# Sign Field Theory and Tracking Techniques Used in Studies of Small Carnivorous Mammals

Элина Джоновна, Владимирова

The article is devoted to the problems of animal behavior. The population stability bases on information,received by animal through their habitatcharacteristics without direct visual contacts withother animals. Behavioral reactions may have the numericalexpression and can be calculated dependingon the research tasks. Formalization of the animal activityimplies simultaneous consideration of the followingfive parameters of the sign field: magnitude,anisotropy, intensity, the equivalent distance and thevalue of a given object. For a mammal, the equivalenceof really different objects is established on thebasis of equivalence of the animal"s interactions withthe objects.Publ.:Evolution and Cognition, 2003, Vol. 9, No. 1 https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/50224343/contents-konrad-lorenz-institute/80

Evolution and Cognition, 2003, Vol. 9, No. 1.

Elina Vladimirova/John Mozgovoy

Key words: Adaptation, sign field, footprints, information, environment.

Elina Vladimirova/John Mozgovoy

Sign Field Theory and Tracking Techniques

Used in Studies of Small Carnivorous Mammals

.Introduction

The first zoologist who use snow tracking for studying mammalian ecology and behavior was Alexander FORMOZOV from Moscow. Snow tracking is the most effective technique for determining animals" home range. The theory that we are about to illustrate provides an explanation for phenomena of intrapopulatiol and interspecific animal communication. We will discuss small predator mammals that live in the wild in the environs of Samara, Russia. The species under consideration include the red fox (Vulpes vulpes), the pine marten (Martes martes) the ermine also known as short-tailed weasel (Mustela erminea), and the least weasel (Mustela nivalis). Studying the ways animals accumulate, store and pass on information brings us closer to the understanding of communication mechanisms for the above mentioned species. Our research focused on integration processes involving small predatory solitary mammals. We were mainly interested in studying those cases of ethological information exchange where animals obtain information through their habitat characteristics without direct visual contact with other animals. The proposed theoretical statements are based on many field observations in which the authors used original techniques. The semiotic status of the genetic code, interaction of animals by means of signs, and semiotic problems in general, were discussed in many serious works (SEBEOK 1972, 1976, 2001; KULL 1998, 2000; EMMECHE /HOFFMEYER 1991). The processes of encoding biological information on biochemical, biophysical, molecular- genetic and cellular levels are explained in semiotic context or through notions that, for the past few decades, have been used by semioticists and natural scientists likewise. For the branch of biosemiotics dealing with such processes Thomas A. SEBEOK suggested the term endosemiotics(SEBEOK 1976, pp149-188). The other branch deals with ethologic, ecological and communicational schemes developed in the context of semiotics. In SEBEOK"s classification, this branch is called exosemiotics(SEBEOK 1976, p156).

SEBEOK

came up with the idea of transforming endosemiotic

codes into exosemiotic ones (SEBEOK2001, p62). Although it seems unlikely that such

transformation will be possible in the near future,

current ethological, ecological and socio-biological

researches can actually open "the black box" of animal

communication from the "exit" side without addressing

the genetic code in general or specific codes

of instinctive responses (i.e., behavioral responses

characteristic of given animal species). On the molecular-

genetic level, we have nucleotide sequences

that encode the synthesis of particular ferments. On

the ethological level, we deal with "genetically programmed"

species-specific forms of environmental

and behavioral perception. In other words, the issue

In case of direct contacts, sign interaction between

animals may take the form of a "dialogue" or

transfer of information to a specific addressee. Besides,

animals of many species remain solitary for

the most part of their life and interact through their

informative environment. Through direct contacts,

animals pass on significant information about their

condition and environment; an animal may contact

its partner deliberately and expect it to respond.

More often, however, we witness a situation where

information is passed on to animals inhabiting the

same or adjacent territory without any communicative

intention of the sender who changes its habitat

in the course of its natural life. Later on the information

is "read" by a recipient animal which, in its

turn, makes some changes to the environment and

leaves information on its own life activity for visitors

to come. The information on animal life activity

is, therefore, accumulated and stored in the environment

for a long time. To an individual animal

such information may characterize its habitat, other

individuals or acts of communication between

other individuals if there have been any. Our field

research has demonstrated that, for any particular

animal, traces of life activity left by the animal"s

conspecifics sharing the same habitat are more important

than abiotic information.

A scientist that uses the technique described below

for studying sign interaction between animals,

does not deal with their habitat as such; rather, he

or she deals with an informative sign field activated,

in its perception process, by an animal"s movement

response. While a recipient animal is moving

around in the sign field of its own or in that of a

group, sign information is both read by the recipient,

and produced to be read by other individuals

that may visit the territory later. The sign field technique

allows to split up the continuous information

flow into "quanta" in which signifiers correlate with

the signified. Therefore, this technique takes into

account both the quantity and the physical form of

sign information. It allows to measure sign behavior,

mathematically process observation results, and

model automatic regulation based on sign interaction

of individuals. Buy using this technique one

can simulate, in the form of field parameters, the

real variety of elements comprising the information

continuum. This is done, as much as possible, on

the basis of perception of environmental sign information

by its natural users.

Jakob von UEXKÜLL

demonstrated the unique

character of the perceptional world of an individual

animal (UEXKÜLL

2001, p108). To describe the perceptional

that is experienced by different species, he

used the term

Umwelt

. We support UEXKÜLL"s idea

that animals" perception of reality is subjective. In

our studies of this subjectivity we attempted to use

calculations. This subjectivity accounts for the differences

between sign fields of individual animals of

the same species living in the same habitat. Parameters

of biological sign fields are measurable. For a

given animal, its sign field characteristics are also

determined by the species it represents and the condition

of its habitat. Communication process integrates

the animal populations and, by doing so, balances

the ecosystem structure.

Solitary mammals living in the wild often communicate

by leaving unaddressed "messages" which

are "recorded" in various objects and events of their

environment. As a recipient animal moves around,

any such message takes the shape of a succession of

signs which is somewhat similar to a "text line". In

the process of perception, the sign information is

actualised by the recipient in the form of a chain of

movements. Within the limits determined by the

species and actual motivation of the recipient animal

the message may be polysemic.

Inborn behavior mechanisms and specific experience

acquired by an animal in ontogenesis ensure

that the animal will, in some way, respond to environmental

signals with its movements. To an extent,

the boundaries of such experience are determined

genetically, but they can vary a lot. It is the

"learned" behavior component that accounts for a

big difference that is sometimes observed between

the inner worlds of two individual mammals. In the

long run, behavioral polymorphism of individuals

in a population of mammals provides for higher stability

of ecosystems (MOZGOVOY 1976).

As we move on from studying inborn forms of

animal behavior to studying learned behavior (i.e.,

behavior acquired in ontogenesis), it is important to

remember that semiotic information should be distinguished

from information in general. In information

processing no new information is generated,

the output being obtained from the input by

carrying out pre-set operations. No new units of information

with the meaning yet to be interpreted

are created (FRUMKINA 1995, p103).

Evolution and Cognition

❘

3

❘

2003, Vol. 9, No. 1

Sign Field Theory and Tracking Techniques Used in Studies of Small Carnivorous Mammals

A number of issues of wild life ecology can be successfully

addressed with a different approach which

uses the concept of "message" without limiting the

code boundaries for the information sender. This

approach is supported by an Italian semioticist Umberto

ECO

who distinguishes between

information

and a

sign message

. According to ECO

, a

sign message

has connotations emerging from the recipient"s life

experience, whereas

information

of any kind can be

received by a properly tuned non-living mechanism.

"A message that has no indications to the

code used by the sender" can still be understood either

on the basis of its "inner context" or from the

"general communicative situation" (ECO 1998, p48,70-73).

The theory of

biological sign field

has been confirmed

by empirical evidence. The related techniques

have been successfully tested. We believe

that practical significance of the sign field theory

goes beyond the scope of environmental science.

The theory makes it possible to take into account

both the physical form and the quantity of sign information

in hierarchically structured semiotic systems.

1. The Biological Sign Field Theory As an

Ecological Model Used in Studies of

Mammals

According to N. P. NAUMOV

, a biological sign field is

"the total environmental impact of mammals that

causes structural changes in their habitat" (NAUMOV

1977, p339). The authors of the related field research

technique define a biological sign field as "a

spatio-temporal continuum which is formed by a

functioning ecosystem and, at the same time, determines

the functioning of this ecosystem" (MOZGOVOY/ROSENBERG

1992, pp8-9). The function of a biological

sign field is to inform animals of the

environmental conditions, as well as the state of

ecological systems. A sign field represents informative

and communicative interaction between mammals

and their environment. This interaction is

studied from the sign information recipient"s point

of view (VLADIMIROVA

2002, p204). A specific sign

field can be linked with an individual, a population,

a specific group within a population (e.g., age or sex

group), a co-adapted complex of environmentally

close species, or a bioceonosis.

The formulation of the biological sign field theory

in 1992 by J. P. MOZGOVOY was preceded by

many years of his studies of mammalian behavior:

MOZGOVOY

had been collecting his data by tracking

animals in winter since 1961. In wildlife ecology the

method of collecting data by following footprints

and marks that animals leave on the snow is known

as FORMOZOV"s and NASIMOVICH

"s technique

.

It can

be used to study various parameters of mammalian

life activity during the winter (NASIMOVICH 1955; FORMOZOV 1959; OSHMARIN/PIKUNOV 1990). This

technique, however, fails to provide the means to

cover a very important aspect of ecosystem functioning,

namely the aspect of passing on information.

This drawback may be eliminated by the use of

"elementary" movements of animals as units that

ensure consistency of results obtained by the snow

tracking method. An elementary movement can be

a response to the perception of sign field objects (external

cues) or to inner stimuli determining the

dominant motivation of an animal. Choosing elementary

movements as units of field material is a

distinctive feature of the research method described.

Ability "to read" animal footprints is not,

however, sufficient for studying animal behavior in

the wild. The researcher must have clear-cut objectives

and some kind of elementary structure units to

measure animal behavior. A serious research needs a

strong theoretical basis. The theory of a biological

sign field of mammals may form such a basis

(MOZGOVOY/ROSENBERG 1992, pp30-31).

The main challenge of applying this theory consists

in maximizing the objectivity of studying

movements of mammals in the subjectively significant

environment. A researcher must not substitute

his or her environmental perception for the animals"

perception of the world. The objective interpretation

of animal activity presents two methodological

problems. The first one is the difficulty of

"calibrating" environmental objects and events that

provoke or may provoke animals" movement responses.

It is difficult to determine the equality or

inequality of signs for animals motivated in a certain

way. Solving this problem would allow to take

measurements. The second problem is the difficulty

of determining the boundaries of the "quantum" of

behavior which represents a movement response to

a particular environmental cue (object or event)

.

A researcher relates any such cue or sign perceived by

an animal to an elementary movement response

called a

drive

.

When collecting field material the researcher follows

the footprints left by an animal and registers all

environmental objects the animals orient themselves

by and respond to with a movement. Learning

to tell the species, age, sex, motivation and functional

condition of an animal by looking at its

Evolution and Cognition

❘

4

❘

2003, Vol. 9, No. 1

Elina Vladimirova/John Mozgovoy

footprints on the snow, or to decide how fresh the

footprints are takes years of field observation practise.

A good observer should be able to identify

those elements in the environment that have provoked

a particular movement response of an animal.

Animals have certain species behavior stereotypes.

The knowledge of these stereotypes allows an

experienced researcher to relate the animal"s movement

activity in each particular situation to a particular

kind of environmental signals and/or a particular

sort of inner motivation. Wild predator

mammals are quite "thrifty"-they mostly respond

with a movement or some change of activity type to

those environmental signals that carry a certain

meaning to them. Thus, a good knowledge of wild

life ecology is a prerequisite for the use of sign field

technique. It will be of little or no use to a researcher

lacking experience in field observation.

The sign field theory views animal behavior as a

succession of discrete movement responses (drives)

which are determined by two sets of factors, internal

and external ones. The internal factors include the

animal"s species, the inborn power of its receptors, its

genetic memory, individual characteristics (e.g., life

experience, nervous system type, age and sex), its

motivation and general behavior conditions in a particular

situation. The external factors are environmental

cues taken by the animal, which include the

signs that indicate the population condition. The "elementary"

movement responses (drives) are chosen

as key elements of analysis.

A number of examples

will be given later in the article.

Movements of a wild animal may be unguided by

any visible landmarks.

In such cases the string of

footprints usually twists. Most of the time, however,

animal movements

are

guided by some events or objects

such as micro-relief elements (hummocks and

hollows), shrubs, tufts of grass, patches of ice, other

animals" paths, snow burrows, traces of conspecific

animals" feeding, cleaning or relaxation, ski-tracks,

traces of birds etc. Animals go straight to such objects.

The same object may provoke different movement

responses in the same animal. For example, a

fox smelling or hearing a rodent under the snow,

may respond to this smell or noise in four ways: it

may stop and prick up its ears, it may also stalk,

jump or try to catch the prey. Although each of the

above mentioned drives can be viewed as a combination

of even simpler elements or movements,

counting elements consisting the drive is not relevant

for a researcher, unlike counting drives-the

movements which create certain behavior stereotypes

in animals of a given species in situations similar

to the one described. Very often the movements

of an animal can be correlated with particular

events in its environment.

We ignore the signified objects that cannot be related

to particular footprints on the snow, which

may be seen as a drawback of our method. We make

a comparison between informational interactions

of various individuals and/or groups with their environment.

Therefore, we believe that we can leave

out as unimportant those examples of animals" environmental

perception which have not provoked

any movement response, just as we reduce the numerator

and denominator of a fraction in carrying

out multiplication and division operations.

Snow tracking technique presents a challenge for

those urban citizens who have no winter outdoor

experience in the wilderness or cannot ski well.

Most city people have a vague idea of animal life in

the wild, especially, in winter. The expansion of suburbs

into the country accompanied by the increasing

use of snowmobiles in the woods makes the use

of the sign field technique even more difficult. As a

result, this technique, although being a very interesting

method of animal ecology research, has not

been widely accepted. The situation is further complicated

by the necessity for a researcher specializing

in ecology to master concepts of semiotics.

However, from our experience we know that this

task can be accomplished.

Species, sex, age and motivation of an animal can

be identified by using the appropriate research techniques.

The identification can only be successful if

the researcher possesses good observation skills.

When an animal"s motivation, sex or age characteristics

cannot be determined for certain, some extra

observation may be necessary for collecting enough

data to be able to choose between alternatives. FORMOZOV"s tracking technique has become a standard

practize of zoologist researchers studying wildlife in

winter time. The method is quite sensitive and if applied

with due care, can provide accurate quantitative

data.

In the process of analysing animal behavior in a

biological sign field a researcher collects data on the

code, meaning and value of sign information perceived

by animals as they move in their habitat. The

environmental cues which guide animals as they

move are associated with the sign information

code

.

The search for specific external cues, as well as attempts

to avoid them, is associated with the

meaning

of information. The intensity of movement responses

to particular environmental cues indicate

the

value

(significance) of information.

Evolution and Cognition

❘

5

❘

2003, Vol. 9, No. 1

Sign Field Theory and Tracking Techniques Used in Studies of Small Carnivorous Mammals

Patterns of objectively discrete elementary behavior

acts are considered to be the main characteristics

of the mammalian sign field. Movement elements,

behavioral reactions of the same motivation,

and parameters of the sign field which represents

the animal"s signal-information environment, may

be expressed numerically and calculated according

to the researcher"s needs. It is important to remember

that it is the individual whose information links

are studied that serves as a "tool" or "device" to determine

the field parameters. Information/sign interaction

between animals and their environment

can be studied not only on the level of individuals,

but also on the level of populations, species or biocenosis.

The field material collected by using the snow

tracking method can be organized in the following

two ways:

1. Formalization of elementary movement acts and

environmental cues, with the emphasis on the

motivational type of the individual"s behavior.

2. formalization of certain traits of an individual interacting

with the environment, with the emphasis

on those environmental cues that provoked

the movement response;

In the first case an individual"s behavior is represented

as a succession of drives and the researcher"s

attention is focused on the environmental cues as

physical bearers of information that provoked

movement responses, and on the quantitative assessment

of these responses.

With this approach, the field parameters are not

measured on an absolute spatio-temporal scale of

physical or chemical states (in other words, this approach

does not look at the reality detached from

the perception of environmental cues by an animal);

rather, they are measured on "informational"

space and time scales that are characteristic of a living

system.

Parameters of a sign field characterize its structure,

i.e., the internal organization of a field as a

sign-information system. This structure is determined

by analysing interrelations between environmental

objects-sign bearers-on one hand, and

animals that perceive the signs as they move

around, on the other.

In the second case drives are classified according

to the dominant type of animal behavior (e.g., orienting

towards objects, searching, exploration, relaxation

and cleaning, defensive behavior). The

data obtained characterize the animal"s responses to

particular signs in the process of their movement activity

(MOZGOVOY/ROSENBERG

1992, pp27-28).

Formalization of the spatio-temporal information

continuum of a sign field implies simultaneous

consideration of the following five parameters of

the field: magnitude, anisotropy, intensity, the

equivalent distance and the value (significance) of a

given object. The structure of a sign field, its functioning

and main patterns of transformation can be

determined by these characteristics:

1. the

magnitude

of a field is the number of

different

kinds

of environmental objects and events involved

in the information recipient"s activity (two

objects or events are considered to be of a different

kind if animals of the given species with the given

type of motivation respond to them by showing

different behavior patterns). A characteristic of

the subjectively significant part of the environment

or the scope of environmental perception,

the field magnitude shows the extent to which the

state of animals" environment meets their expectations;

2. the

anisotropy

of a field is the total number of

all

environmental cues (objects and events) to which

animals respond by some kind of movement.

Anisotropy indicates the selectiveness of interaction

between animals and their habitat;

3. the

intensity

of a field is the number of elementary

movement responses to all environmental cues

(the number of drives). It indicates the extent to

which the information recipients" environmental

expectations are met;

4. the equivalent distance is the distance (measured

in meters) covered by a given animal or group of

animals as they make 100 drives. It shows the impact

of an individual or a group of animals on

their habitat. The equivalent distance serves as a

quantitative measure of the "information expansion"

of the target object of studies. By reducing

the above three field parameters to the equivalent

distance one can obtain comparable numerical

values of field parameters for animals with different

body size and speed of biochemical reactions.

For animals of different species any given equivalent

distance used as a group field characteristic

will correspond with the same number of drives

and the same field intensity;

5. the value of a given sign (environmental cue) is

the number of elementary movement responses it

provoked in the animal or group under consideration.

For the mammals covered by our research all sign

field parameters fall under the influence of both internal

(inborn), and external (environmental) factors.

However, all other things being equal, the magEvolution

and Cognition

❘

6

❘

2003, Vol. 9, No. 1

Elina Vladimirova/John Mozgovoy

nitude of a sign field primarily indicates the variety

of environmental cues that are new or present some

interest to all representatives of a given species; in

other words, it shows the character of information

received. The field anisotropy primarily characterizes

animal motivation, or the meaning of the information

received. It is measured as the total number

of the most preferable objects in the subjectively

perceived landscape. Sign field intensity primarily

characterizes an individual"s willingness to respond

to environmental cues; in other words, it shows the

value of information received. The equivalent distance

of a field is primarily associated with the species

represented by the individual or group under

consideration. This distance depends on how the

individual or group perceive calendar time. In the

theory of sign field time is seen as a measure of

changes in the environment.

In biosemiotics the interaction between organisms

and their environment is interpreted as a

meaning of the lowest degree of semiosis (STEPANOV

1971, p28). For any particular organism its ability to

recognize environmental objects closely correlates

with the frequency and regularity of interaction between

the organism and a given environment object.

Signs primarily develop through the most regular

interactions relevant to the life cycle.

In the language of humans trying to interprete

the signs of interactions between mammals the

same word may refer to a number of different objects

or events. How can one tell, in trying to determine

the magnitude of a sign field, whether two or

more objects or events have the same meaning to an

animal or a group of animals? For a mammal, the

equivalence of really different objects is established

on the basis of equivalence of the animal"s interactions

with the objects. We consider two different environmental

cues as having equal meaning if animals

of the same species, driven by the same type of

motivator, respond to them in exactly the same

way, i.e., by rather stereotyped behavior.

It should be noted that there are two different

ways to calculate the magnitude, intensity and

anisotropy of a biological sign field; the choice depends

on the researcher"s needs. In the first approach,

these parameters are expressed in relation

to the length of the string of footprints, measured in

meters. In studying foxes" behavior, for example, it

is convenient to calculate the field parameters for a

string of footprints one thousand meters long. The

second way of calculation is used to compare different

animal species behavior or to calculate the parameters

of a group sign field. In this second case the

magnitude and anisotropy are calculated per unit of

the equivalent distance. The field intensity divided

by the equivalent distance always equals 100 drives,

but the equivalent distance itself, expressed in

meters, varies a lot. Of all techniques used in the statistical

analysis of information field parameters variance

analysis is the most convenient one.

Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the field material collection

technique that takes into consideration sign

field parameters. Fig. 1 shows footprints of a red fox

(Vulpes vulpes)

. The footprints were left while the animal

was searching for food. The fox was moving

from left to right. As it moved along, it was guided

by the following succession of objects: (1) a skitrack,

(2) a tree, (3) the same ski-track, (4) another

tree, (5) the same ski-track once again, (6) footprints

of an elk (

Alces alces

), (7) the same elk"s footprints on

the ski-track, (8) a stump, (9) a bush, (10) another

stump (or, rather, a broken tree). In this case we are

dealing with six different kinds of objects: (1) a skitrack,

(2) a tree, (3) footprints of an elk, (4) the same

elk"s footprints on the ski-track, (5) a stump, and (6)

a bush; thus, the magnitude of the sign field is 6.

The total of ten objects provoked movement responses

in the information recipient (the fox); thus,

the field anisotropy equals ten. The field intensity

on the given part of the animal"s snow track equals

twelve, which means that we can identify 12 elementary

movements with which the animal responded

to environmental cues. The following is

the list of environmental cues with the number of

responses to each cue in parentheses: the first encounter

with a ski-track (1), a tree (1), the second encounter

with the ski-track (1); another tree (1); the

Figure 1: These footprints belong to a red fox"s (Vulpes vulpes).

The sign field has the magnitude of 6 (i.e., the animal encounters

6 different kinds of objects, or environmental cues, to

which it actively responds). The sign field anisotropy, i.e., the

total number of environmental cues to which the animal responds,

equals ten. The sign field intensity, i.e. the total number

of "elementary" movement responses equals twelve.

Evolution and Cognition

❘

7

❘

2003, Vol. 9, No. 1

Sign Field Theory and Tracking Techniques Used in Studies of Small Carnivorous Mammals

third encounter with the ski-track (1), an elk"s footprints

(1), the same elk"s footprint on the ski-track

(1); a stump (3 responses: approaching, territory

marking, and reorientation-the animal turned

around and paused), a bush (1)-the fox moved towards

it,-and another stump (1). The question is

whether we should consider an elk"s footprints on a

ski-track as a sign which is different from both a skitrack

and an elk"s footprints off a ski-track, or consider

it to be a simple combination of the two objects

that the animal came across earlier? Answering

this kind of question will require a long animal observation

practice. Our observation experience

shows that the information that a fox derives from

an elk"s footprints on a ski-track is quite different to

the one that it gets from a ski-track without footprints

or from an elk"s footprints off a ski-track.

When they cross "dangerous" spots associated with

human activities, animals often follow other animals,

trying to imitate their behavior. The figure

shows that, near the ski-track, the fox followed the

elk"s footprints precisely, trying to walk "in step"

with the elk; but once it crossed the ski-track, it noticed

a stump and moved towards it. Animals often

follow other beasts" footprints, or the ones they left

themselves earlier on.

Before collecting field material a researcher decides

what length (in meters) of the string of footprints

he or she is going to study. This enables him/

her to compare the sign field parameters obtained

for different animals. In the given example the fox"s

sign field parameters were calculated for a 1,000-

meter-long string of footprints. This length was

chosen experimentally. First, it was found that, on a

stretch of about 1,000 meters, a fox comes across the

entire variety of objects that can possibly arouse its

interest. A researcher who follows footprints of a fox

beyond the 1,000-meter point is unlikely to discover

any objects meaningful to the animal, other

than those that he or she has already seen. Second,

the distance of 1,000 m is convenient for calculations:

it is comparable to both the size of a hunting

area that a red fox can cover within 24 hours, and

the size of an area in the woods that a researcher

tracking animal footprints in the snow can possibly

cover during one field trip.

The string of footprints shown in Figure 2 belongs

to a pine marten

(Martes martes)

. In this case

the sign field has the magnitude of four-the animal

came across four different objects that provoked

its movement responses: (1) a large forked

tree, (2) a bush, (3) a blade of grass, and (4) a stump.

The anisotropy of the marten"s sign field for the

given section of its track of footprints (the total

number of environmental cues/objects) also equals

four, as all the objects are different. How did we decide

that the large forked tree in the beginning of

the studied section of the track and the stump with

a branch sticking out meant different things to the

marten? Once again, the researcher"s decision was

based on his long-term observation experience and

professional intuition arising from his recollections

of animals" responses to such kinds of objects. Animals

of any particular species respond to environmental

cues with a rather stereotyped set of movements

which can be compared to a set

"vocabulary". Martens searching for small rodents

almost always jump on low stumps coming into

sight unless they start seeing footprints of a fox

quite often or for long periods of time, in which case

they usually climb trees. The sight of foxes" footprints

seems to put martens under stress. The intensity

of the sign field of the marten whose track of

footprints is shown in Figure 2 equals ten. (Such is

the number of "elementary movements" with

which the marten responded to the above mentioned

four environmental cues). As for the forked

tree, it provoked two responses in the animal: the

marten approached it and leaned to it. As it moved

Figure 2: These footprints belong to a pine marten (Martes martes).

The sign field has the magnitude of 4, the anisotropy in

this case equals the magnitude, and the intensity equals 10.

Evolution and Cognition ❘ 8 ❘ 2003, Vol. 9, No. 1

Elina Vladimirova/John Mozgovoy

further, the marten switched from galloping to a

trot without any noticeable reason (unguided by

any particular cue), which counts as one response;

the bush and the blade of grass provoked one response

each; the stump provoked three responses-

the marten approached it, then jumped on it, and

finally jumped off it; these responses were followed

by another change of pace without any traceable

cause (one other response); all in all, we have

counted ten elementary movement responses. On

its way the animal crossed a little hollow, but since

this micro relief element did not provoke any response,

it was not taken into consideration in the

calculation the field magnitude. However, this landmark

is worth being registered by a researcher, since

it might have a meaning to an animal under different

circumstances. Thus, a hollow has a different

meaning to a fox than it does to a marten, since

foxes, when they have a short rest during their

hunting, sometimes lie down on a sunlit slope protected

from the wind-"this way they can fully enjoy

the heat of the sun by exposing one side to direct

sun rays and the other side to the heat reflected

from snow or a tree stump" (FORMOZOV 1959, p22).

Once the dominant motivation is known, assumptions

can be made on the corresponding signified

objects. The motivation provides the context of

a message which an animal may receive from its

habitat. Animals are motivated by their physiological

needs such as hunger, thirst, the need to clean

themselves, the need to rest, the need to reproduce,

etc. Motivation of an animal can be increased by its

emotional state. To the above-mentioned needs we

should add the automatic stimulation phenomenon.

As a result of this phenomenon a given type of

behavior persists for some time after the physiological

need that caused it was practically satisfied. Familiar

environmental signals of low and medium

intensity that provoke changes in the animal"s behavior

cannot change the animal"s major (predominant)

type of behavior. Such side signals may, however,

cause temporary shifts in the animal"s

behavior. Activities to which the animal switches

for short periods of time represent minor types of

behavior. Long persistence of a particular type of behavior

in an animal may cause nervous strain. Animals

have a very short attention span; as a result,

they alternate their major type of behavior with the

minor types.

Since the proposed method of research requires

the registration of animal movement responses,

someone may have an impression that it is based on

the theory of behaviorism. In fact, this impression is

far from the truth. The main problem of zoosemioticians

arises from the fact that they have no other

way to determine the signified, but through the

study of the signifier. Behaviorists have reduced this

idea to absurdity by denying the very concept of the

signified. The toughest challenge an animal tracker

will face is splitting up the continuum of the animal"s

perception into units matching the animal"s

behavior patterns. In other words, we are dealing

with a purely semiotic problem of attributing signifiers

to the hypothetical objects they signify. In linking

the signifiers with the signified it is important to

know the traits of animals tracked as well as their

sign system.

The authors of the mammalian sign field theory

sought to provide researchers with tools to assess

the informational contribution of different species

and animals with different speed of biochemical reactions,

to the alteration of their common habitat.

By determining the magnitude, anisotropy and intensity

of a sign field we can formalize communication

processes in populations and co-adapted complexes

of close mammal species, and compare

adaptive behavior responses of different individuals,

populations, species and representatives of different

conspecific intra-population groups (e.g.,

groups of individuals of specific age or sex) (MOZGOVOY

1989, pp138-150).

The sign field theory provides the minimal set of

parameters with which one can assess the population

trends of small predatory mammals living

across the Volga river from the city of Samara, Russia

(MOZGOVOY 1983, pp105-107 **MISSING IN

REFS**). According to the population self-regulation

theory (SCHWARTZ 1980, pp126,164-166; GILIAROV

1990, p105), populations of mammals can maintain

their number on the level appropriate for their habitat

conditions. Apart from genetic mechanisms

which predetermine the dominance of genotypes

with a higher or lower fertility level, depending on

the population size, there are other mechanisms

that may cause changes of population; namely,

stress mechanisms which change mammals" behavior

and the size of their ecological niche (DAJOZ

1975, p245; GILLER 1988, p32). The hypothesis of

the behavior regulation of predator mammals number

puts forward the idea that social behavior depends

on the population density at a certain moment

of time; endocrine predator responses to a

higher density change, first of all, territory and reproductive

behavior responses through the increase

of "individuals" aggression" (ROSENBERG/MOZGOVOY/

GELASHVILLY 1999, p213).

Evolution and Cognition ❘ 9 ❘ 2003, Vol. 9, No. 1

Sign Field Theory and Tracking Techniques Used in Studies of Small Carnivorous Mammals

The sign field theory and the related tracking

technique helped solving a number of specific ecological

problems. For example, we have compared

responses of individuals and groups living under

different degrees of anthropogenic pressure.

Table 1 shows sign field parameters for a fox

(Vulpes vulpes), a marten (Martes martes), an ermine

(Mustela erminea) and a weasel (Mustela nivalis). The

field magnitude was calculated for the distances

equivalent to the same number of drives for all the

animals. It shows the variety of environmental cues

to which the animals responded. For the fox 100 elementary

movement responses occurred on the section

of its track 900 m long, for the marten the average

distance equivalent to the same number of

drives is 343 m, the equivalent distances for the ermine

and the weasel are 220 m and 145 m respectively.

The field intensity for the equivalent distance

equals 100 elementary movements. The field anisotropy

is determined as the total number of objects

and events to which the animal responded while

covering a fixed length of its track. Anisotropy may

also be determined for the distance equivalent to

100 drives. In the example illustrated by the data in

Table 1, anisotropy and intensity were calculated for

1,000 m of the animal"s track of footprints. This was

done to demonstrate the difference in the tempo of

motion activity for different species. The research

was carried out in the woods of flood-lands of the

Volga valley in the Samara Oblast of Russia in 1978-

1982.

As we see, some species respond to a greater variety

of environmental cues than the other, due to

more extensive environmental ties and better

adaptability. The variety of an animal"s ties with the

environment can be measured as the number of environmental

cues reflected in the animal"s behavior.

Among the predator mammals studied, the fox,

whose sign field has a considerable magnitude, has

the greatest ability to perceive, assimilate and transform

environmental cues; therefore, it can be considered

the dominant species in the co-adapted

complex inhabiting woody flood-lands in the environs

of Samara. Of the four species under consideration

the fox has the lowest, and the weasel-the

highest intensity of the sign field. The marten"s sign

field, for example, is 2.5-3.0 times more "intensive"

than the fox"s. One-way analysis of variance

(ANOVA) has shown that the variance of intensity

of an individual"s sign field does not exceed the difference

in field intensity between species, though

for the marten the ratio of the highest to the lowest

level of field intensity may be close to 2:1. The same

is true about the variance of anisotropy within one

species and between the species.

The material is divided into four parts according

to the predominant type of motivation. Such division

is necessary, since the sign field parameters depend

on the type of behavior prevailing over a 24-

hour period. Prevailing types of behavior are easy to

identify: they normally show themselves through,

as long as the study of an animal"s behavior over a

24-hour period is complete. As animals change their

activities going through the necessary stages between

resting and hunting, all the sign field parameters

increase.Let us now examine the sign field parameters

of several individual foxes of different sex,

age, and type of behavior. Each of these three factors

somehow influences the sign field parameters. To

estimate this influence analysis of variance was

used. Fisher"s criterion was applied to assess the reliability

of the estimation. The data taken from the

work of J. P. MOZGOVOY and I. V. YUDINA (1995) are

shown in Table 2.

Table 3 shows how the tempo of life (the speed of

biochemical reactions) of the marten and the fox

changes with age. The same animals were tracked

during four winters while they were searching for

food in the woods around the city of Samara, Russia.

We can see that the tempo of life of any individual

slows down with age. As it is known from various

scientific publications, this phenomenon is attrib-

Fox Marten Ermine Weasel

Number of animals

observed

7 14 2 3

Total length of

animal tracks (m)

37,823 82,162 1,325 1,000

Average field

magnitude

23.4 18.5 17.0 11.0

Field magnitude

range

18-33 12-32 15-18 5-17

Average anisotropy 44 107 234 197

Anisotropy range 42-67 99-200 - -

Average intensity 111 289 468 695

Intensity range 97-150 240-456 - -

Table 1: Sign field parameters for the red fox (Vulpes vulpes),

the pine marten (Martes martes), the ermine (short-tailed weasel)

(Mustela erminea) and the least weasel (Mustela nivalis).

Field magnitude is calculated for the distance equivalent to

100 drives. Field intensity and anisotropy are calculated for

sections of animal tracks 1,000 m long. The tracking was done

in the woods of the Volga flood-lands across the river from the

city of Samara, Russia in 1978-1982 (MOZGOVOY/ROSENBERG

1992)

Evolution and Cognition ❘ 10 ❘ 2003, Vol. 9, No. 1

Elina Vladimirova/John Mozgovoy

Behavior

type

The animal"s sex

and age group

Length of

track (m)

Field

magnitude

Field

anisotropy

Field

intensity

Distance equiv.

to 100 drives

Escaping danger

(passive defensive

behavior)

Adult male 1,655 26 48 157 658

Adult female 1,024 26 99 284 1,284

Adult female 1,884 11 36 119 397

Foraging

(searching

for food)

Adult female 1,588 36 121 354 284

Adult female 988 32 112 443 226

Adult female 1,705 27 143 439 228

Adult female 1,443 34 149 334 275

Change of

feeding territory

Adult male 2,584 36 88 242 413

Adult male 2,295 24 61 203 493

Adult male 1,094 35 63 233 429

Adult male 1,874 15 67 176 568

Young male 2,358 21 47 98 1,020

Young male 957 18 73 180 556

Young male 1,060 21 53 174 575

Adult female 1,478 23 76 254 394

Inspecting

own territory

Adult female 1,114 42 89 408 245

Adult male 1,541 46 106 434 230

Adult male 1,549 44 139 373 268

Young male 1,324 30 128 378 265

Table 2: The sign field parameters calculated for red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) with different behavior types. The magnitude,

anisotropy and intensity were calculated for a 1000 m length of a track of footprints. Forests in the environs

of Samara, Russia, 1994. (MOZGOVOY/YUDINA 1995).

Individual

description

Sign field

parameter

1980 1981 1982 1983

Adult female

marten

Intensity - 473 407 310

Magnitude - 38 34 32

Young male

marten

Intensity 540 - 397 -

Magnitude 41 - 27 -

Adult male

fox

Intensity - - 276 195

Magnitude - - 38 28

Table 3: Changes in sign field intensity and magnitude demonstrating

the lowering tempo of life for twp pine martens

(Martes martes) and a red fox (Vulpes vulpes) as the animals

advance in age. The parameters were calculated for a 1,000-

meter-long section of a track of footprints. The tracking was

done in the woods of the Volga flood-lands across the river

from the city of Samara, Russia in 1980-1983. (MOZGOVOY/

ROSENBERG 1992)

Animal

species

Sign field

magnitude

Average number of elementary movement

responses to the footprints

of a given species representative

human fox marten ermine weasel

Fox 26.4 18.6 31.4 0.8 - -

Marten 20.5 16.0 4.0 18.8 - -

Ermine 19.0 6.1 6.1 0.3 21.5 -

Weasel 12.0 4.6 20.2 0.5 - 2.9

Table 4: Information ties between the species of the same coadapted

complex. The field magnitude is calculated for the

distance equivalent to 100 drives. The tracking was done in

the environs of Samara, Russia, in 1992 (MOZGOVOY/ROSENBERG

1992).

Evolution and Cognition ❘ 11 ❘ 2003, Vol. 9, No. 1

Sign Field Theory and Tracking Techniques Used in Studies of Small Carnivorous Mammals

uted to decreasing metabolism. Research of the

same kind conducted during field seasons of 1993-

2000 confirmed that there is correlation between

animals" age and their tempo of life.

Let us now look at another example of how the

sign field technique can be applied in animal ecology

studies: this time we are going to examine the

information links between the fox, the marten, the

ermine and the weasel. Each of the four species of

this complex reacts differently to the signs left by

animals of the other species. This difference is

clearly demonstrated in Table 4, which allows to

build a hierarchy of informational dependence of

the given species on the other species.

The analysis of the data presented in the table

shows that, for any individual animal, traces left by

animals of the same species have a much higher informational

value than traces left by animals of any

other species.

From the above we can draw the following conclusions.

Animals of species with similar feeding

habits that live in the same area, form the so-called

co-adapted complex. (A co-adapted complex consists

of populations representing several species

with similar ecological requirements to their habitat

(MOZGOVOY/ROSENBERG 1992, pp43-45). The niches

occupied by the species represented in a co-adapted

complex overlap. Animals within any given coadapted

complex exchange information on their

habitat structure. The species of the same coadapted

complex respond to the same or similar environmental

cues. Their sign fields consist of similar

elements and do not differ a lot in magnitude. Animals

respond to animals" footprints more actively

than to landmarks. The intensity of contacts between

individuals of the same species is higher than

the intensity of interspecific contacts. The sign

fields of males and females of the same species differ

in magnitude. Compared to females, males respond

more intensively to any unusual environmental

cues including anthropogenic signs. The above conclusions

based on the materials collected before

1992 were once again confirmed by our later research

carried out in 1993-2000.

In the following example we compare the sign

fields of animals living in similar environments

which only differ in the degree of human impact

on them. The data presented in Table 5 were collected

during the winter months in 1978-1985. We

studied the sign fields of 12 adult pine martens

(Martes martes) living in the Volga flood-lands

across the river from the city of Samara, in Krasnosamarskoye

Preserve 100 km east of Samara, and

in Bashkirsky Wildlife Reservation (Bashkortostan,

the Southern Urals). The human impact on the animals"

habitat increases as we go from BASHKIRSKY

Reservation to Krasnosamarskoye Forestry to the

environs of the city of Samara. The sign field intensity

was calculated for 1,000-meter-long sections of

animal tracks of footprints. This parameter characterizes

the tempo of animal"s life by showing how

actively they move, and is determined as the total

number of elementary movement responses per

unit of distance.

As we can see, the pine marten shows a higher level

of activity in the area with the stronger human impact

on the environment. It results in the higher values

of the sign field anisotropy and intensity. The anthropogenic

factor causes a larger increase in the field

intensity of females compared to males. An increase

in the anisotropy and intensity of biological sign

fields may indicate that animals are put under stress.

Behavior type Parameter

Bashkirsky Wildlife Reservation

and Krasnosamarskoye Forestry

The Volga flood-lands across the

river from the city of Samara

males females males females

Food-searching

Number of individuals observed 1 3 4 4

Covered length of track (m) 7,840 7,771 13,740 16,500

Field intensity 224 291 368 510

Changing the

feeding territory

Number of individuals observed 1 4 1 3

Covered length of track (m) 4,860 4,960 1,722 12,494

Field intensity 134 177 190 347

Table 5: Life tempo (movement activity) variations for the pine marten (Martes martes) expressed through the sign field

intensity in areas with different degree of human impact on the environment. The tracking was done in the woods of the

Volga flood-lands across the river from the city of Samara, Russia, in Krasnosamarskoye Forestry 100 km east of Samara, and

in Bashkirsky Wildlife Reservation, in 1978-1985. (MOZGOVOY/ROSENBERG 1992).

Evolution and Cognition ❘ 12 ❘ 2003, Vol. 9, No. 1

Elina Vladimirova/John Mozgovoy

The field parameters were processed using the

one-way analysis of variance, the most effective statistical

processing method. The results obtained are

presented in Table 6.

2. The Sign Field As a

Sign System of a Mammal

The sign field theory studies mammals living in the

wild. For animals comprising a population or a coadapted

complex of close species, which respond to

environmental cues, the following statements are

true: (1) their information exchange with environment

increases the adaptability of their population

or co-adapted complex; (2) animals involved in the

sign process have individual and group memory, as

well as genetically fixed memory; hence, the memory

of past experience is always present in a sign, producing

connotations. A sign is a reference to a certain

situation in the past, which was significant and

therefore got registered in the animal"s mind as a part

of individual experience (either in the form of a

movement response or in the form of a movement

inhibition).

Mammals" behavior in their sign field is a process

of "reading" unaddressed messages about external objects,

events and habitat conditions. In the theory of

a biological sign field the external objects to which

mammals respond by movements are considered as

environmental cues, or signs. "When animals have

direct contacts with each other, it is quite difficult to

discern in their communication separate signs such

as a movement, a pose, a sound etc.; hence, it is impossible

to divide the interaction "text" into elementary

units. In case of indirect interaction through external

objects and events which form a longregistered

"textual message", the recipient of the message

responds to each sign by a movement or a series

of movements, which form some kind of behavior

pattern. This pattern can be understood from studying

the traces of the animal"s activity, and within it

one can identify separate units-the "words" with

which the animal answers to the "message"" (MOZGOVOY/

ROSENBERG/VLADIMIROVA 1998, p17). It should

be noted that the external objects themselves are not

signs, but they are perceived as such by the animalrecipient.

One of the founders of zoosemiotics, Charles

MORRIS, wrote in his book Writings on the General the

Theory of Signs, "Men are the dominant sign-using

animals. Animals other than man do, of course, respond

to certain things as signs of something else,

but such signs do not attain the complexity and elaboration

which is found in human speech, writing,

Animal

Factor

(Category)

Sign field parameter

Factor

influence

rate, %

Weighted average

(independent variables)

χ1 χ2

Fox

(on a 500 m

section of track)

Sex

(adult individuals)

males females

Magnitude (number of objects) - 18 19

Anisotropy - 36 39

Intensity 8.7 89 133

Fox

(on a 500 m

section of track)

Age category

(males)

adult young

Magnitude (number of objects) 2.2* 18 20

Anisotropy - 36 40

Intensity 5.4 89 119

Marten (on a

section with 26

different kinds

of objects)

Age category

(females)

adult young

Length of track covered by animal while

it responded to 26 kinds of objects

- 440 395

Anisotropy - 83 82

Intensity 2.0* 241 311

Table 6: Sign field parameters and results obtained using one-way analysis of variance (MOZGOVOY/ROSENBERG 1992). All the

animal were tracked during food-searching in the woods of the Volga flood-lands across the river from the city of Samara,

Russia, in 1990.

* The reliability rate for these values is estimated at 80% vs. 95% for other values in this column.

Evolution and Cognition ❘ 13 ❘ 2003, Vol. 9, No. 1

Sign Field Theory and Tracking Techniques Used in Studies of Small Carnivorous Mammals

art, testing devices, medical diagnosis, and signaling

instruments" (MORRIS 1971, p17). He went on, "The

functioning of signs is, in general, a way in which

certain existences take account of other existences

through an intermediate class of existences" (MORRIS

1971, p23). In his other work, Signification and Significance,

MORRIS introduced the basic semiotic concepts

as follows: "Semiosis (or sign process) is regarded

as a five-term relation-v, w, x, y, z-in which

v sets up in w the disposition to react in a certain

kind of way, x, to a certain kind of object, y (not then

acting as a stimulus), under certain conditions, z.

The v"s, in the cases where this relation obtains, are

signs, the w"s are interpreters, the x"s are interpretants,

the y"s are significations, and the z"s are the contexts

in which the signs occur" (MORRIS 1964, p2).

Once he introduced the key semiotic terms, MORRIS

noted that he did it "for present purposes" (MORRIS

1964, p2). We fully support the semioticist when

he wrote, "the formulation is not proposed as a definition

of "sign", for there may be things we shall want

to call signs that do not meet the requirements of

this formulation-I prefer to leave this an open question.

The formulation simply gives the conditions

for recognizing certain events as signs" (MORRIS

1964, p2).

It may seem that Charles MORRIS understands the

idea of animals" sign behavior somewhat differently

than the authors of the theory of a mammalian biological

sign field, but a closer look at the problem will

demonstrate that the differences arise from the use

of two different approaches to modelling sign phenomena,

one being static, the other dynamic. What

the static approach calls "disposition to react in a certain

way" (MORRIS 1964,p2), the dynamic approach

refers to as "elementary movement responses to external

objects and events" (MOZGOVOY/ROSENBERG

1992, p15) or "interpretants" (MORRIS 1964, p2).

"Such a disposition can be interpreted in probabilistic

terms, as the probability of reacting in a certain

way under certain conditions because of the appearance

of the sign. [...] Or, as we shall see later, it can be

interpreted as an intervening variable, postulated for

theoretical purposes, and controllable by indirect

empirical evidence" (MORRIS 1964, p3).

We are now going to define the concepts of "semiosis"

and "sign" in such a way that, in our opinion,

complies with our understanding of sign processes

based on the theory of a biological sign field proposed

by NAUMOV, MOZGOVOY and ROSENBERG. The

analysis of these definitions helps better understand

how the authors of the theory approach ecological

and ethologic problems.

Given that zoosemiotics was founded to address

ecological issues, the following definition of semiosis

appears to be the most appropriate: semiosis is an energy

consuming process, an adaptation mechanism

that enables interaction of an individual or a larger

living system with the environment. With this approach

to the definition of semiosis the concept of

"sign" serves to demonstrate the relative character of

linking the signifier primarily with the outer world

and the signified-primarily with the inner world. In

a specific research, this concept also helps consider

the signifier and the signified as a unity, wherever

possible. Semiosis is usually associated with energy

consumption, and a "sign" is viewed as a model of

semiosis which is primarily oriented towards the environment.

The term Umwelt introduced by UEXKÜLL,

which denotes "the semiotic world of a living organism"

and incorporates "all aspects of the world that

are meaningful to a particular organism" (KULL 1998,

p302), is used in the model that highlights in semiosis

the features of a translation process (KULL 1988,

p300). This semiosis model stresses that "an individual"s

ability to respond to environmental cues is limited"

(DEWSBURY 1981, p21).

The interpretation of a sign as "a model carrying

the most common functional properties of a given

object or phenomenon", rather than "a real object

or phenomenon" (LEONTYEV 1967, p37), in our

opinion, does not contradict the above definitions,

since psychic mechanisms construct adaptive-for

a given level of functioning-simulations of reality,

including scientific ones. Those who separate "reality"

from "reality simulation" deny the fact that any

scientific discourse implies simulating reality by

means of language. We believe that the above interpretation

of a sign is characteristic of MORRIS" and

UEXKÜLL" works; it is also shared by modern biosemioticists,

the authors of the sign field theory and

many other researchers.

A. S. MELNICHUK wrote, "Solving researchers" disagreement

[over the interpretation of the sign]

comes down to solving one simple technical issue:

which of the sign properties should we apply the

term "meaning" to?"(MELNICHUK 1968, p43). The

tracking technique based on the theory of a mammalian

biological sign field primarily associates

"meaning" with the field anisotropy. The authors of

the theory agree with Claude LÉVI-STRAUSS who described

meaning (signification) as "the operator of

reorganization of the set being worked with" (LÉVISTRAUSS

1999, p127, 129). The integrity of a "text" (a

set of objects perceived by the animal) is determined

by the animal"s biological motivation.

Evolution and Cognition ❘ 14 ❘ 2003, Vol. 9, No. 1

Elina Vladimirova/John Mozgovoy

In zoosemiotics, as long as we distinguish between

the notions of sign, semiosis, meaning, and

value, semiosis can be described using parameters of

a biological sign field: an individual"s set of signs

("vocabulary") can be associated with the field magnitude;

the notion of field anisotropy allows us to see

what a given "text" means to different individuals;

field intensity can be used to measure the difference

in the value of a given "text" for different individuals.

Correlating the notions of the sign field theory

with linguistic notions has nothing to do with establishing

contextual equivalence of notions by

means of, say, the commutation test; rather, the notions

are linked to emphasize-the way it is done

with the natural human language-various aspects

of the animal sign system which is less differentiated.

In the pragmatically oriented theory of a sign

field, the field magnitude, intensity and anisotropy

respectively characterize the form, value and meaning

of information (in other words, they function as

"syntactic", "pragmatic" and "semantic" components

of information) (ROSENBERG/MOZGOVOY/GELASHVILI

1999, p115). Once again, we should point

out that these associations are made with the only

purpose of stressing important aspects in the process

of studying mammalian semiosis in its integrity.

I. F. VARDUL wrote, "In the information theory

any amount of information is studied irrespective of

its content. In linguistics (on a larger scale-in semiotics),

the content of information is studied irrespective

of its amount" (VARDUL 1967, p9). In our

opinion, the sign field method is a tool which allows

a researcher to analyse both the amount and

content of information presented as a succession of

signs.

Thus, in Zoosemiotics, the following definitions

of the "sign" are possible:

B a sign is something which, in some respect or capacity,

stands for something to a motivated individual

with some experience of interacting with the

environment;

B a sign is a thing referring its user to some other

thing;

B a sign is a thing associated with something that

differs from the form being interpreted;

B a sign is a thing which provokes a movement response

in the addressee when the signified correlates

with the addressee"s prevailing motivation;

B a sign is a transition from the perceived form (the

signifier) to some contents (the signified) determined

by its user"s individual experience or the experience

of the user"s species;

B a sign is a thing that is likely to provoke in its user

some kind of action related to the user"s major motivation

(intention)-the likelihood of this action

should be less than 100%, otherwise we will be dealing

with cause-and-effect rather than sign interaction.

In the sign field theory, an elementary movement

act (a drive) is a unit within behavioral continuum,

which is determined by correlating the signified with

the signifier. There is still a chance that either the

plane of expression or the plane of contents will be

divided into units which have no correlation in their

other plane, but such division of a continuous process

of an animal"s movement would be incorrect.

For an animal the signified is a reminiscence of its

previous experience and a reflection of what it seeks.

The problem of correlating signs of a biological

field parallels a similar problem in linguistics. "The

reduction of infinite variety of sign manifestations

to a finite number of variants is based on Karl

BÜHLER"s principle of abstract relevance (BÜHLER

2000, p34), which states that of all the only relevant

substantial abstract characteristics of a sign are the

ones that have a semasiological function and-

given that we speak of a sign system-can be determined

by system oppositions" (T. V. BULYGINA 1967,

pp8-9).

C. S. PIERCE writes about humans, "A sign, or representamen,

is something which stands to somebody

for something in some respect or capacity. It

addresses somebody, that is, creates in the mind of

that person an equivalent sign, or perhaps a more

developed sign. That sign which it creates I call the

interpretant of the first sign. The sign stands for

something, its object. It stands for that object, not

in all respects, but in reference to a sort of idea,

which I have sometimes called the ground of the

representamen". (PEIRCE 2000, p48). This definition

seems suitable for a metalinguistic description of

animal sign systems in studying mammalian sign

fields.

Since objects and phenomena of the outer world

may or may not meet the expectations of motivated

animals, sign interaction between individuals and

their environment can be viewed as a structured system

of meanings, and the scientific discourse including

the description of this interaction by a researcher

can be viewed as a social phenomenon

which depends on changes in its own structure.

For ecological purposes it is better to study semiosis

from the perspective of the animal that receives

information than from the perspective of the animal

that sends a message and waits for response.

Evolution and Cognition ❘ 15 ❘ 2003, Vol. 9, No. 1

Sign Field Theory and Tracking Techniques Used in Studies of Small Carnivorous Mammals

One reason why studying sign systems from a recipient"s

perspective is more relevant for ecological

research is that signs are always vital for individual

animals as environmental cues catching animals"

attention. The closeness of attention may vary. On

the one hand, the recipient is motivated to look for

particular signs, relying on its individual and species

experience; on the other hand, the sign is generated

by the recipient"s environment when environment

matches the recipient"s intentions and

perception apparatus.

Which environmental cues attract individuals attention

and affect their adaptive behavior? How can

we determine the roles of the environment and the

individual"s functional condition in semiosis? To a

researcher studying semiotics from the recipient"s

prospective, anything may look as a sign. Gestalt

psychologists discerned figures and their background

in the process of visual perception: figures,

in their opinion, differ from their background in

that they are rich in details and have a clear-cut

structure. Since the actual semiosis has always a

smaller scale than the potential one, in the real environment

of an individual there are always objects

and events that are not registered it its subjective

(inner) world. The environment influence on an individual

goes beyond its perceptive power. Since observation

is the only way to "penetrate" animals" inner

world, to obtain reliable and comparable

objective results we should only register those environmental

objects which provoke movement responses

in animals.

Thus, the studies of semiosis based on the theory

of a mammalian sign field mostly focus studying

the process from the recipient"s perspective. This approach

is not shared by all semioticists. In general

semiotics and, particularly, in zoosemiotics there

are supporters of approaching the process from the

sender"s prospective. Indeed, animals often give a

signal and wait for a response. We admit that, in

studying ecology on the level of individuals, this approach

may prove to be more productive than the

one taken by the authors of the sign field theory-it

all depends on the researcher"s goals. Anyhow, the

authors of the mammalian sign field theory admit

the importance of studying the evolutional experience

of various mammal species. The approach

taken by their opponents is especially important in

dealing with animals" intentional communication

through signs.

The concepts of the theory bear a lot of resemblance

to neo-behaviorists" ideas; the main difference

being that the sign field theory created to solve

specific ecological problems, studies both individuals

and groups. Besides, unlike neo-behaviorist suppositions,

the theory of a mammalian sign field

deals with the whole "text", rather than separate

stimuli. Semiotic studies centred around the sender

of a sign message mainly focus on the sign function

which by Karl BÜHLER called a "symptom" (BÜHLER

2000, pp34-38). In Table 7 three different sign functions

are compared for humans and other mammals.

Those are the three functions identified by

BÜHLER-symptomatic, symbolic and signalling; all

Communication of mammals of the

same or close species in the wild

Human language

Sign function (BÜHLER"s classification)

Symptom Characterizes the functional condition of

the interaction process initiator (the message

sender). Manifests itself in the

sender"s elementary movements.

Mainly characterizes the sender extralinguistically. May indicate

the significance of the chosen information context for the

sender, the sender"s functional condition, ideology, the social

censorship effects. In a number of cases may also indicate the

sender"s association with a particular social group or his/her

marginal position, the sender"s desire to win the addressee"s

empathy, his/her knowledge of the language code (vocabulary,

dialect, preferable discourse etc.)

Symbol Characterizes correlation between the

animal"s motives and environmental

phenomena.

Correlates with the things and situations mentioned in the

utterance

Signal Controls the behavior and inner state of

the second participant in communication

process (the information recipient).

Provokes a movement in response to the

perception of a sign.

Links the subject of discourse and the situation in which communication

takes place with the recipient"s position. In case

where the message makes sense to the recipient, the signal

influences the recipient"s behavior.

Table 7: Humans" vs. animals" sign functions.

Evolution and Cognition ❘ 16 ❘ 2003, Vol. 9, No. 1

Elina Vladimirova/John Mozgovoy

of them are taken into account in the theory of a biological

sign field.

Using sign field technique in the studies of mammals"

communication allows us to describe two main

operations used in the process of information exchange-

selection and combination. Thus, once the

number of signs of a certain kind, encountered by an

individual, exceeds a certain limit, this causes a

change in the individual"s activity. The structure of a

mammalian sign field parallels the structure of a text

with its two aspects-paradigmatic

and syntagmatic; in the

sign field these two aspects

correlate with the effect of selfstimulating

behavior (when a

certain type of behavior persists

in spite of fulfilment of

the physical need that caused

it) and with "the shift in the

predominant behavior type"

accompanied by the appearance

of a "minor activity" in line with the time division

principle (MOZGOVOY/ROSENBERG/VLADIMIROVA

1998, p7).

Animals communicate with each other through

their behavior both when they have direct contacts

with each other, and when their adaptive behavior

makes changes to their environment. With solitary

animals, the main zoosemiotic problem is describing

the structure of a non-intentional, unaddressed message

"recorded" in environmental objects and events

and organised as a "text"

which an animal "reads" as it

moves around. The message is

actualised as the animal

moves in its own or group

sign field. The researcher"s

task is to structure his or her

process of reading sign messages

so that it is very similar

to the animal"s process of receiving

the messages.

References

Bulygina, T. V. (1967) Osobennosty strukturnoy organizatsii

yazika kak znakovoy sistemi i metodi yeyo issledovaniya.

V kn.: Yazik kak znakovaya sistema osobogo roda. Materiali

k konferentsii [Structure of a language as a sign system:

Structure analysis techniques. In: Proceedings of the conference

"Language as a kind of sign system"]. Nauka: Moscow,

pp. 5-9.

Bühler, K. (2000) Teoriya yazika. Reprezentativnaya

funktsiya yazika [Theory of Language. Representative

Function of Language]. Moscow: Progress, pp. 34-38.

Translated from: Bühler, K. (1965) Sprachtheorie. Die

Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Gustav Fischer Verlag:

Stuttgart.

Dajoz, R. (1975) Osnovy ekologii [Foundations of Ecology].

Progress: Moscow. Translated by V. I. Nazarova from: Dajoz,

R. (1972) Précis d"écologie. Dunod: Paris.

Dewsbury, D. A. (1981) Povedeniye zhivotnikh.

Sravnitelniye aspekti. [Animal Behavior. Comparative Aspects].

Mir: Moscow, p. 21. Translated by I. I. Poletayeva

from: Dewsbury, D. A. (1978) Comparative Animal Behavior.

McGraw-Hill: New York.

Eco, U. (1998) Otsutstvuyushchaja Struktura: Vvedenie v

Semiologiyu [An Absent Structure. Introduction to Semiology].

Moscow: Petropolis. Translated by A. G. Pogoniailo

and V. G. Reznik from: Eco, U. (1968) La struttura assente.

Casa Ed. Valentino Bompiani: Milano.

Emmeche, C./Hoffmeyer, J. (1991) From language to nature.

The semiotic metaphor in biology. Semiotica 84(1/2): 1-

42.

Formozov, A. N. (1959) Sputnik sledopita [Pathfinder"s

Guide]. MOIP: Moscow.

Frumkina, R. M. (1995) Est" li u sovremennoy lingvistiki

svoya epistemologiya? V kn. Yazik i nauka XX veka [Does

Modern Linguistics Have Its Own Epistemology? In: Language

and Science of the Late XX Century]. Izdatelstvo

Rossiyskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta (Russian University

of Humanities Press): Moscow, pp. 74-117.

Giliarov, A. M. (1990) Populyatsionnaya ekologiya [Ecology

of Populations]. MGU (Moscow State University Press):

Moscow.

Giller, P. S. (1988) Struktura kommunikatsiy i ekologicheskaya

nisha. [Community Structure and the Niche].

Mir: Moscow. Translated by N. O. Fomina from: Giller, P.

S. (1984) Community Structure and the Niche. Chapman

& Hall: London.

Kull, K. (1998) On Semiosis, Umwelt, and Semiosphere. Semiotica

120(3/4): 299-310.

Kull, K. (2000) Copy versus translate, mime versus sign: development

of biological textuality. European Journal for

Semiotic Studies 12(1): 101-120.

Leontyev, A. A. (1967) Yazikovoy znak kak problema

psikhologii. V kn.: Yazik kak znakovaya sistema osobogo

roda. Materiali k konferentsii [Language Sign As a Psychological

Problem. In: Proceedings of the Conference "Language

As a Kind of Sign System"]. Nauka: Moscow, pp. 36-

37.

Lévi-Strauss, C. (1999) Pervobitnoye mishleniye [The Savage

Mind]. Terra Knizhniy klub: Moscow. Translated by A. Ostrovskiy

from: Lévi-Strauss, C. (1962) La pensée sauvage.

Plon: Paris.

Melnichuk, A. S. (1967) O znakovoy prirode predlozheniya. V

kn.: Yazik kak znakovaya sistema osobogo roda. Materiali

k konferentsii [On the Semiotic Nature of a Sentence. In

Proceedings of the Conference "Language As a Kind of Sign

System"]. Moscow: Nauka, p. 43.

Morris, C. W. (1964) Signification and Significance: A Study

of the Relations of Signs and Values. MIT Press: Cambridge

MA.

Elina Vladimirova, John Mozgovoy, Department

of Zoology, Genetics and General Ecology,

Samara State University, Acad. Pavlov

Street 3, 443011 Samara, Russia.

Phone: +7 (846-2) 345444, Fax: +7 (846-2)

363495 Email: elvlad@newmail.ru,

auv@sgtp.samara.ru

Authors" address

Evolution and Cognition ❘ 17 ❘ 2003, Vol. 9, No. 1

Sign Field Theory and Tracking Techniques Used in Studies of Small Carnivorous Mammals

Morris, C. W. (1971) Writings on the general theory of signs.

In: Sebeok, T. A. (ed) Approaches to Semiotics. Mouton:

The Hague, pp. 13-71.

Mozgovoy, J. P. (1976) Etologicheskaya differentsiatsiya populiatsiy

yuzhnouralskoy kunitsi. V kn.: Voprosi lesnoy biogeotsenologii,

ekologii i okhrani prirodi v stepnoy zone.

[Ethological Differentiation of Pine Marten Populations in

the Southern Urals. In On Forest Biogeocoenology, Ecology

and Wildlife Conservation in the Steppe Zone]. Izdatelstvo

Kuibyshevskogo universiteta (Kuibyshev State

University Press): Kuibyshev, pp. 7-14.

Mozgovoy, J. P. (1987 **OR 1983?) Signalnoye biologicheskoye

pole mlekopitayushikh kak indikator antropogennogo

vozdeystviya na prirodu. V kn.: Gruppovoye

povedeniye zhivotnykh. [Biological Signal Field of Mammals

As an Indicator of the Impact of Man on Nature. In

"Animal Group Behavior"]. Izdatelstvo Kuibyshevskogo

universiteta (Kuibyshev State University Press): Kuibyshev,

pp. 3-9.

Mozgovoy, J. P. (1989) Vremennaya kharakteristika signalnikh

biologicheskikh poley mlekopitayushzhikh. V kn.: Voprosi

lesnoy biogeotsenologii, ekologii i okhrani prirodi v

stepnoy zone. [Temporal Characteristics of Mammalian Biological

Signal Fields. In On Forest Biogeocoenology, Ecology

and Wildlife Conservation in the Steppe Zone]. KGU

(Kuibyshev State University Press): Kuibyshev, pp. 3-8.

Mozgovoy, J. P./Rosenberg, G. S. (1992) Signalnoye biologicheskoye

pole mlekopitayushikh: teoriya i praktika

polevich issledovaniy [Mammalian Biological Signal Field:

Theory and Practice of Field Research]. Samarskiy universitet

(Samara State University Press): Samara.

Mozgovoy, J. P./Rosenberg, G. S./Vladimirova, E. J. (1998)

Informatsionniye polia i povedeniye mlekopitayushikh

[Information Fields and Mammalian Behavior]. Samarskiy

universitet (Samara State University Press): Samara.

Mozgovoy, J.P./Yudina I. V. (1995) Signalnoye pole mlekopitayushchikh:

predmet i metod prirodnikh issledovaniy. V

kn.: Teoreticheskiye problemi ekologii i evolutsii. [Mammalian

Signal Field: Subject and Methods of Field Research.

In Theoretical Problems of Ecology and Evolution].

IEVB RAN: Togliatti.

Nasimovich, A. A. (1955) Rol" rezhima snezhnogo pokrova v

zhizni kopitnikh zhivotnikh na territorii SSSR. [The Effect

of Snow Blanket Thickness and Duration on the Life of

Hoofed Mammals on the USSR Territory]. Akademia Nauk

SSSR (The USSR Academy of Science): Moscow.

Naumov, N. P. (1977) Biologicheskiye (signalniye) polya i ikh

znacheniye v zhizni mlekopitayushikh. V kn.: Uspechi

sovremennoy teriologiy [Biological (signal) fields in the

life of mammals. In: The Latest Achievments of Theriology].

Nauka: Moscow, pp. 336-398.

Oshmarin, P. G./Pikunov, D. G. (1990) Sledi v prirode. [Footprints

in the Wilderness]. Nauka: Moscow.

Peirce, C. S. (2000) Logicheskiye osnovaniya teorii znakov.

[Logical Foundations of the Theory of Signs]. Sankt-Peterburg:

Alteya, pp. 48-59. Translated from: Peirce, C. S.

1931-1958. Logical Foundations of the Theory of Signs.

Harvard University Press, 1931-1958, Dover publications,

Inc. 1958. **PLEASE MAKE THIS REFERENCE UNAMBIGUOUS**

Rosenberg, G. S./Mozgovoy, J. P./Gelashvili, D. B. (1999)

Ekologiya. Elementi teoreticheskikh konstruktsiy sovremennoy

ekologii. [Ecology. Modern Ecology Theoretical

Structure Components]. Izdatelstvo Samarskogo nauchnogo

tsentra RAN (Russia"s Academy of Science. Samara

Research Centre Press): Samara.

Sebeok, T. A. (1972) Perspectives in Zoosemiotics. Mouton:

The Hague.

Sebeok, T. A. (1976) Contributions to the Doctrine of Signs.

Studies in Semiotics 5. Indiana University Press: Bloomington.

Sebeok, T. A. (2001) Biosemiotics: Its Roots, Proliferation,

and Prospects. Semiotica 134(1/4): 61-78.

Schwartz, S. S. (1980) Ekologicheskiye zakonomernosti evolutsii.

[Ecological Conformity to Natural Laws of Evolution].

Nauka: Moscow.

Stepanov, Y. S. (1971) Semiotika. [Semiotics]. Nauka: Moscow.

Uexküll, J. von (2001) An introduction to Umwelt. Semiotica

134(1/4): 107-110.

Vladimirova, E. J. (2002) Semioticheskoye modelirovaniye v

ekologii zhivotnikch. V kn.: Izvestiya Samarskogo nauchnogo

tsentra Rossiyskoy Akademii nauk. [Semiotic Modeling

in Animal Ecology. In: The News from the Samara

Research Centre of Russia"s Academy of Science]. Izdatelstvo

Samarskogo nauchnogo tsentra RAN. (Russia"s Academy

of Science. Samara Research Centre Press): Samara, pp.

197-207.

Vardul, I. F. (1967) K voprosu o sobstvenno lingvisticheskom

podkhode k yaziku. V kn.: Yazik kak znakovaya sistema

osobogo roda. Materiali k konferentsii. [On the Purely Linguistic

Approach to Language. In Language As a Special

Kind of Sign System. Proceedings of the Conference]. Nauka: Moscow, pp. 9-10