Timo Maran has defined “biosemiotic criticism” as the study of human culture with an emphasis on the recognition that all forms of life are organized by sign processes. That approach guides this investigation of the sonic devices and practices that have been used in encounters between birds and humans in agricultural spaces. “Bird-scaring” has been a long-standing component of the semiotic relationship between humans and birds in what I am calling the agricultural semiosphere. The struggle between humans and “pest” species over the control of agricultural resources has spurred technological development, and an examination of the sonic tools that have been involved in bird-scaring practices, from wooden rattles to digital sound recordings, intersects with scholarship on sound technology and media studies. The field of ecoacoustics provides a conceptual framework for the sonic dynamics of the interspecies communication under examination. To the extent that the essay also explores the sign relations between humans and birds it has a place in the growing corpus of biosemiotic criticism. The historical account of bird-scaring practices is presented in three sections, demarcated by changes in technology as well as shifts in the mode of semiotic reference. Across the analysis, a historical approach to bird-scaring is interwoven with a discussion of biosemiotic and ecoacoustic themes and concepts.

蒂莫·马兰（Timo Maran）将“生物符号学批评”定义为对人类文化的研究，重点是认识到所有形式的生活都是由符号过程组织的。该方法指导了对在农业空间中鸟类和人类之间的相遇中使用的声音设备和实践的调查。在我所说的农业半球形圈中，“鸟类恐慌”一直是人类与鸟类之间的符号关系中的一个长期组成部分。人类与“害虫”物种之间在农业资源控制方面的斗争刺激了技术的发展，并研究了涉及鸟类恐吓行为的声音工具，从木拨浪鼓到数字录音，都与声音学问相交。技术和媒体研究。生态声学领域为所研究的种间交流的声音动力学提供了一个概念框架。在一定程度上，本文还探讨了人与鸟之间的符号关系，因此它在生物符号学批评日益广泛的语料库中占有一席之地。分为三个部分，介绍了鸟类恐吓行为的历史记载，并按技术变化以及符号学参考模式的变化进行了划分。在整个分析过程中，历史上的一种涉猎鸟类的方法与对生物符号学和生态声学的主题和概念的讨论交织在一起。分为三个部分，介绍了鸟类恐吓行为的历史记载，并按技术变化以及符号学参考模式的变化进行了划分。在整个分析过程中，历史上的一种涉猎鸟类的方法与对生物符号学和生态声学的主题和概念的讨论交织在一起。分为三个部分，介绍了鸟类恐吓行为的历史记载，并按技术变化以及符号学参考模式的变化进行了划分。在整个分析过程中，历史上的一种涉猎鸟类的方法与对生物符号学和生态声学的主题和概念的讨论交织在一起。