Honeybees

So this is a paper I had to write for my anthropology class, Communication and the Media. The prompt was thus:

“For animals, the relationship in which one thing stands for something else does not appear to exist except in very rudimentary form” (Hayakawa, p. 14). Draw on the non-human species we have studied to substantiate this claim. You may also complicate the claim, if you wish.

The grades were either check minus, check, or check plus. Most people in the class got a check, but I got a check plus :) Which pleased me a lot because this was right around the time I got back from the hospital, and I found the readings really challenging so I had to work super hard to understand the topic. So, I worked really hard and got a good grade for it. Yay! Here's the paper, if you're interested.

The claim that nonhuman species have only a minimal concept of the idea of one thing standing for another is one substantiated by many observers, key among them scientists like Hayakawa. While on the surface this claim can be easily substantiated, it becomes more complicated the deeper into it one delves. To begin, it is necessary to unpack some key terms. First, an arbitrary symbol is something that has no discernable link between the symbol and the object it represents. An example of this is language. The word “tree” has no real connection to the concept of a tree. Next, an icon is something that bears a physical resemblance to the object discussed, like a picture of a lion to represent lions in the area. Lastly, an indexical relationship is one that generally refers to its subject; ie pointing to indicate a direction.
Arbitrariness is the concept that appears to not exist in animal species. An example supporting this is thus; a group of scientists working with chimpanzees discovered that only with extensive training could the chimps be trained to recognize symbols of objects and use those symbols to classify them into distinct categories (Savage-Rumbaugh, E. Sue, D. M. Rumbaugh, S. T. Smith, and J. Lawson. “Reference: The Linguistic Essential.” Science, Vol. 210, 21, November 1980: 922-925. ) In nature, chimpanzees do not utilize arbitrary symbols to represent things. There is no concept of something being symbolic of another thing. Even iconic relationships had to be taught over long periods of time with many varying levels of training before any progress was made.
Conversely, honeybees do actually display a rudimentary use of, if not symbols, at least indexes. In order for the worker bees to communicate distances and locational information to the forager bees, they employ two distinct dances. The round dance is indicative of a closer source, while the waggle dance is utilized to demonstrate longer distances. Speed of abdominal vibrations and direction of the dance illustrate the size of the food source and the direction in which the foragers should travel. This is certainly indexical, but arguably not arbitrary. The dances are a rudimentary diagram acting almost as a rough map to the source. This is not iconic because it is not a direct representation of the route to the food, it is a symbolic representation that is understood by the bees to have a certain meaning. There does not appear to be any process by which bees are taught these dances, they are simply a part of hive life.
Although indexicality is seen in the honeybee example, this does little to contradict the claim that Hayakawa makes, which is that “For animals, the relationship in which one thing stands for something else does not appear to exist except in very rudimentary form.” A truly complex symbolic relationship would have to show some evidence of arbitrariness, which the honeybee example does not do and the chimpanzee example in fact argues is not possible. Unless it is hidden in some as yet unobserved communication ability, scientists have yet to find strong evidence of animals using complex symbols to represent things other than what they literally are.

~So that's that. Hope it was interesting at the very least!