Psychology
Human Language and Animal Communication
Human language and animal communication are both systems of communication, but they have distinct differences. Human language is complex, symbolic, and allows for infinite creativity and expression, while animal communication tends to be more limited in scope and often relies on instinctual signals and calls. Additionally, human language is learned and can be used to convey abstract concepts, while animal communication is largely innate and tied to immediate needs and behaviors.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
Related key terms
1 of 5
12 Key excerpts on "Human Language and Animal Communication"
No longer available |Learn moreUnderstanding Language
A Basic Course in Linguistics
- Elizabeth Grace Winkler, Elizabeth Winkler(Authors)
- 2012(Publication Date)
- Continuum(Publisher)
Each and every day humans are 2 Human Language versus Animal Communication Systems Human Language versus Animal Communication Systems 33 constantly creating new words and topics of discussion. Language is an open system with almost limitless potential for creativity and innovation as long as the basic system rules are followed. As far as scientists have determined, animal communication systems are generally confined to a very limited set of topics that are significant to the animals’ survival; for example, finding food or mates, protecting territory from invaders, identifying themselves, or keep-ing the group together when travelling. In addition, the relationship between the sound of a word and its meaning is almost always arbitrary in human languages, which is why words differ from language to language as we learned in the first chapter. This is evidenced by the fact that all humans are of the same species but that one species’ individu-als currently speak over 6,000 languages. In animal communication systems, a specific unit corresponds with a specific meaning. For animals, not only is the ability to communicate innate, but also the sounds, postures and gestures are also often biologically fixed according to each species. This is not to say that there is no learned component or variability in any animal communica-tion system; for example, as we’ll learn later in this chapter, there are some aspects of bird calls and prairie dog warnings that are learned, and there is some dialectal variation in some other systems; but by and large, the range of variability is quite small when compared to human language. We will look at recent challenges to long held beliefs about animal language systems later in this chapter.
eBook - PDF- (Author)
- 2018(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
I hope that what I have to say will also throw some light on my special interests, namely the language of science and the language of poetry. It is right to ask at the outset whether there are indeed two and just two distinct categories: human language, and every kind of animal communication. Here the evidence is very reasonable. Roman Jakobson has shown in a series of studies (collected in 1962) that the several thousand human languages all have a common character, which can be traced in the way that their structure is built up layer by layer from simpler units. By contrast, the means of communication which animals use lack this layered structure, and consist rather of a vocabulary of discrete signals. This distinction is only general, and will no doubt turn out to have borderline exceptions — for example, human beings certainly make some of the same gestures and exclamations HUMAN AND ANIMAL LANGUAGES 375 to one another that animals do. It is not implied, therefore, that there is any break in evolution between human speech and its origins in animal behavior. Yet when these cautionary remarks have been made, there remains a plain division between human language as a structural system, and the code-book of signals that animals exchange; and we are justified in treating them as two distinguishable categories. The distinction made here can be put in other terms, for it is one expression of a more general contrast between human and animal behavior. In almost every setting, the responses of animals are more rigid and stereotyped than those of human beings. So the animal's responses are both fixed in and served by the utterance of stereotyped signals, which are read as rigidly by the receiver as by the sender. Indeed, we know from the work of modern ethologists that many animals single out only one feature in a situation, which then works as a direct signal — and may become a superstimulus — to release their response.
eBook - PDF- Timo Maran, Dario Martinelli, Aleksei Turovski, Timo Maran, Dario Martinelli, Aleksei Turovski(Authors)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
Yet there is no doubt that for centuries philosophers and linguists have based their most fundamen-tal definitions of humanity on very positive assertions about what animals can and cannot do. This means that whatever students of animal communication have learned, or can learn in the future, about communication behavior is di-rectly relevant to major questions of fundamental significance to linguistics and philosophy. References Anshen, R. N. 1957 Language as Idea. In: Anshen, R. N. (ed.), Language: An Enquiry into its Meaning and Function. New York: Harper. Beer, C. G. 1975 Multiple Functions and Gull Displays. In: Baerends, G., Beer, C. G., and Manning, A. (eds.), Essays on Function and Evolution in Be-haviour: A Festschrift for Professor Niko Tinbergen. Oxford: Claren-don, Chapter 2. Black, M. 1968 The Labyrinth of Language . New York: Praeger. Bloomfield, L. 1933 Language. New York: Holt (Reprinted 1961 by Holt, Rinehart & Winston). Bonner, J. T. 1980 The Evolution of Culture in Animals. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press. Is Man Language? 353 Cassirer, E. 1953 The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms. Vol. 1. Language. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press. Chomsky, N. 1966 Cartesian Linguists. New York: Harper & Row. Chomsky, N. 1972 Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Critchley, M. 1960 The Evolution of Man’s Capacity for Language. In: Tax, S. (ed.), Evo-lution after Darwin. Vol. II. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Fodor, J. A., T. G. Bever, and M. F. Garrett 1974 The Psychology of Language. New York: McGraw-Hill. Frisch, K. von 1967 The Dance Language and Orientation of Bees. (Translation by L. Chadwick.) Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press. Goldstein, K. 1957 The Nature of Language. In: Anshen, R. N. (ed.), Language: An En-quiry into its Meaning and Function. New York: Harper, Chapter 2. Goodall, J. van Lawick 1968 Behavior of free-living chimpanzees of the Gombe Stream area.
eBook - PDF- Susan H. Houston(Author)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATION: ANIMAL LANGUAGE 2 6 7 very fond of animals, and to have worked extensively with them, often seem determined to find the traces of linguistic behavior from the outset. This is presumably the explanation of, for example, those reports which claim to present six words in the vocabulary of the horse. But descriptions of complex communi-cative behavior among animals are so frequent and occasionally so compellingly linguistic in character that they cannot be dis-missed without at least attempted explanation. Following are a selection of possible questions which one might pose in connec-tion with animal communication: (1) Do any animals have a language in the same sense as humans; if so, which? (2) What is the best procedure for deciding whether a given communication system is in fact a language, or, alternatively, an approximation to language? (3) If no animals can be considered to have a language, then what is the nature of their communications, if any, and how can these be compared with human communication? (4) If no animals have a language, is there a possibility that some extant species may be in the process of developing a lan-guage? 19.2. Since dogs are the most common house pets, they are the animals about which it is most often asserted that understanding of human language exists. Many dog owners believe that dogs are capable of obeying commands which they have never heard before, and thus, by extension, of understanding human language in general. It is also sometimes claimed that dogs and other pets express a variety of human emotions through their particular communication, and presumably that they do so deliberately in order to communicate with their owners. Packard states, for example, that dog-owners known that their dog utters a wide range of meaningful sounds. A dog in its bark can express sur-prise, pleasure, pleading, alarm, playfulness (1950, p. 158).
eBook - ePubIntroduction to Human-Animal Interaction
Insights from Social and Life Sciences
- Laëtitia Maréchal, Emile van der Zee, Emile Zee(Authors)
- 2024(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
3 Human–Animal Communication Emile van der Zee and Kun GuoDOI: 10.4324/9781003221753-33.1 Introduction
Human–animal communication is a core aspect of human–animal interaction (HAI): in any HAI information is exchanged between us and other animals. Communication not only involves speaking but also reading each other’s behaviours, body posture, facial expressions and so forth. Any prejudices in human–animal communication, or our theories on this, may impact on animal welfare: if we comprehend other animals’ intentions in the wrong way, their pain, their needs, their emotions and what disadvantages them, the consequences for their welfare – but also our own welfare – can be severe.This chapter describes what communication is, how humans communicate with each other, how other animals communicate with conspecifics, and how communication features compare between humans and other animals. The last part of this chapter focuses on the overlap in the biological systems of humans and dogs, as a case study on how the biological systems of humans and dogs constrain communicative interaction.Communication is the transfer of information from a signaller to a receiver. Information sent by a signaller must be meaningful or interpretable for the receiver. Communication channels vary widely: grunts, calls, songs, gestures, facial expressions, the use of colours, chemicals (e.g. pheromones), touch and so on. Intention or conscious processing is not necessary for communication to take place. For example, plants can signal the presence of predation to each other: damaged sugar maple seedlings and corn can emit airborne substances to signal damage, making it possible for other plants to become less palatable (van der Zee & Weary, 2010 ). Producing meaningful signals comes at a cost, however: there is an energy investment for the signaller, and signalling may make the signaller more vulnerable. Signallers have many ways to offset those costs: it may give them a reproductive advantage, it may give those genetically close to them an advantage in outcompeting others, or signallers may communicate messages that are not truthful and this therefore gives them a resource advantage. For example, subordinate tufted capuchin monkeys give more alarm calls signalling the presence of predators (felids, aerial predators and snakes) when dominant conspecifics are around, making it possible for these subordinates to have better access to a food source (Wheeler, 2009
eBook - PDF- Philip Lieberman(Author)
- 2006(Publication Date)
- Belknap Press(Publisher)
C H A P T E R 2 Primitive and Derived Features of Language T heories concerning the evolution of language often start with the premise that human language is disjoint from the communications system of other species. It is also the case that con-temporary scholars usually have little contact with animals other than their pets. In contrast, Charles Darwin, an English country gentleman, observed and interacted with a wide range of animals on a daily basis. Lacking contact with animals, one can suppose that they are incapable of transmitting any referential information and that their communications primarily convey emotional states and a limited repertoire of genetically specified calls, gestures, or facial ex-pressions that serve to signal food, the presence of danger, potential mates, and so on. And although linguists have long realized that human linguistic ability involves the interplay of different compo-nents that hinge on different biologic capacities, there is a tendency to treat an animal’s communication system as a simple unitary system. This chapter identifies some of the aspects of human linguistic ability that may be present in other species. This exercise is neces-sary if we are to identify the missing elements that may characterize human language. A full treatment of animal communication is not 28 my intent. As the previous chapter noted, human linguistic ability devolves from three basic capacities: (1) lexical capacity, the ability to learn and use words, (2) morphologic and syntactic processes that entail conveying meaning by systematic local modifications of words or of words that form sentences, and (3) phonetic and pho-nologic processes that produce and modify the sounds of speech that convey words and sentences. Other factors, such as turn-taking and social interaction, enter into human communication, but these elements are generally considered to be the core properties of hu-man linguistic ability.
eBook - PDFLanguage Files
Materials for an Introduction to Language and Linguistics, 13th Edition
- Department of Linguistics(Author)
- 2022(Publication Date)
- Ohio State University Press(Publisher)
14.4 Practice Provides exercises, discussion questions, activities, and further readings related to animal communication systems. 585 F I L E 14.1 Communication and Language 14.1.1 Design Features Revisited The previous chapters have provided an introduction to various aspects of how humans use language to communicate. However, we are not the only species that communicates; most animals have some sort of communication system. All varieties of birds make short calls or sing songs, cats meow to be fed or let outside, dogs bark to announce the arrival of strangers or growl and bare their teeth to indicate their intent to attack, and so on. The fact that other animals send and receive messages is in evidence all around us. But can we call the communication systems of animals “language”? Most people assume that only humans use “language”—it is something that sets us apart from all other creatures. But is it possible that when we examine animal communi- cation systems, we will discover that our assumption that only humans use language was wrong? The task of comparing human communication with various animal communica- tion systems is not an easy one. First, we need a suitable way to identify “language” on which to base our comparisons. Unfortunately, no definition seems to adequately define “language” or to be agreeable to everyone. One approach to getting around this problem, suggested by the linguist Charles Hockett, is that we identify the requisite descriptive char- acteristics of language rather than attempt to define its fundamental nature. Hockett iden- tified nine design features, introduced in File 1.4. Human language has all of these design features, but as far as we know, no animal communication system does. Therefore, if we define language as a communication system that possesses all nine of these features, we are correct in saying that only humans use language.
eBook - PDF- William Haviland, Harald Prins, Walrath, Bunny McBride, William Haviland, Harald PrinsWalrath, Bunny McBride(Authors)
- 2015(Publication Date)
- Cengage Learning EMEA(Publisher)
9 t he human ability to communicate through language rests firmly on our biological makeup. We are genetically “programmed” for language, be it through sounds or gestures. (Sign languages, such as American Sign Language or ASL, used by many who are mute or hearing impaired, are fully developed languages in their own right.) Be-yond the cries of babies, which are not learned but do communicate, hu-mans must learn their language. So it is that children from anywhere in the world readily acquire the language of their culture. Language is a system of communication using symbolic sounds, gestures, or marks that are put together according to certain rules, re-sulting in meanings intelligible to all who share that language. As noted in Chapter 8, these sounds, gestures, and marks are symbols— signs that are arbitrarily linked to something else and represent it in a meaningful way. For example, the word crying is a symbol, a combination of sounds to which we assign the meaning of a particular action and which we can use to communicate that meaning, whether or not anyone around us is actually crying. Signals , unlike culturally learned symbols or meaningful signs, are instinctive sounds and gestures that have a natural or self-evident meaning. Screams, sighs, and coughs, for example, are sound signals that convey some kind of emotional or physical state. Throughout the animal kingdom, species communicate essential information by means of signals. Over the past few decades, researchers aiming to understand the biological basis, social use, and evolutionary development of language have investigated a fascinating array of animal communication systems, including dolphin whistles, whale songs, elephant rumbles, bee dances, and chimpanzee gestures. Some have studied language acquisition ap-titude among chimpanzees and other great apes by teaching them to communicate using ASL or “lexigrams” (symbols) on keyboard devices.
eBook - PDFTree of Origin
What Primate Behavior Can Tell Us about Human Social Evolution
- F. B. M. de Waal, Frans B. M. de Waal, Frans B, M. de Waal(Authors)
- 2009(Publication Date)
- Harvard University Press(Publisher)
How do communication skills develop in nonhuman animals? If de-velopmental processes are found in nonhuman species similar to those found in human infants, and if few universals exist in human language development, then the development processes underlying language may not be uniquely human and can be explained in terms of general principles that apply to many species. 5. How did language evolve from animal communication? The ultimate problem for anyone trying to argue that language has evolved from nonhuman animal communication is to provide a plausible scenario. Can the complexity of language be derived from simpler processes? Can we find potential adaptive value in increasingly complex commu-nication skills? What Is Language? Because language appears to be qualitatively so different from what we see in other animals, and perhaps because of our own fascination with lan-guage, many popular books and scholarly articles have proposed theories about language origins. Almost every author has a different view of the critical features that define language. Generative Grammar and Anatomic Uniqueness More than 40 years ago Noam Chomsky argued that nonhuman species were irrelevant for understanding language. Key to Chomsky’s argument 196 • Charles T. Snowdon was the idea of a generative grammar that allows for the creation of an infinite number of sentences in language. This occurs not only by sequenc-ing several clauses, as in the eight-page-long sentences of some German novels, but also by embedding ideas within sentences. Thus, “He gave the sister that looked after her mother who was ill an extra Christmas gift to thank her,” where the main subject and predicate (“He gave the sister . . . an extra Christmas gift”) are separated by another clause. Such sentences cannot be understood by simple linear analyses and must require, accord-ing to Chomsky, some innate grammar processor.
eBook - PDF- Thomas A. Sebeok, Jean Umiker-Sebeok, Thomas A. Sebeok, Jean Umiker-Sebeok(Authors)
- 2020(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
Besides communication, animals gain experience of each other and are able to interpret these experiences, which, when built into the structure of their brain's model, also influence their behavior. Due to differences in the actual model structures, however, this does not necessarily lead to correspondence of any degree. Also, because they are unable to convey information about the models themselves, there is no way to improve the degree of correspondence, which is thus rigidly determined by the genetic makeup and particular learning experiences of the participants. We may call this Type I communication. The brain's models and communication 37 Human-to-human communication is a very special case. In the transformation of referential information to description and then back to referential information, we see the exchange of components that are parts of the same shared super-model, and which are functional in both individual model systems. The correspondence will therefore be extremely high, due to the great similarity of the brain models of the individuals. This permits an effective exchange of nonreferential information which, because it is encoded into linguistic terms that are easily understood by the receiver, can immediately be transformed into referential information. This is made possible by the individuals' ability to communicate parts of the models themselves, and by the socialization that diminishes their variety and boot-straps the linguistic communication system. The proper rules for the processing of linguistic messages are acquired by the participants during a common biological and cultural ontogenesis. This type of communication can be called Type II communication. What about human-to-animal communication? This is essentially again Type I communication, with low correspondence, in which the exchanged components usually bear different meanings for the participants.
eBook - PDF- Peter Sharpe(Author)
- 2008(Publication Date)
- Continuum(Publisher)
Next, the ques-tion of whether language has a specific location in the brain will be considered and, latterly, how we need to be wary of our descrip-tions of complicated and little understood phenomena. Is Language Exclusive to Humans? 25 Where the Links Still Lie Animal communication studies are in their infancy. So before we can begin, we have to be aware of just how much we don’t know and, possibly, may never know. According to Peter Marler of the Center for Animal Behavior of the University of California, we know nothing about the electrical communication of fish, chemi-cal signals of insects, the substrate vibrations of frogs and insects, the ultrasonic signals of bats and rodents, or the infrasound of elephants (Jablonski & Aiello 1998: 1). The commonest medium used by animals to know something is smell, but precisely what an animal can tell from smells is largely unknown. Against this back-ground, it is hardly surprising that ethologists (those who study animal behaviour) confine their investigations to what can be observed. In the case of researchers interested in signalling systems, this usually means matching certain behaviour to specific sounds. At our present level of knowledge regarding this narrow spec-trum of animal behaviour three kinds of vocal signals have been observed. The first are affective , or emotional, signals. These belong to all mammals, humans included. They are not considered symbolic because they do not stand for anything other than the emotion being portrayed. This kind of communication is called iconic (because the sound is thought to resemble the emotion) and described as reflexive (lacking intention or voluntary control). A howl of pain is an expression of pain. There appears to be no cognitive content to such messages, they are purely emotional. The second kind of signal is more specific than the first and is considered symbolic. Certain animals use different calls to alert others to different situations.
eBook - ePub- Cédric Gaucherel, Pierre-Henri Gouyon, Jean-Louis Dessalles, Pierre-Henri Gouyon, Jean-Louis Dessalles(Authors)
- 2018(Publication Date)
- Wiley-ISTE(Publisher)
1 Human and Animal Communication We, modern humans, find ourselves swimming in an ocean of information. If we were to get out of town to escape from the hubbub our fellow beings create, it may not be calm that awaits us in the forest. The forest has its own din, unceasing and of countless types. This is nature speaking to itself. Now, why should there be so much information being circulated, and so much time and energy being used up? This chapter discusses these questions, starting with the human case before going on to other languages in nature. 1.1. Language, that amazing thing There are several ways in which Homo sapiens stand out from other species. Humans are bipeds, masters of fire, practitioners of art, makers of tools and weaponry, live well past the age of reproduction, impose rites of passage on each other between the stages of their life and so on. The human being is unique for many of these reasons. We differ from other primates in that we do not suffer from hirsuteness, and we walk on our rear limbs. However, there is another difference that, though rarely mentioned, is perhaps the most fundamental and the least anecdotal: Homo sapiens are information specialists. That is what this chapter is about, and we will also consider why this is the case. Scientists of the 19th Century understood that Homo sapiens had not been created apart from other living beings, but was simply one among several species. Some, however, did not give up trying to find reasons for upholding our uniqueness, one way to try to regain our lost position. Many thoughtless assertions, such as “the human being is the only one to …”, have since been refuted. No, we are not the only ones to make tools; we are not the only ones to have a culture; we are not the only ones to know how to count. Chimpanzees and gray parrots can do some of these things. Saying that we do these things better, or that we can do more things than these, will not help save our ego as a species
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
