Behavior, which is a phenotypic trait, can be defined as everything an animal does, but such a bland statement has no functional value. To make the term relevant I shall paraphrase a definition used by John Paul Scott and Emil Fredericson: behavior is the attempt by an organism to adjust to changing conditions. Note that behavior is not a response to an existing condition, but to a change in conditions. Communication, a form of behavior, is an association between the sender's signal and the receiver's behavior as a consequence of the signal. It can therefore be defined as the process of influencing others. I define signal as a specific stimulus used in communication; alternatively, a semiotic sign (see below). The receiver is the individual receiving a signal, the sender (or signaler) the one transmitting it.

Metaphors and semiotics

A term parasitized by many definitions turns stale and ultimately worthless with metaphorical use, becoming a “dead metaphor.” In trying to compare current usage with the original definition, we generally find language and culture to have changed and the relationship no longer relevant. Manufacturing metaphors for scientific purposes is not dishonest, merely hopeless. The conviction that they capture some essential element of nature is “no more important in the interpretation of metaphorical claims than . . . in the interpretation of literal claims.” Their application in scientific description devolves ineluctably into discussions about whose metaphor is the most literal and thus closer to real explanations of nature. Unfortunately, metaphors that are only partly metaphorical are as rare as dogs that are only part mutt.