Volume 31, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0924-1884
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9986
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This article contributes to the developing recognition that the challenges raised by the enterprise of translating between languages extend beyond human language. It suggests that there are parallels between the political issues recognised by translation scholars – of exclusion, misrepresentation and speaking for ‘the other’ – and those raised by biosemiotics, the study of signs in all living systems. Following a discussion of convergence in current developments in translation studies, semiotics and human-animal studies, the article presents an analysis of empirical data, with specific reference to the different meanings of the verb . The findings demonstrate the anthropocentric assumptions that are embedded in the way hearing is routinely represented, and an argument is presented for the recognition of these in communications about the semiotic resources relevant to non-human life forms. The paper concludes with some reflections on the implications of these issues for the enterprise of translation.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ackerman, Jennifer
    2016The Genius of Birds. Kindle edition. London: Corsair.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Adams, Carol J.
    1990The Sexual Politics of Meat. New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahuja, Neel
    2009 “Postcolonial Critique in a Multispecies World.” PMLA124 (2): 556–563. 10.1632/pmla.2009.124.2.556
    https://doi.org/10.1632/pmla.2009.124.2.556 [Google Scholar]
  4. Appiah, Kwame Anthony
    (1993) 2000 “Thick Translation.” InThe Translation Studies Reader, edited byLawrence Venuti, 417–429. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Au, Whitlow W. L.
    2004 “A Comparison of the Sonar Capabilities of Bats and Dolphins.” InEcholocation in Bats and Dolphins, edited byJeanette A. Thomas, Cynthia F. Moss, and Marianne Vater, xiii–xxvii. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bekoff, Marc, and Jessica Pierce
    2010Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bourke, Joanna
    2011What It Means to Be Human: Reflections from 1791 to the Present. Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brier, Søren
    2008 “The Paradigm of Peircean Biosemiotics.” Signs – International Journal of Semiotics2: 30–81.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cannizzaro, Sara, and Paul Cobley
    2015 “Biosemiotics, Politics and Th. A. Sebeok’s Move from Linguistics to Semiotics.” InBiosemiotic Perspectives on Language and Linguistics, edited byEkaterina Velmezova, Kalevi Kull, and Stephen J. Cowley, 207–222. Heidelberg: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20663‑9_11
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20663-9_11 [Google Scholar]
  10. Carbone, Larry
    2004What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195161960.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195161960.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Catchpole, Clive K., and Peter J. B. Slater
    2003Bird Song: Biological Themes and Variations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Cronin, Michael
    2017Eco-translation: Translation and Ecology in the Age of the Anthropocene. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Dawkins, Richard
    1984 “Animal Signals: Mind-Reading and Manipulation.” InBehavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, edited byJohn R. Krebs and Nicholas B. Davies, 380–402. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (1976) 2006The Selfish Gene. 30th anniversary edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. de Waal, Frans
    2012 “Addendum to Down with Dualism! Two Millennia of Debate about Human Goodness (2010).” InSpecies Matters: Humane Advocacy and Cultural Theory, edited byMarianne DeKoven and Michael Lundblad, 190–194. New York: Columbia University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Derrida, Jacques
    2003 “And Say the Animal Responded.” InZoontologies: The Question of the Animal, edited byCary Wolfe, 121–145. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Dervin, Fred
    2013 “Politics of Identification in the Use of Lingua Francas in Student Mobility to Finland and France.” InSocial and Cultural Aspects of Language Learning in Study Abroad, edited byCeleste Kinginger, 101–125. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.37.05der
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.37.05der [Google Scholar]
  18. Dupré, John
    2012Processes of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Enfield, Nick J.
    2000 “On Linguocentrism.” InExplorations in Linguistic Relativity, edited byMartin Pütz and Marjolyn Verspoor, 125–158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.199.09enf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.199.09enf [Google Scholar]
  20. Fairclough, Norman
    2001 “Critical Discourse Analysis as a Method in Social Scientific Research.” InMethods of Critical Discourse Analysis, edited byRuth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 121–138. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Favareau, Donald
    2010 “Preface.” InEssential Readings in Biosemiotics: Anthology and Commentary, edited byDonald Favareau, i–xii. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Fay, Richard R., and Arthur N. Popper
    2000 “Evolution of Hearing in Vertebrates: The Inner Ears and Processing.” Hearing Research149 (1): 1–10. 10.1016/S0378‑5955(00)00168‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-5955(00)00168-4 [Google Scholar]
  23. eds. 2012Comparative Hearing: Mammals. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research 4. New York: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Font, Enrique, and Pau Carazo
    2010 “Animals in Translation: Why There Is Meaning (But Probably No Message) in Animal Communication.” Animal Behaviour80 (2): e1–e6. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.05.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.05.015 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gal, Susan
    2015 “ Politics of Translation.” Annual Review of Anthropology44 (1): 225–240. 10.1146/annurev‑anthro‑102214‑013806
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102214-013806 [Google Scholar]
  26. Gerhardt, H. Carl, and Franz Huber
    2002Acoustic Communication in Insects and Anurans: Common Problems and Diverse Solutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Gibson, Jeremy S., and James F. C. Windmill
    2017 “Engineering Novel Hearing Systems Inspired by Nature.” The 10th Anniversary Meeting of the British Animal Studies Network: ‘Hearing’ (University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, 19–20May 2017).
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Goatly, Andrew
    2006 “Humans, Animals, and Metaphors.” Society and Animals14 (1): 15–37. 10.1163/156853006776137131
    https://doi.org/10.1163/156853006776137131 [Google Scholar]
  29. Gorlée, Dinda L.
    1994Semiotics and the Problem of Translation: with Special Reference to the Semiotics of Charles S. Peirce. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 2004On Translating Signs: Exploring Text and Semio-Translation. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Grandin, Temple, and Catherine Johnson
    2009Animals in Translation: Using the Mysteries of Autism to Decode Animal Behavior. New York: SUNY Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Hanks, Patrick
    2004 “Corpus Pattern Analysis.” InEuralex Conference Proceedings, edited byGeoffrey Williams, 87–98. Lorient: Université de Bretagne-Sud, Faculté des lettres et des sciences humaines.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Heffner, Henry E., and Rickye S. Heffner
    2007 “Hearing Ranges of Laboratory Animals.” Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science46 (1): 20–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Hird, Myra J.
    2009The Origins of Sociable Life: Evolution after Science Studies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230242210
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230242210 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hoffmeyer, Jesper
    2010 “A Biosemiotic Approach to the Question of Meaning.” Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science45 (2): 367–390. 10.1111/j.1467‑9744.2010.01087.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2010.01087.x [Google Scholar]
  36. Hoy, Ronald R.
    2012 “Acute as a Bug’s Ear: An Informal Discussion of Hearing in Insects.” InComparative Hearing: Insects, edited byRonald R. Hoy and Richard R. Fay, 1–17. New York: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Jakobson, Roman
    (1959) 2000 “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation.” InThe Translation Studies Reader, edited byLawrence Venuti, 113–118. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Kershenbaum, Arik, Daniel T. Blumstein, Marie A. Roch, Çağlar Akçay, Gregory Backus, Mark A. Bee, Kirsten Bohn, Yan Cao, Gerald Carter, and Cristiane Cäsar
    2014 “Acoustic Sequences in Non-human Animals: A Tutorial Review and Prospectus.” Biological Reviews91 (1): 13–52. 10.1111/brv.12160
    https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12160 [Google Scholar]
  39. Ketten, Darlene R.
    1992 “The Marine Mammal Ear: Specializations for Aquatic Audition and Echolocation.” InThe Evolutionary Biology of Hearing, edited byDouglas B. Webster, Arthur N. Popper, and Richard R. Fay, 717–750. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4612‑2784‑7_44
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2784-7_44 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2000 “Cetacean Ears.” InHearing by Whales and Dolphins, edited byWhitlow W. L. Au, Richard R. Fay, and Arthur N. Popper, 43–108. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4612‑1150‑1_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1150-1_2 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kohn, Eduardo
    2013How Forests Think: Toward an Anthropology beyond the Human. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 10.1525/california/9780520276109.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520276109.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  42. Kull, Kalevi
    1998 “Semiotic Ecology: Different Natures in the Semiosphere.” Sign Systems Studies (1): 344–371.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Kull, Kalevi, Claus Emmeche, and Jesper Hoffmeyer
    2011 “Why Biosemiotics? An Introduction to Our View on the Biology of Life Itself.” InTowards a Semiotic Biology: Life is the Action of Signs, edited byClaus Emmeche and Kalevi Kull, 1–22. London: Imperial College Press. 10.1142/9781848166882_0001
    https://doi.org/10.1142/9781848166882_0001 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kull, Kalevi, and Peeter Torop
    2011 “Biotranslation: Translation between Umwelten.” InReadings in Zoosemiotics, edited byTimo Maran, Dario Martinelli, and Aleksei Turovski, 411–425. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110253436.411
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110253436.411 [Google Scholar]
  45. Lacassain-Lagoin, Christelle
    2011 “Le verbe hear et ses différentes constructions: intégration et résonance du discours de l’autre.” InFormes allogènes dans le discours: imbrication et résonance (Rives – Cahiers de l’Arc Atlantique 6), edited byFabienne Gaspari and Catherine Mari, 59–82. Paris: L’Harmattan.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 2015 “De la perception auditive à la cognition.” L’Information grammaticale146: 19–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Leech, Geoffrey, Paul Rayson, and Andrew Wilson
    2001Word Frequencies in Written and Spoken English, Based on the British National Corpus. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. López, Ana María Rojo, and Javier Valenzuela
    2004 “Verbs of Sensory Perception: An English-Spanish Comparison.” Languages in Contrast5 (2): 219–243. 10.1075/lic.5.2.03lop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.5.2.03lop [Google Scholar]
  49. Lundblad, Michael
    2012 “Archaeology of a Humane Society: Animality, Savagery, Blackness.” InSpecies Matters: Humane Advocacy and Cultural Theory, edited byMarianne DeKoven and Michael Lundblad, 75–102. New York: Columbia University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Manoussaki, Daphne, Richard S. Chadwick, Darlene R. Ketten, Julie Arruda, Emilios K. Dimitriadis, and Jen T. O’Malley
    2008 “The Influence of Cochlear Shape on Low-Frequency Hearing.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences105 (16): 6162–6166. 10.1073/pnas.0710037105
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0710037105 [Google Scholar]
  51. Marais, Kobus, and Kalevi Kull
    2016 “Biosemiotics and Translation Studies.” InBorder Crossings. Translation Studies and Other Disciplines, edited byYves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, 169–188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.126.08mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.126.08mar [Google Scholar]
  52. Maran, Timo
    2007 “Towards an Integrated Methodology of Ecosemiotics: The Concept of Nature-Text.” Sign Systems Studies35 (1/2): 269–294.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Maran, Timo, and Kalevi Kull
    2014 “Ecosemiotics: Main Principles and Current Developments.” Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography96 (1): 41–50. 10.1111/geob.12035
    https://doi.org/10.1111/geob.12035 [Google Scholar]
  54. Merrell, Floyd
    2001 “Charles Sanders Peirce’s Concept of the Sign.” InThe Routledge Companion to Semiotics and Linguistics, edited byPaul Cobley, 28–39. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 2003Sensing Corporeally: Toward a Posthuman Understanding. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 10.3138/9781442679771
    https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442679771 [Google Scholar]
  56. Midgley, Mary
    1979 “Gene-Juggling.” Philosophy of Science54 (210): 439–458.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Mooney, Richard
    2014 “Translating Birdsong Research.” Birdsong: Rhythm and Clues from Neurons to Behavior (Georgetown University, Washington DC, 14–15November 2014).
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Narins, Peter M., Angela S. Stoeger, and Caitlin O’Connell-Rodwell
    2016 “Infrasonic and Seismic Communication in the Vertebrates with Special Emphasis on the Afrotheria: An Update and Future Directions.” InVertebrate Sound Production and Acoustic Communication, edited byRoderick A. Suthers, W. Tecumseh Fitch, Richard R. Fay, and Arthur N. Popper, 191–227. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑27721‑9_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27721-9_7 [Google Scholar]
  59. Nöth, Winfried
    1998 “Ecosemiotics.” Sign Systems Studies26: 332–343.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 2001 “Ecosemiotics and the Semiotics of Nature.” Sign Systems Studies29 (1): 71–81.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 2012 “Translation and Semiotic Mediation.” Sign Systems Studies40 (3/4): 279–298. 10.12697/SSS.2012.3‑4.02
    https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2012.3-4.02 [Google Scholar]
  62. O’Connell-Rodwell, Caitlin E.
    2007 “Keeping an ‘Ear’ to the Ground: Seismic Communication in Elephants.” Physiology22 (4): 287–294. 10.1152/physiol.00008.2007
    https://doi.org/10.1152/physiol.00008.2007 [Google Scholar]
  63. Peirce, Charles Sanders
    c. 1897 “(CP).” InCollected Papers of C. S. Peirce 1931–1958, edited byCharles Hartshorne, Paul Weiss, and Arthur W. Burks. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Pepperberg, Irene M.
    2007 “Grey Parrots Do Not Always ‘Parrot’: The Roles of Imitation and Phonological Awareness in the Creation of New Labels from Existing Vocalizations.” Language Sciences29 (1): 1–13. 10.1016/j.langsci.2005.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2005.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  65. 2010 “Vocal Learning in Grey Parrots: A Brief Review of Perception, Production, and Cross-species Comparisons.” Brain and Language115 (1): 81–91. 10.1016/j.bandl.2009.11.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2009.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  66. Popper, Arthur N., Richard R. Fay, Christopher Platt, and Olav Sand
    2003 “Sound Detection Mechanisms and Capabilities of Teleost Fishes.” InSensory Processing in Aquatic Environments, edited byShaun P. Collin and N. Justin Marshall, 3–38. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑22628‑6_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-22628-6_1 [Google Scholar]
  67. Queiroz, João, and Daniella Aguiar
    2015 “C.S. Peirce and Intersemiotic Translation.” InInternational Handbook of Semiotics, edited byP. P. Trifonas, 201–215. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑9404‑6_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9404-6_7 [Google Scholar]
  68. Ragge, D. R., and W. J. Reynolds
    1988 “The Songs and Taxonomy of the Grasshoppers of the Chorthippus Biguttulus Group in the Iberian Peninsula (Orthoptera: Acrididae).” Journal of Natural History22 (4): 897–929. 10.1080/00222938800770611
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00222938800770611 [Google Scholar]
  69. Rendall, Drew, Michael J. Owren, and Michael J. Ryan
    2009 “What Do Animal Signals Mean?” Animal Behaviour78 (2): 233–240. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.06.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.06.007 [Google Scholar]
  70. Roy, Arundhati
    2004 “Peace and the New Corporate Liberation Theology.” The 2004 Sydney Peace Prize Lecture. sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=279
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Savage-Rumbaugh, E. Sue
    1986Ape Language: From Conditioned Response to Symbol. New York: Columbia University Press. 10.7312/sava90374
    https://doi.org/10.7312/sava90374 [Google Scholar]
  72. Scott-Phillips, Thomas C.
    2010 “Animal Communication: Insights from Linguistic Pragmatics.” Animal Behaviour79 (1): e1–e4. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.10.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.10.013 [Google Scholar]
  73. Sealey, Alison, and Nickie Charles
    2013 “‘What Do Animals Mean to You?’: Naming and Relating to Nonhuman Animals.” Anthrozoös26 (4): 485–503. 10.2752/175303713X13795775535652
    https://doi.org/10.2752/175303713X13795775535652 [Google Scholar]
  74. Sealey, Alison, and Lee Oakley
    2013 “Anthropomorphic Grammar? Some Linguistic Patterns in the Wildlife Documentary Series Life.” Text & Talk33 (3): 399–420. 10.1515/text‑2013‑0017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2013-0017 [Google Scholar]
  75. Sealey, Alison, and Chris Pak
    2018 “First Catch Your Corpus: Methodological Challenges in Constructing a Thematic Corpus.” Corpora13 (2): 229–254. 10.3366/cor.2018.0145
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2018.0145 [Google Scholar]
  76. Sebeok, Thomas A.
    1968 “Zoosemiotics.” American Speech43 (2): 142–144. 10.2307/454548
    https://doi.org/10.2307/454548 [Google Scholar]
  77. Segerdahl, Par, William Fields, and Sue Savage-Rumbaugh
    2005Kanzi’s Primal Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230513389
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230513389 [Google Scholar]
  78. Simmonds, Mark P., Sarah J. Dolman, Michael Jasny, E. C. M. Parsons, Lindy Weilgart, Andrew J. Wright, and Russell Leaper
    2014 “Marine Noise Pollution – Increasing Recognition But Need for More Practical Action.” Journal of Ocean Technology9 (1): 71–90.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Stecconi, Ubaldo
    2007 “Five Reasons Why Semiotics is Good for Translation Studies.” InDoubts and Directions in Translation Studies, edited byYves Gambier, Miriam Shlesinger, and Radegundis Stolze, 15–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.72.05ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.72.05ste [Google Scholar]
  80. Stibbe, Arran
    2012Animals Erased: Discourse, Ecology, and Reconnection with the Natural World. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Taylor, Anna Magdalena, Victoria Frances Ratcliffe, Karen McComb, and David Reby
    2014 “Auditory Communication in Domestic Dogs: Vocal Signalling in the Extended Social Environment of a Companion Animal.” InThe Social Dog, edited byJuliane Kaminski and Sarah Marshall-Pescini, 131–163. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑407818‑5.00005‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407818-5.00005-X [Google Scholar]
  82. Taylor, Sunaura
    2017Beasts of Burden: Animal and Disability Liberation. New York: The New Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Temple, Bogusia, and Alys Young
    2004 “Qualitative Research and Translation Dilemmas.” Qualitative Research4 (2): 161–178. 10.1177/1468794104044430
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794104044430 [Google Scholar]
  84. Tharakeshwar, V. B.
    2009 “Translating Tragedy into Kannada.” InDecentering Translation Studies: India and Beyond, edited byJudy Wakabayashi and Rita Kothari, 57–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.86.07tha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.86.07tha [Google Scholar]
  85. Thomas, Keith
    1991Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England 1500–1800. London: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Tomlinson, Gary
    2015A Million Years of Music: The Emergence of Human Modernity. New York: Zone Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Tudge, Colin
    2013Why Genes Are Not Selfish and People Are Nice: A Challenge to the Dangerous Ideas That Dominate Our Lives. Edinburgh: Floris Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Tymoczko, Maria
    2000 “Translation and Political Engagement: Activism, Social Change and the Role of Translation in Geopolitical Shifts.” The Translator6 (1): 23–47. 10.1080/13556509.2000.10799054
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2000.10799054 [Google Scholar]
  89. 2014 “Western Metaphorical Discourses Implicit in Translation Studies.” InThinking Through Translation with Metaphors, 115–166. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Venuti, Lawrence
    2000 “Translation, Community, Utopia.” InThe Translation Studies Reader, edited byLawrence Venuti, 468–488. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203446621
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203446621 [Google Scholar]
  91. Viberg, Åke
    1983 “The Verbs of Perception: A Typological Study.” Linguistics21 (1): 123–162. 10.1515/ling.1983.21.1.123
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1983.21.1.123 [Google Scholar]
  92. von Uexküll, Jakob
    1982 “The Theory of Meaning.” Semiotica42 (1): 25–79. 10.1515/semi.1982.42.1.25
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1982.42.1.25 [Google Scholar]
  93. Waters, Dean A.
    2003 “Bats and Moths: What Is There Left to Learn?” Physiological Entomology28 (4): 237–250. 10.1111/j.1365‑3032.2003.00355.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3032.2003.00355.x [Google Scholar]
  94. Webster, John
    2017 “Hearing and Listening, Survival and Satisfaction in Sentient Animals.” The 10th Anniversary Meeting of the British Animal Studies Network: ‘Hearing’ (University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, 19–20May 2017).
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Weil, Kari
    2006 “Killing Them Softly: Animal Death, Linguistic Disability, and the Struggle for Ethics.” Configurations14 (1): 87–96. 10.1353/con.0.0013
    https://doi.org/10.1353/con.0.0013 [Google Scholar]
  96. Whitehouse, Marianne, and Carolyn Colvin
    2001 “‘Reading’ Families: Deficit Discourse and Family Literacy.” Theory into Practice40 (3): 212–219. 10.1207/s15430421tip4003_10
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4003_10 [Google Scholar]
  97. Whitt, Richard J.
    2009 “Auditory Evidentiality in English and German: The Case of Perception Verbs.” Lingua119 (7): 1083–1095. 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  98. Wolfe, Cary
    2003 “Introduction.” InZoontologies: The Question of the Animal, edited byCary Wolfe, ix–xxiii. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. 2009 “Human, All Too Human: ‘Animal Studies’ and the Humanities.” PMLA124 (2): 564–575. 10.1632/pmla.2009.124.2.564
    https://doi.org/10.1632/pmla.2009.124.2.564 [Google Scholar]
  100. Zelick, Randy, David A. Mann, and Arthur N. Popper
    1999 “Acoustic Communication in Fishes and Frogs.” InComparative Hearing: Fish and Amphibians, edited byRichard R. Fay and Arthur N. Popper, 363–411. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4612‑0533‑3_9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-0533-3_9 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error