Chapter 1: Animal Communication

CHAPTER 1
ANIMAL
COMMUNICATION

hen Darwin presented his explanation of how living things

evolve, he challenged the belief that human beings have a very
special, indeed unique place in the universe. Since his time,
people have searched for proof of their superiority to other
animals. This search has usually focused on the powers of the large
human brain, and especially on the ability to use language. “All
animal can communicate, but only human beings have language” is a
statement that has been made repeatedly in the twentieth century.

This claim raises a host of questions. What, for example, is

communication, and how does animal communication differ from
human communication? What makes language different from the cries
of birds? Can apes be taught a language?—and, if so, what does that
say about apes and about humans? By looking first at the nature of
communication and then at how animals communicate, we can clarify
what language is and why the ability to use language is very
significant in defining human nature

1|Page
Linguistics for English Language Teaching: Sounds, Words, and Sentences

Communication and Animals

From many legends and folktales, we heard about someone’s
extraordinary ability to talk with animals. Sometimes, not only human
can talk with animals but animals can talk back to him. Even, many of
us, as adults, are still convinced that we can talk with animals,
particularly with our pets. “When I tell Kitty to get off the kitchen
table, she does.” “Three meows mean hungry.” While we certainly
able to communicate with our pets, the question arises as to whether
we actually “talk with” them.

To consider what “talk with” means, we need to consider what

communication is by studying the Message Model. According to this
model, communication is a process in which information is
transmitted from a source – to sender – to a goal –the receiver, as
shown in figure 1 as follows:

Figure 1
Process of Communication

SENDER CHANNEL RECEIVER

MESSAGE
SOURCE SIGNAL GOAL

THE MESSAGE MODEL

Source: Mc Manis et al. (1987: 15)

According the Message Model above, a communicator, the sender,

thinks up some information at the source, then transmits that
information through a signal. The receiver picks up the signal at the
message destination and decodes it. The sender and the receiver can
exchange positions, and the signal can be manifested in a variety of
forms: chemical emission, gesture, sound, etc.

On a more technical level, “talk with” means that we have a sender

and a receiver and we exchange messages through he medium of
sound, more specifically language. When we communicate with our
pets, we really do not talk with them as they do not use language to
communicate messages back to us, and they may not even function as
a sender at all.

2|P a g e
 Chapter 1: Animal Communication

According to the above model, the communication process involves

five steps:
1. Encoding the information into a symbolic system. All
communication uses signals or symbols. If a person wants to
transmit the information “I am thirsty.” He or she must put that
information into the symbolic system of language—in this case,
English.
2. Selecting a mode of communication. Next, he or she may choose to
verbalize this message, as opposed to writing it or miming it.
3. Delivering the symbols through medium. A medium is the physical
basis fro communication, for example light, air, or ink. In this case,
the medium is the air which conveys the sound waves of a
verbalized message.
4. Perceptual processing of the symbols by the receiver. If the
communication is to occur, a receiver must perceive the symbols;
the receiver must see or hear or feel the symbols sent. In this
example, the human ear receives the sound waves.
5. Decoding of the symbols to obtain the information. Even if the
receiver perceives the symbols, nothing is communicated unless
the receiver is able to decode the message contained in the sound
waves. One assumes that the receiver knows the individual words
and grammar of the language, and thus comprehends the message.
According to this definition of communication, how do we know
when communication has taken place? This question might arise even
when considering human communication, but it is especially
interesting— and perplexing— when it concerns animal
communication. Most animals possess some kind of “signaling”
communication system. For examples:

Spiders
Among the spiders there is a complex system for courtship. The male
spider, before he approaches his lady love, goes through elaborate
gestures to inform her he is indeed a spider and not a crumb or a fly to
be eaten. These gestures are invariant. One never finds a “creative”
spider changing or adding to particular courtship ritual of his species.

Fiddle Crabs
A similar kind of “gesture” language is found among the fiddler crabs.
There are forty different varieties, and each species uses its own
particular “claw-waving” movement to signal to another member of

3|Page
Linguistics for English Language Teaching: Sounds, Words, and Sentences

its “clan.” The timing, movement, and posture of the body never
change from one time to another within the particular species.
Whatever the signal means, it is fixed. Only one meaning can be
conveyed. There is not an infinite set of fiddler crab “sentence.” Nor
can the signal be “broken down” into smaller elements, as is possible
in any utterance of human language.

Dogs
Let us say we observe two dogs being walked in opposite directions.
As they approach and then pass, one, a Pekinese, gives out a fury of
yaps with much straining at his leash; the other, a larger nondescript
pooch, looks at the yapping Pekinese but otherwise does not respond.
Has communication occurred? Even if we stipulate that the Pekinese’s
noises are intended as communication—that they do encode some
types of information—we cannot then assume that communication has
occurred; for communication requires that the goal or the pooch has
done so?

Swans
Let us say there are two swans—A and B. If swan A ruffles its tail
feathers and swan B promptly dives, then it seems reasonable to
consider the question of what the ruffling of feathers by a swan “says”
to another swan. We are not obliged to conclude that this behavior is
communicative: in fact, such a conclusion on the basis of one
observation would be unwarranted. If, however, we observe time after
time that when one swan ruffles its feathers, another swan dives, then
the hypothesis that ruffling of feathers by swans in a communicative
event becomes increasingly attractive.

Honeybees
Establishing such a connection between the behavior of one animal
and another, however, is far from easy. Karl von Frisch’s studies
(1950, 1967) of communication among bees provide a model of how
such relationships can be studied. Von Frisch sent decades of his life
observing the behavior of bees. Eventually, he came to suspect that
certain bee behavior is communicative. To study this behavior, he
carefully organized the environment of his bees to elicit the same
behavior repeatedly and to evaluate the response of other bees. He
established a new source of nectar within the foraging radius of his

4|P a g e
 Chapter 1: Animal Communication

bee hive and waited for a bee to discover it. After finding the nectar,
the bee would return to the hive and go into the “dance.” As an
apparent result, other bees would then fly directly to the new source of
nectar. This sequence of events happened often enough to permit the
tentative conclusion that there was something about the bee’s dance
that communicated the location of the source of the nectar.

The “language” of the honeybees is far more complex. It is observed

through their dances. The dancing behavior may assume one of three
possible patterns: round, sickle, and tail-wagging. The determining
factor in the choice of dance pattern is the distance of the food source
from the hive. The round dance indicates location near the hive,
within twenty feet or so. The sickle dance indicates locations at an
intermediate distance from the hive, approximately twenty to sixty
feet. The tail-wagging dance is for distances that exceed sixty feet or
so. The number of repetitions per minute of the basic pattern in the
tail-wagging dance indicates the precise distance; the slower the
repetition rate, the longer the distance.

The bees’ dance is an effective system of communication for bees. It

is capable, in principle, of infinitely many different messages, like
human language; but unlike human language, the system is confined
to a single subject—distance from the hive. The inflexibility was
shown by an experimenter who forced a bee to walk to the food
source. When the bee returned to the hive, it indicated distance
twenty-five times farther away than the food source actually was. The
bee had no way of communicating the special circumstances in its
message. This absence of creativity makes the bees dance qualitatively
different from human language.

Dolphin and Whales

Dolphin and whales are marine animals. They have ability to make an
incredible variety of sound—far more than any other animal,
including humans can make. Their low-pitched sounds are believed to
function as cetacean sonar; that is, like bats they use echoes to locate
objects and to navigate. But even if we subtract these low-pitched
sounds, the inventory of sounds that cetaceans might use for
communication is staggering. The impulse to conclude that they do
communicate with these sounds is very nearly overwhelming. As
oceanographer Jacques Cousteau (1972) put it: “My friend and I have
perhaps spent too much time with whales; we may be the victims of

5|Page
Linguistics for English Language Teaching: Sounds, Words, and Sentences

an illusion. But how can we explain these alternating voices, and such
a diversity of modulation, except by concluding that is actually
conversation?” No direct evidence that communication is involved has
been found; the conclusion that cetaceans communicate is defended
instead by asking, what else can these sounds be? For now, at least,
scientists can say little more than this about many forms of animal
behavior.

Birds
The imitative sounds of talking birds have little in common with
human language, but the calls and songs of many species of birds do
have communicative function, and they resemble human language in
that there may be “dialects” within the same species. Bird calls (more
complex patterns of notes) convey messages associated with the
immediate environment, such as danger, feeding, nesting, flocking,
and so on. Bird songs (more complex patterns of notes) are used to
“stake out” territory and to attract mates. There is no evidence of any
internal structure to these songs, nor can they be segmented into
independently meaningful parts as words of human language can be.
In a study of the territorial song of the alternation between high-
pitched and low-pitched notes, and which came first did not matter.
The message varies only to the extent of how strongly the robin feels
about his possession and to what extent he is prepared to defend it and
start a family in that territory. The different alternations therefore
express “intensity” and nothing more. The robin is creative in his
ability to sing the same thing in many different ways, but not creative
in his ability to use the same “unit” of the system to express many
different messages with different meanings.

“Talking” Parrot
“Talking” birds such as parrots and mynah birds are capable faithfully
reproducing words and phrases of human language that they have
heard; but when a parrot says “Polly wants cracker,” she may really
want a sandwich or drink of water or nothing at all. A bird that has
learned to say “hello” or “goodbye” is as likely to use one as the other,
regardless of whether people are arriving or departing. The bird’s
utterances carry no meaning. They are speaking neither English nor
their own language when they sound like us.

Talking birds do not dissect the sounds of their imitations into discrete
units. Polly and Molly do not rhyme for a parrot. They are as different

6|P a g e
 Chapter 1: Animal Communication

as hello and goodbye (or as similar). A Parrot says what it is taught, or

what it hears, and no more. If Polly learns “Polly wants a cracker” and
“Polly wants a doughnut” and also learns to imitate the single word
whiskey and bagel, she will not spontaneously produce, as children do,
“Polly wants whiskey” or “Polly wants a bagel” or “Polly wants
whiskey and a bagel.” If she learns cat and cats and then learns the
word parrot, she will be unable to form the plural parrots; nor can a
parrot form unlimited set of utterances from a finite set of units.
Therefore, the ability to produce sounds similar to those used in
human language cannot be equated with the ability to learn a human
language.

Chimpanzees
According to a number of psychologists’ reports, more than a dozen
chimps, two gorillas and an orangutan have learned extensive
vocabularies in one or another visual language. Even more intriguing
are claims that the apes have mastered a fundamental aspect of human
language: the ability to create sentence.
- Gua: In 1930s, two scientists (Luella and Winthrop Kellogg)
reported on their experience of raising an infant chimpanzee
together with their baby son. The chimpanzee, called Gua, was
reported to be able to understand about a hundred words, but didn’t
say any of them.
- Viki: In the 1940s, a chimpanzee named Viki was reared by another
scientist couple (Catherine and Keith Hayes) in their own home,
exactly as if she was a human child. These foster parents spent five
years attempting to get Viki to ‘say’ English words by trying to
shape her mouth as she produced sounds. Viki eventually managed
to produce some words, rather poorly articulated versions of mama,
papa, and cup. In restrospect, this was remarkable achievement
since it has become clear that non-human primates do not actually
have a physically structured vocal tract which is suitable for
articulating the sounds used in speech. Apes and gorillas can, like
chimpanzees, communicate with a wide range of vocal calls, but
they just can’t make human speech sounds.
- Washoe: Another scientist couple (Beatrix and Allen Gardner) set
out to teach a female chimpanzee called Washoe to use a version of
American Sign Language. This sign language has all the essential
properties of human language and is learned by many congenitally
deaf children as their natural first language. From the beginning,
the Gradners and their research assistants raised Washoe like a

7|Page
Linguistics for English Language Teaching: Sounds, Words, and Sentences

human child in a comfortable domestic environment. Sign language

was always used when Washoe was around and she was
encouraged to use signs, even her own incomplete ‘baby-versions”
of the signs used by adults. In a period of three and a half years,
Washoe came to use signs for more than a hundred words, ranging
from airplane, baby, and banana trough to window, woman and
you. Even more impressive was Washoe’s ability to tke these
forms and combine them to produce ‘sentence’ of the type gimme
tickle, more fruit and open food drink (to get someone to open
refrigerator). Some of the forms appear to have been inventions by
Washoe, as in her novel sign for bib and in the combination water
bird (referring to a swan), which would seem to indicate that her
communication system had the potential for productivity. Washoe
also demonstrated understanding of a much larger number of signs
that she produced and was capable of holding rudimentary
conversation, mainly in the form of question-answer sequences. A
similar conversation ability with sign language was reported (by
Francine Patterson) for a gorilla named Koko not long after.

- Sara and Lana: At the same time as Washoe was learning sign
language, another chimpanzee named Sarah was being taught (by
Ann and David Premack) to use a set of plastic shapes for the
purpose of communicating with humans. These plastic shapes
represented ‘words’ that could be arranged in sequence to build
‘sentences’ (Sarah preferred a vertical order). The basic approach
was quite different from that of the Gardners. Sarah was
systematically trained to associate these shapes with objects or
actions. She remained an animal in a cage, being trained with food
reward s to manipulate a set of symbols. Once she had learned to
use a large number of these plastic shapes, Sarah was capable of
getting an apple by selecting the correct plastic shape (a blue
triangle) from a large array. Notice that this symbol is arbitrary
since it would be hard to argue for any ‘natural’ connection
between an apple and a blue plastic triangle. Sarah was also capable
of producing ‘sentences’ such as Mary give chocolate Sarah and
had the impressive capacity to understand complex structures such
as If Sarah put red on green, Mary give Sarah chocolate. Sarah got
the chocolate.

8|P a g e
 Chapter 1: Animal Communication

= Mary

= Give

= Chocolate

= Sarah

A similar training technique with another artificial language was used

(by Duane Rumbaugh) to train a chimpanzee called Lana. The
language she learned was called Yerkish and consisted of a set of
symbols on a large keyboard linked to a computer. When Lana wanted
some water, she had to press four symbols, in the correct sequence, to
produce the message please machine give water.

Both Sarah and Lana demonstrated an ability to use what look like
word symbols and basic structures in ways that superficially resemble
the use of language. There is, however, a lot of skepticism regarding
these apparent linguistic skills. It has been pointed out that when Lana
used the symbols for “please”, she did not have to understand the
meaning of the English word please. The symbols for “please” on the
computer keyboard might simply be the equivalent of button on a
vending machine and, so the argument goes, we could learn to operate
vending machines without necessarily knowing language. This is only
one of the many arguments that have been presented against the idea

9|Page
Linguistics for English Language Teaching: Sounds, Words, and Sentences

that the use of sign and symbols by these chimpanzee is similar to the
use of language.
- Kanzi: In a more recent study by Sue Savage-Rumbaugh, an
interesting development relevant to this controversy came about
almost by accident. While Savage-Rumbaugh was attempting to
train a bonobo (a pygmy chimpanzee) called Matata how to use the
symbols of Yerkish, Matata’s adopted baby, Kanzi, was always
with her. Althoug Matata did not do very well, her son, Kanzi,
spontaneously started using the symbols system with great ease. He
had learned not by being taught, but by being exposed to, and
observing, a kind of language in use at a very early age. Kanzi
eventually developed a large symbol vocabulary (over 250 forms).
By the age of eight, he was reported to be able, through the
association of symbols with spoken words, to demonstrate
understanding of spoken English at a level comparable to a two-
and-a-half-year-old human child. There was also evidence that he
was using a consistently distinct set of ‘gentle noises’ as words to
refer to things such as bananas, grapes and juice. He had also
become capable of using his symbols system to ask to watch his
favorite movies, Quest for Fire (about primitive humans) and
Greystoke (about the Tarzan legend).

Characteristics of Animal Communication

Much has been learned, however, about many system of animal
communication. A vast array of creatures has been observed— bees,
dolphin, whales, birds and chimpanzee—and, not surprisingly, many
types of communication have been found. In analyzing these varied
systems and comparing them with human communication, two
questions are especially interesting: What kinds of messages can
particular animal convey, and are their systems of communication
genetically set or learned?

The Message of Animals

Many animal howl, twitter, or sing. Some birds even mimic human
words and phrases. But what, if anything, are the saying? Lorenz
(1952) noted the case of a parrot that surprised everyone by calling,
appropriately, “The chimney sweep is coming!” But Lorenz denied
that the bird knew what it was saying. The parrot, Papagallo by name,

10 | P a g e
 Chapter 1: Animal Communication

had a terrible fear of the chimney sweep; his visits were times of
severe trauma for Papagallo, who learned to associate them with the
cook’s cry. “The chimney sweep is coming.” If the cook had cried
“The fat’s burning” at exactly those same instances, it may be
presumed that this is what Papagallo would finally have said.

Like Papagallo, many animals vocalize in response to stress. Some

cries and actions, however, have ore specific meanings that are
conveyed to other members of the species. Scientists have been able to
assign rough translations to many bird and mammal calls. The famed
animal behaviorist Koendrad Lorenz (1952), for example, has
discussed a number of calls of the jackdaw: the kia (“fly with me”),
kiaw (“let’s go home”)

Animal Communication System: True Language?

A basic question pondered at some time or other by all human
language users is whether any other species also has a real language.
Certainly other species have forms of communication, but
“communication” is not synonymous with “language”. No known
animal uses a language in the wild, but animals do communicate with
each other is system called codes. A true language differs from a
signal code in terms of several essential features.

Communication systems,—both human and animal communications--

have some features:
1. A Mode of Communication: The mode of communication may be
vocal-auditory as in human and most animal systems, or visual as
in sign language and many other animal systems (e.g. bees), or
tactile, or even chemical (e.g. moths).
2. Semanticity: The signals in any communication system have
meaning. Without this feature, the system would consist merely of
noise (in the technical sense of a meaningless jumble).
3. Pragmatic Function: All systems of communication serve some
useful purpose(s), from helping the species to stay alive to
influencing others’ behavior in some way (as in TV commercials).

11 | P a g e
Linguistics for English Language Teaching: Sounds, Words, and Sentences

Signal Codes Vs Language

Some of the signal codes used by animals may exhibit one or more of
the features describe above, but only to a limited degree. For example,
the dance of the honeybees has limited displacement—it
communicates information about the location of a distant food source
seen in the recent past—and parts of the dance are arbitrary, though
others are representational. The bee’s system is not completely
productive since they cannot. For example, convey information about
vertical distance or direction. Most signal codes consist of a small,
finite number of discrete signals, often concerned with essentials of
survival such as food, danger, or reproduction. These systems lack a
mechanism for introducing new signals: they are closed
communication systems. Thus when the animal is confronted with a
novel situation, it has no way to communicate about situation (an
obvious disadvantage for the best chances of survival).

Language, in contrast, must have all of the language features to be

considered language. Without one or more, it would simply be a
signal code.

12 | P a g e