal’ are often used interchangeably in such writings. Lue Button, author of Practical Scent Dog Training advises that “Each dog has his own signs, and by watching him you will learn what they are. You may, however, substitute one sign for another” and that these signs can take the form of “sound, sniff, movement, posture, even change of pace” (8-9) These signs are socially adapted to communicate, though. Button further indicates the importance of letting a scenting dog realize the limitations of human sensory detection when she writes the following:
Fortunately, eons of pack life have made it natural for the dog to indicate what his senses detect. When you see pricked ears, a rigid stance, a wagging tail suddenly stilled, you should ask “What is it?” even if you know or can guess. The longer you delay acknowledging what the dog wants to show you (provided you keep encouraging him to communicate), the more insistent he will become, the more obvious will be his signal. (12)
Button uses example strategies dogs develop for indicating that they want outside or for their water to be filled. In a personal example, I once had a dog that found my grandpa’s hat and took it to him when she wanted to go outside while he was dog-sitting. The American Rescue Dog Association provides the following example:
[Bill’s dog] Randy was an avid retriever who loved to play fetch with a stick. After finding a victim, Randy was often rewarded with a game of fetch. On one training problem, Randy found his victim while out of Bill’s sight. In his enthusiasm, Randy picked up a stick and carried it back to Bill. (4)
While such practices are usually attributed to ‘behavioralist’ training practices of positive reinforcement and reward for animals engaging in certain behaviors, it is important to acknowledge the role that the social organization between dog and handler plays. The handlers are not asking their dogs to perform a simple function in the same way repeatedly, but to solve a problem or puzzle and communicate their findings to the handler.
In their published training guide, the ARDA reports that “a dog’s initiative to find you will depend upon her attachment to you [...] A puppy will almost always eagerly find her handler if you’ve built a strong bond. Transferring this behavior to someone else is an entirely different matter” (ARDA 53-54). In addition, the results from the Emory University study indicated that “dogs which had received training as service/therapy dogs showed greater brain activity for the scent of a familiar human compared with the other dogs” (Flanagan). In Scent of the Missing, Susannah Charleson recounts how her dog Puzzle would perform a ritualized dance and “awroo” with what Charleson termed “pride” to show off for her as a handler whenever she had made a successful find. Training manuals constantly indicate that a rescue dog and handler need to have a strong bond created through play to build up the partnership, and dogs and handlers develop their own signs that have social significance between the two. On this topic, Button writes the following:
When his self-confidence is high enough, the dog will not permit you to ignore his refind indication, any more than he will let you pull him off a “hot” track. If one sign doesn’t work, he will try another. Close observation of the dog’s behavior and good timing of your reaction will make any dog not only willing to communicate but insistent on it. (33)
This is an example of adaptable signs that emerge from an interspecies social organization. These are not in the “words” of homo sapiens by which Voloshinov tries to limit his own philosophy of language, but Voloshinov’s ideas about signs developing socially give more insight into rescue dog training and communication than behavioralist accounts do.
Works Cited.
ARDA. Search and Rescue Dogs: Training the K-9 Hero. 2nd ed. New York: Howell Book House, 2002.
Button, Lue. Practical Scent Dog Training. Loveland, CO: Alpine, 1990.
Charleson, Susannah. Scent of the Missing: Love & Partnership with a Search and Rescue Dog. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2010.
Kautschitsch, Susanna. "Dog-human cooperation is based on social skills of wolves." Vetmeduni Vienna. 18 Jan 2015. Web. 15 Mar 2015.
Voloshinov, Valentin Nikolaevich. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Trans. Ladislav Matejka and I. R. Titunik. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973.
#semiotics #language_ideology #empire
No comments:
Post a Comment