DOCSLIB.ORG

Nonhuman Primate Communication, Pragmatics, and the Origins of Language Author(S): Thomas C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nonhuman Primate Communication, Pragmatics, and the Origins of Language Author(S): Thomas C Nonhuman Primate Communication, Pragmatics, and the Origins of Language Author(s): Thomas C. Scott-Phillips Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 56, No. 1 (February 2015), pp. 56-80 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/679674 . Accessed: 21/10/2015 08:29 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:29:51 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 56 Current Anthropology Volume 56, Number 1, February 2015 Nonhuman Primate Communication, Pragmatics, and the Origins of Language by Thomas C. Scott-Phillips Comparisons with the cognition and communication of other species have long informed discussions of the origins and evolution of human communication and language. This research has often focused on similarities and differences with the linguistic code, but more recently there has been an increased focus on the social-cognitive foundations of linguistic communication. However, exactly what these comparisons tell us is not clear because the theoretical concepts used in the animal communication literature are different from those used in the corresponding literature on human communication, specifically those used in linguistic pragmatics. In this article, I bridge the gap between these two areas and in doing so specify exactly what great ape communication tells us about the origins of human communication and language. I conclude that great ape communication probably does not share the same social- cognitive foundations as linguistic communication but that it probably does involve the use of metacognitive abilities that, once they evolved to a more sophisticated degree, were exapted for use in what is an evolutionarily novel form of communication: human ostensive communication. This in turn laid the foundations for the emergence of linguistic communication. More generally, I highlight the often-neglected importance of pragmatics for the study of language origins. The origin of human communication and language is a topic comparisons tell us. On the one hand, empirical research on that has exercised many generations of scholars (Stam 1976). great ape communication has placed considerable emphasis Since Darwin, an important source of data has been com- on the question of whether signals are used “intentionally” parisons between linguistic communication and the com- or not. On the other, the theoretical frameworks used by munication systems of other species (Fitch 2010). A great deal contemporary pragmatics to describe and study formally the of research has thus focused on the extent to which non- expressive flexibility of human communication and the social- human primates’ natural communication systems have the cognitive mechanisms that make it possible are much richer same or similar properties as human languages (e.g., Arnold than simply intentionality. In particular, the idea of ostension and Zuberbu¨hler 2006; Seyfarth, Cheney, and Marler 1980a). is central to pragmatic theory but is little considered in the More recently, it has been argued that despite these similar- comparative literature. (Pragmatics is a branch of linguistics. ities, many forms of great ape communication are probably It is often characterized as the study of meaning in context, based on different cognitive mechanisms from human lan- to be contrasted with semantics, which is the study of meaning guage, and hence that the evolutionary conclusions we can in an idealized, isolated sense. Another way to think of prag- draw from comparisons with the surface form of these systems matics is that it is the study of the communicative basis of (e.g., their “syntax,” “semantics,” etc.) are either unclear or language use.) I shall define it in detail later, but an informal limited (Deacon 1997; Rendall, Owren, and Ryan 2009; To- gloss of “ostensive communication” is to say that it is inten- masello 2008; Wheeler and Fischer 2012). Consequently, the tionally overt communication. As such, ostensive and inten- focus of much current research on great ape communication tional communication are related concepts, but they are not is the extent to which it is based on social-cognitive mech- the same thing. As a result of this disjoint, although there is anisms the same as or different from those that underpin a great deal of data that is potentially informative, exactly linguistic and other forms of human communication. what conclusions we should draw is at best unclear. However, even here it remains unclear exactly what these In this article I bridge the gap between theory and data in the comparative study of human and nonhuman primate communication. In the next section I briefly survey the lit- Thomas C. Scott-Phillips is Research Fellow in the Evolutionary Anthropology Research Group of the Department of Anthropology erature on whether or not nonhuman primate communica- at Durham University (Dawson Building, South Road, Durham DH1 tion can be classified as intentional. I then introduce a key 3LE, United Kingdom [t.c.scott-phillips@durham.ac.uk]). This paper distinction for contemporary pragmatic theory between the was submitted 23 VI 13, accepted 29 V 14, and electronically ostensive model of how communication works and the al- published 22 I 15. ternative code model. I discuss whether great ape commu- ᭧ 2015 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reserved. 0011-3204/2015/5601-0003$10.00. DOI: 10.1086/679674 This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:29:51 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Scott-Phillips Nonhuman Primate Communication, Pragmatics, and the Origins of Language 57 nication operates according to the code model or the ostensive (Fitch, Huber, and Bugnyar 2010; Tomasello 2008). One model and how it compares with human communication in prominent question in this literature is whether or not signals this respect. I conclude that unlike human communication, are used “intentionally”—a notion that contrasts with signals great ape communication is probably a form of coded com- that are produced in a more “reflexive” or “automatic” way. munication, albeit of a particularly sophisticated variety. I Intentionality is a notion with a long philosophical history, then use this analysis to argue that ostensive communication and its meaning is difficult to capture precisely (it is often is most likely an evolutionary novelty in the human lineage concisely glossed as “aboutness”). Its typical usage in the an- that evolved as an exaptation of increased social intelligence imal communication literature is perhaps best captured with (exaptations are adaptations that evolved as an offshoot of a summary of the criteria used in empirical research to identify some other adaptation; e.g., bird wings evolved as an offshoot intentionality. The following proxies are the most commonly of heat-regulation devices). Languages then emerged as tools used (Liebal et al. 2014): (1) social use (sensitivity to the that enhance the efficacy and utility of ostensive communi- presence and composition of an audience), (2) gaze alter- cation. A key general point to emerge from this analysis is nation (signaler looks back and forth between social partner the generally underappreciated importance of pragmatics and and some object), (3) sensitivity to attentional state (signal is social cognition for the study of language origins. adjusted depending on the attentional state of the audience), (4) use of attention-getters (behaviors used to gain the at- Comparative Research on Intentional tention of an audience), (5) persistence and elaboration (con- Communication tinued use of a behavior until its objectives have been met and the use of alternative or modified signals in case of Comparisons between linguistic and nonhuman primate failure), (6) flexible use (use of the same signal for multiple communication have a long history. The first playback ex- ends and/or multiple signals for the same ends; i.e., means/ periments were performed as far back as 1892, that is, more ends dissociation), and (7) response waiting (after signaling, or less as soon as technology made such research possible waiting for an appropriate response). (Radick 2007). In these experiments, the vocalizations of an- What is worth noting about this list is that all of these imals are recorded and then played back to other members criteria are about whether or not a signal is used in a goal- of the same species so that their effects can be systematically directed (“intentional”) way. This is, then, a question about studied and hence compared with linguistic communication. how signals are used and specifically about whether signals Probably the most well-known playback experiments are those are used in the pursuit of a cognitively represented goal or that were used to document the alarm calls of vervet monkeys not. Whether this is an appropriate use of the term “inten- (Seyfarth, Cheney, and Marler 1980a). Those studies made a tional” or whether the above criteria are appropriate ones are particular impression because the alarm calls were observed matters that could be disputed, but these are separate ques- to share some important properties with words; in particular, tions with which I am not concerned here. I will adopt these that they identify specific things in the world, and their form criteria in this paper.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Giving Voice to the "Voiceless:" Incorporating Nonhuman Animal Perspectives As Journalistic Sources
    Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Communication Faculty Publications Department of Communication 2011 Giving Voice to the "Voiceless:" Incorporating Nonhuman Animal Perspectives as Journalistic Sources Carrie Packwood Freeman Georgia State University, cpfreeman@gsu.edu Marc Bekoff Sarah M. Bexell sarah.bexell@gmail.com Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/communication_facpub Part of the Journalism Studies Commons, and the Social Influence and oliticalP Communication Commons Recommended Citation Freeman, C. P., Bekoff, M. & Bexell, S. (2011). Giving voice to the voiceless: Incorporating nonhuman animal perspectives as journalistic sources. Journalism Studies, 12(5), 590-607. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Communication at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Communication Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact scholarworks@gsu.edu. VOICE TO THE VOICELESS 1 A similar version of this paper was later published as: Freeman, C. P., Bekoff, M. & Bexell, S. (2011). Giving Voice to the Voiceless: Incorporating Nonhuman Animal Perspectives as Journalistic Sources, Journalism Studies, 12(5), 590-607. GIVING VOICE TO THE "VOICELESS": Incorporating nonhuman animal perspectives as journalistic sources Carrie Packwood Freeman, Marc Bekoff and Sarah M. Bexell As part of journalism’s commitment to truth and justice
    [Show full text]
  • Human Uniqueness in the Age of Ape Language Research1
    Society and Animals 18 (2010) 397-412 brill.nl/soan Human Uniqueness in the Age of Ape Language Research1 Mary Trachsel University of Iowa mary-trachsel@uiowa.edu Abstract This paper summarizes the debate on human uniqueness launched by Charles Darwin’s publi- cation of The Origin of Species in 1859. In the progress of this debate, Noam Chomsky’s intro- duction of the Language-Acquisition Device (LAD) in the mid-1960s marked a turn to the machine model of mind that seeks human uniqueness in uniquely human components of neu- ral circuitry. A subsequent divergence from the machine model can be traced in the short his- tory of ape language research (ALR). In the past fifty years, the focus of ALR has shifted from the search for behavioral evidence of syntax in the minds of individual apes to participant- observation of coregulated interactions between humans and nonhuman apes. Rejecting the computational machine model of mind, the laboratory methodologies of ALR scientists Tetsuro Matsuzawa and Sue Savage-Rumbaugh represent a worldview coherent with Darwin’s continu- ity hypothesis. Keywords ape language research, artificial intelligence, Chomsky, comparative psychology, Darwin, human uniqueness, social cognition Introduction Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts should have been perfected, not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor. (Darwin, 1989b, p. 421) With the publication of The Origin of Species (1859/1989a), Charles Darwin steered science directly into a conversation about human uniqueness previ- ously dominated by religion and philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Politeness and Language Penelope Brown, Max Planck Institute of Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
    Politeness and Language Penelope Brown, Max Planck Institute of Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Abstract This article assesses the advantages and limitations of three different approaches to the analysis of politeness in language: politeness as social rules, politeness as adherence to an expanded set of Gricean Maxims, and politeness as strategic attention to ‘face.’ It argues that only the last can account for the observable commonalities in polite expressions across diverse languages and cultures, and positions the analysis of politeness as strategic attention to face in the modern context of attention to the evolutionary origins and nature of human cooperation. What Is Politeness? theoretical approach to the analysis of politeness in language can be distinguished. If, as many have claimed, language is the trait that most radi- 1. Politeness as social rules. To the layman, politeness is cally distinguishes Homo sapiens from other species, politeness a concept designating ‘proper’ social conduct, rules for is the feature of language use that most clearly reveals the speech and behavior stemming generally from high-status nature of human sociality as expressed in speech. Politeness individuals or groups. In literate societies such rules are is essentially a matter of taking into account the feelings of often formulated in etiquette books. These ‘emic’ (culture- others as to how they should be interactionally treated, specific) notions range from polite formulae like please and including behaving in a manner that demonstrates appropriate thank you, the forms of greetings and farewells, etc., to more concern for interactors’ social status and their social relation- elaborate routines for table manners, deportment in public, ship.
    [Show full text]
  • Human–Animal Communication*
    AN46CH21-Kulick ARI 26 September 2017 7:48 Annual Review of Anthropology Human–Animal Communication∗ Don Kulick Department of Cultural Anthropology and Ethnology, Uppsala University, 751 26, Uppsala, Sweden; email: don.kulick@antro.uu.se ANNUAL REVIEWS Further Click here to view this article's online features: t%PXOMPBEmHVSFTBT115TMJEFT t/BWJHBUFMJOLFESFGFSFODFT t%PXOMPBEDJUBUJPOT t&YQMPSFSFMBUFEBSUJDMFT t4FBSDILFZXPSET Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2017. 46:357–78 Keywords First published as a Review in Advance on August animal studies, animal communicators, animal training, ape language, 7, 2017 companion species, ethics, pets The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at by don.kulick@antro.uu.se on 11/02/17. For personal use only. anthro.annualreviews.org Abstract https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102116- Since the demise in the 1980s of research by psychologists who attempted 041723 Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2017.46:357-378. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org to teach human language to apes, a range of other perspectives has arisen Copyright c 2017 by Annual Reviews. ⃝ that explore how humans can communicate with animals and what the pos- All rights reserved sibility of such communication means. Sociologists interested in symbolic ∗This article is part of a special theme on interactionism, anthropologists writing about ontology, equestrian and ca- Human–Animal Interaction. For a list of other articles in this theme, see http://www. nine trainers, people with autism who say they understand animals because annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev- they think like animals, and a ragbag of sundry New Age women who claim an-46-themes to be able to converse with animals through telepathy have started discussing human–animal communication in ways that recast the whole point of think- ing about it.
    [Show full text]
  • Origins of Human Communication
    Origins of Human Communication Michael Tomasello A Bradford Book The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England © 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher. MIT Press books may be purchased at special quantity discounts for business or sales promotional use. For information, please e-mail special_sales@mitpress.mit.edu or write to Special Sales Department, The MIT Press, 55 Hayward Street, Cambridge, MA 02142. This book was set in Palatino by SNP Best-set Typesetter Ltd., Hong Kong, and was printed and bound in the United States. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Tomasello, Michael. Origins of human communication / Michael Tomasello. p. cm.—(Jean Nicod lectures) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-262-20177-3 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Language and languages—Origin. 2. Animal communication. I. Title. P116.T66 2008 401—dc22 2007049249 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 A Focus on 1 Infrastructure What we call meaning must be connected with the primitive language of gestures. —Wittgenstein, The Big Typescript Walk up to any animal in a zoo and try to communicate something simple. Tell a lion, or a tiger, or a bear to turn its body like “this,” showing it what to do by demonstrat- ing with your hand or body and offering a delicious treat in return. Or simply point to where you would like it to stand or to where some hidden food is located.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Human Communication and Language
    CHAPTER 14 The evolution of human communication and language James R. Hurford 14.1 Introduction territorial songs, and by vervet monkey alarm calls. We are not yet sure exactly what is conveyed Human language stands out in a number of ways by whale songs, but a reasonable default hypoth- from the topics of almost all of the other chapters esis would seem to be that they convey messages of in this book. Although every communication sys- the same expressive power as complex birdsongs. tem can claim in some way to be unique, human We may be wrong about this, but the current belief language is spectacularly unique in its complexity is thus that any human language is capable of com- and expressive power. municating the sum total of all that any animal spe- Complexity is hard to measure, but a clue is cies can communicate, and more. More, because we given by the fact that The Cambridge Grammar of alone, as far as we know, can tell each other about the English Language (Huddleston & Pullum, 2002), ctional or abstract objects, and about events far which is just a description of Modern Standard distant in time and space. English, weighs in at over 1700 pages. The head- In the bulk of this chapter, I will list and discuss ings of the rst half-dozen descriptive chapters, some of the most important differences and simi- out of eighteen, are: The verb, The clause: comple- larities between human languages and nonhuman ments, Nouns and noun phrases, Adjectives and communication systems, with an evolutionary adverbs, Prepositions and preposition phrases, perspective, in particular drawing on results from and The clause: adjuncts.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining Language in the Wake of Primate Language Research
    Defining Language in the Wake of Primate Language Research Hanna L. Meyer December 2018 Abstract This text examines language as it is used in the animal language debate through pragmatic and structural linguistic perspectives on primate language research. The surge of primate language studies in America in the 1970's generated a wave of public and academic interest in animal language that continues today in the form of ongoing primate research both in the lab and in the wild. These studies have forced the field to examine the way it conceptualizes language, as well as the current criteria with which we use to define it I argue that the traditional linguistic approach to defining language, which measures language through surface level features, as can be seen in Hockett's design features, cannot fully describe language, and instead must include a more pragmatic perspective in order to more accurately measure primate language. Finally I argue that the term language, as it has historically been used to describe only human language is useless, as its exclusivity ignores the gradient of the complexity of higher mental faculties across the evolutionary tree. 1 Introduction From the domestication of dogs approximately 30,000 years ago (Saey, 2017), of horses 5,500 years ago (Wilfred, 2009), and the creation of the first zoo 5,000 years ago (Boissoneault, 2015), it is clear that the human interest in interacting with different species is deeply rooted in our natural history. Central to our interest in non-human animals is an interest in their communication abilities. It is impossible to understand 1 the cognitive abilities or social hierarchies of a species without an understanding of their system(s) of communication.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Human Primates and Language: Paper
    Non-human primates and language: paper http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/nhplanguage/ftpaper.html Language competence in NHPs An assessment of the field in the light of a 'universal grammar' "The Berlin wall is down, and so is the wall that separates man from chimpanzee." (Elizabeth Bates) "There is no debate, so I have no opinion." (Noam Chomsky) 0 Introduction The language competence of non-human primates is one of the most controversial issues in present-day linguistics, with disbelief ranging from bored indifference to vitriolic accusations of fraud. The present paper aims to assess the current state of debate from an open-minded, critical and detached perspective. In a first part, a brief outline of earlier research in the language abilities of non-human primates - more precisely of apes (bonobos, urang-utangs, chimpanzees and gorillas) - is sketched. The second part focusses on the landmark studies published by Dr. Emily Sue Savage-Rumbaugh and her colleagues. A third section looks into the views of the Chomskyan field, leading up to the concluding section on the innateness debate. 1 Early research on non-human primates' capability for language 1.1 Attempts to teach NHPs to speak The language capability of non-human primates has been a subject of research since the beginning of this century. In 1909 already did Witmer attempt to teach a chimpanzee to talk. He claims that the chimpanzee was capable of articulating the word ‘mama’. In 1916 Furness taught an orang-utan to say the words ‘papa’ and ‘cup’. After the unexpected death of this orang-utan, Kellogg and Kellogg wanted to follow up this work.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Umwelten in a Changing World
    Tartu Semiotics Library 18 Tartu Tartu Semiotics Library 18 Animal umwelten in a changing world: Zoosemiotic perspectives represents a clear and concise review of zoosemiotics, present- ing theories, models and methods, and providing interesting examples of human–animal interactions. The reader is invited to explore the umwelten of animals in a successful attempt to retrieve the relationship of people with animals: a cornerstone of the past common evolutionary processes. The twelve chapters, which cover recent developments in zoosemiotics and much more, inspire the reader to think about the human condition and about ways to recover our lost contact with the animal world. Written in a clear, concise style, this collection of articles creates a wonderful bridge between Timo Maran, Morten Tønnessen, human and animal worlds. It represents a holistic approach Kristin Armstrong Oma, rich with suggestions for how to educate people to face the dynamic relationships with nature within the conceptual Laura Kiiroja, Riin Magnus, framework of the umwelt, providing stimulus and opportuni- Nelly Mäekivi, Silver Rattasepp, ties to develop new studies in zoosemiotics. Professor Almo Farina, CHANGING WORLD A IN UMWELTEN ANIMAL Paul Thibault, Kadri Tüür University of Urbino “Carlo Bo” This important book offers the first coherent gathering of perspectives on the way animals are communicating with each ANIMAL UMWELTEN other and with us as environmental change requires increasing adaptation. Produced by a young generation of zoosemiotics scholars engaged in international research programs at Tartu, IN A CHANGING this work introduces an exciting research field linking the biological sciences with the humanities. Its key premises are that all animals participate in a dynamic web of meanings WORLD: and signs in their own distinctive styles, and all animal spe- cies have distinctive cultures.
    [Show full text]
  • Communication Studies (COMM) 1 2 Kent State University Catalog 2020-2021
    Kent State University Catalog 2021-2022 1 COMM 25902 COMMUNICATION THEORY 3 Credit Hours COMMUNICATION STUDIES Study of the process of human communication. Emphasis on source, message, channel and receiver dimensions of communication. (COMM) Examination of major theories of communication and social influence. Prerequisite: None. COMM 15000 INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN COMMUNICATION (KADL) Schedule Type: Lecture 3 Credit Hours Contact Hours: 3 lecture An inquiry into the nature and function of human communication in Grade Mode: Standard Letter interpersonal, group and public contexts. Attributes: TAG Communication Prerequisite: None. COMM 26000 CRITICISM OF PUBLIC DISCOURSE (DIVD) (KHUM) 3 Schedule Type: Lecture Credit Hours Contact Hours: 3 lecture A critical examination of selected public speeches representing diverse Grade Mode: Standard Letter viewpoints on a variety of historic and contemporary issues, emphasizing Attributes: Kent Core Additional, TAG Communication, Transfer Module methods of evaluating public oral communication and the role of Composition speechmaking in free societies. COMM 20000 FOUNDATIONS OF COMMUNICATION 3 Credit Hours Prerequisite: None. The foundations of communication studies course serves as an Schedule Type: Lecture introduction to the major. Provides an introduction to communication Contact Hours: 3 lecture studies faculty, research and the major concentrations of the school; Grade Mode: Standard Letter highlights possible careers in communication studies; and introduces Attributes: Diversity Domestic, Kent Core Humanities, Transfer Module possible ways students can supplement curriculum efforts through Humanities involvement. COMM 26001 PUBLIC COMMUNICATION IN SOCIETY 3 Credit Hours Prerequisite: None. Examines communication in public settings. Content includes issues Schedule Type: Lecture in mass media, political communication and political advertising, news, Contact Hours: 3 other crisis communication, public opinion, and communication in executive, Grade Mode: Standard Letter legislative and judicial settings.
    [Show full text]
  • Bio 314 Animal Behv Bio314new
    NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA SCHOOL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COURSE CODE: BIO 314: COURSE TITLE: ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR xii i BIO 314: ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR Course Writers/Developers Miss Olakolu Fisayo Christie Nigerian Institute for Oceanography and Marine Research, No 3 Wilmot Point Road, Bar-beach Bus-stop, Victoria Island, Lagos, Nigeria. Course Editor: Dr. Adesina Adefunke Ministry of Health, Alausa. Lagos NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA xii i BIO 314 COURSE GUIDE Introduction Animal Behaviour (314) is a second semester course. It is a two credit units compustory course which all students offering Bachelor of Science (BSc) in Biology must take. This course deals with the theories and principles of adaptive behaviour and evolution of animals. The course contents are history of ethology. Reflex and complex behaviour. Orientation and taxes. Fixed action patterns, releasers, motivation and driver. Displays, displacement activities and conflict behaviour. Learning communication and social behaviour. The social behaviour of primates. Hierarchical organization. The physiology of behaviour. Habitat selection, homing and navigation. Courtship and parenthood. Biological clocks. What you will learn in this course In this course, you have the course units and a course guide. The course guide will tell you briefly what the course is all about. It is a general overview of the course materials you will be using and how to use those materials. It also helps you to allocate the appropriate time to each unit so that you can successfully complete the course within the stipulated time limit. The course guide also helps you to know how to go about your Tutor-Marked-Assignment which will form part of your overall assessment at the end of the course.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Communication
    B.A. MASS COMMUNICATION BMC-101 HUMAN COMMUNICATION ITY ERS OF IV SC N IE U N R C A E W & H T S E E C B H M N A O J L O U G R Y U G Directorate of Distance Education Guru Jambheshwar University of Science & Technology HISAR-125001 CONTENT No. Lesson Writer Vetter Page No. 01 Introduction to Sh. Mahesh Kumar Sh. M. R. Patra 1 Communication 02 Process of Sh. Mahesh Kumar Sh. M. R. Patra 17 Communication 03 Human Communication Sh. Mahesh Kumar Sh. M. R. Patra 31 04 Verbal & Non-verbal Sh. Mahesh Kumar Sh. M. R. Patra 46 Communication 05 Intrapersonal Sh. Mahesh Kumar Sh. M. R. Patra 64 COMMUNICATION 06 Interpersonal Sh. Mahesh Kumar Sh. M. R. Patra 77 Communication 07 Group Communication Sh. Mahesh Kumar Sh. M. R. Patra 90 08 Mass Communication Sh. Mahesh Kumar Sh. M. R. Patra 103 09 Theories of Sh. Mahesh Kumar Sh. M. R. Patra 114 Communication 10 Models of Sh. Mahesh Kumar Sh. M. R. Patra 128 Communication Bachelor of Mass Communication (1st year) HUMAN COMMUNICATION (Paper: I) Block: A Unit: I Lesson: 1 INTRODUCTION TO COMMUNICATION Writer: Sh. Mahesh Kumar Faculty Member, JIMS, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Vetter: Sh. M. R. Patra Senior Faculty, Department of C M & T, GJUST, Hisar. LESSON STRUCTURE In this lesson we shall discus about the various introductory aspects of communication. Specifically, we shall focus on the concept of communication. We shall also briefly discuss some definitions of communication. The lesson structure shall be as follows: 1.0 Objectives 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Presentation of Content 1.2.1 Communication - An Overview 1.2.2 Concept of Communication 1.2.3 Definitions of Communication 1.3 Summary 1.4 Key Words 1.5 Self-Assessment Questions (SAQs) 1.6 References/Suggested Reading BMC-101(E) 1 1.0 OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this lesson are: o To Have an Overview of Communication o To Know About the Concept of Communication o To Know About Some Definitions of Communication 1.1 INTRODUCTION: Communication allows people to exchange thoughts through different methods.
    [Show full text]