Search

Does non‐human communication, like language, involve meaning? This question guides our focus through an interdisciplinary review of the theories and terminology used to study meaning across disciplines and species. Until now, it has been difficult to apply the concept of meaning to communication in non‐humans. This is partly because of the varied approaches to the study of meaning. Additionally, while there is a scholarly acknowledgement of potential meaning in non‐human cognition, there is also scepticism when the topic of communication arises. We organise some of the key literature into a coherent framework that can bridge disciplines and species, to ensure that aspects of meaning are accurately and fairly compared. We clarify the growing view in the literature that, rather than requiring multiple definitions or being split into different types, meaning is a multifaceted yet still unified concept. In so doing, we propose that meaning is an umbrella term. Meaning cannot be summed up with a short definition or list of features, but involves multiple complexities that are outlined in our framework. Specifically, three global facets are needed to describe meaning: a Signal Meaning Facet, an Interactant Meaning Facet, and a Resultant Meaning Facet. Most importantly, we show that such analyses are possible to apply as much to non‐humans as to humans. We also emphasise that meaning nuances differ among non‐human species, making a dichotomous approach to meaning questionable. Instead, we show that a multifaceted approach to meaning establishes how meaning appears within highly diverse examples of non‐human communication, in ways consistent with the phenomenon's presence in human non‐verbal communication and language(s). Therefore, without further recourse to 'functional' approaches that circumvent the critical question of whether any non‐human meaning exists, we show that the concept of meaning is suitable for evolutionary biologists, behavioural ecologists, and others to study, to establish exactly which species exhibit meaning in their communication and in what ways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Historically, language is related to animal communication via a divide or continuum. • Both the divide and linear continuum conceptualisations involve challenges. • Applying Prototype Theory presents a third conceptualisation option. • This involves multiple overlapping feature continua, rather than a species spectrum. • This could yield a language prototype including aspects of animal communication. What is the relationship between language and animal communication? This has largely been discussed within research on language evolution and disciplines beyond linguistics, but impacts upon the study of language generally. There are two extant views on the nature of this relationship: either there is a stark divide, with language considered as completely unique to humans, or there is a linear continuum from animal communication to language, aligning with gradualist evolutionary principles. Yet, each view involves considerable limitations. Moreover, there is no agreed-upon definition of language, which further complicates the determination of its relationship with animal communication. Withdrawing from attempts to define language with traditional fixed criteria (as characteristic of classical categorisation), this article suggests a different approach to conceptualising language and assessing the concept's applicability to other species. Categorising phenomena through family resemblances and graded typicality of features (as in prototype-based categorisation) enables a new approach to conceptualising language, its typological diversity amongst humans, and the systematic integration of animal communication. Ultimately, with an illustrative model, this article proposes a strong overlap of animal communication with language. This approach illuminates more of the nature of language, facilitates more cohesive interdisciplinary research, and introduces potentially positive ethical implications for non-humans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human–wildlife cooperation occurs when humans and free‐living wild animals actively coordinate their behavior to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome. These interactions provide important benefits to both the human and wildlife communities involved, have wider impacts on the local ecosystem, and represent a unique intersection of human and animal cultures. The remaining active forms are human–honeyguide and human–dolphin cooperation, but these are at risk of joining several inactive forms (including human–wolf and human–orca cooperation). Human–wildlife cooperation faces a unique set of conservation challenges, as it requires multiple components—a motivated human and wildlife partner, a suitable environment, and compatible interspecies knowledge—which face threats from ecological and cultural changes. To safeguard human–wildlife cooperation, we recommend: (i) establishing ethically sound conservation strategies together with the participating human communities; (ii) conserving opportunities for human and wildlife participation; (iii) protecting suitable environments; (iv) facilitating cultural transmission of traditional knowledge; (v) accessibly archiving Indigenous and scientific knowledge; and (vi) conducting long‐term empirical studies to better understand these interactions and identify threats. Tailored safeguarding plans are therefore necessary to protect these diverse and irreplaceable interactions. Broadly, our review highlights that efforts to conserve biological and cultural diversity should carefully consider interactions between human and animal cultures. Please see AfricanHoneyguides.com/abstract‐translations for Kiswahili and Portuguese translations of the abstract. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]