Article ID Journal Published Year Pages File Type
1103271 Language Sciences 2011 11 Pages PDF
Abstract

The disconnected way in which marks are classified and considered in various fields of study has hindered the development of any theoretical basis for their consideration as a distinct form of writing as defined in the context of integrational semiology. I suggest here that human mark use is best understood as a development of the environmental, object and resource marking common to many species; it therefore should not be considered solely in a human context.In a sufficiently inclusive ethological frame of reference, examination of human mark use should take into account manifestations of other innate predispositions that can be related to our use of marks (e.g. aggression, avoidance, intra-specific hierarchy, etc.). However, many linguistically derived assumptions about what qualifies as ‘full writing’, or ‘writing proper’ (in combination with the negatively defined category of ‘proto-writing’) limit the development of non-arbitrary conceptual models and descriptive terminology necessary for such an undertaking.I propose that the spatial context in which marks integrate animal behavior provides the basis for a non-arbitrary determination of a field within integrationist study of writing: marks and marking behavior. Such an explicitly recognized field of inquiry would be united by the role marks play in integrating the behavior of many species in time and place – a role that shows no necessary relationship with spoken language.

► Animal tracks and environmental marks were among the earliest signs read by humans (or their hominid ancestors). ► Such marks provide a basis for non-arbitrary signification conventions, showing no necessary relation to spoken language. ► Animal marks can be usefully compared with non-linguistic marks made by humans, as both can be used to integrate behavior. ► As used by both animals and humans, non-linguistic marks qualify as a form of writing, as integrationally defined. ► Non-linguistic marks should be clearly distinguished as a distinct subcategory within writing as integrationally defined.

Related Topics
Social Sciences and Humanities Arts and Humanities Language and Linguistics
Authors
,