Understanding Our Conversations with Dogs: A Deep Dive
Written on
In her intriguing book, Our Dogs, Ourselves: The Story of a Singular Bond, Alexandra Horowitz, a prominent researcher in dog cognition, opens a chapter on how we speak to dogs with a humorous quote from Stephen Colbert: “What is it about dogs that makes intelligent men, gifted women — great minds — look at them and say [in baby-talk voice], ‘Who’s a good boy? . . . Wooj a whajeejeeb?’” This sets the stage for her exploration of the often overlooked domain of communication between humans and their canine companions.
In sociolinguistics, we analyze the social dynamics of language, including how it shapes relationships among humans. Yet, I find myself pondering how we utilize language to interact with non-human entities like dogs. While there exists considerable research on how we discuss animals in literature and history, there is a surprising lack of studies on our direct conversations with them.
One possible reason for this gap is that we tend to perceive our interactions with dogs as primarily unidirectional. As Horowitz suggests, speaking to dogs feels so instinctive to us that we rarely reflect on it. Observing my own neighborhood, I notice that people frequently engage in dialogue with their pets, prompting questions about the content of these exchanges. What do we express to our dogs, and what do these conversations reveal about our understanding of their experiences? Moreover, how do dogs interpret our words?
To delve deeper into this phenomenon, Horowitz began documenting the conversations she overheard while walking her dogs in New York City. Armed with a notebook, she recorded the amusing and peculiar things people say to their dogs. Here are some examples:
- “What are you even doing? I don’t understand you.” (Woman to her inquisitive dog)
- “You are B-A-D.” (Woman to her attentive dog)
- “Buddy, you can’t stop in the middle of the street.” (Man to a dog that lingers)
- “Seriously?” (Woman to a dog taking an unusually long bathroom break)
- “Go get the ball! Get the ball! Get the . . . Okay. I’ll get it.” (Woman to a reluctant retriever)
Horowitz observes that historically, language directed at animals has often reflected a hierarchical view, where commands dominate. Phrases like ‘giddyup’ for horses or ‘sit!’ for dogs convey authority rather than dialogue. However, her observations reveal that people often engage in two-way conversations with their dogs, suggesting a more interactive relationship than previously acknowledged.
The Role of Parentese
Colbert's quote exemplifies 'parentese'—a form of speech characterized by a high pitch, slow tempo, and simple phrases, often used when addressing infants. In developmental linguistics, parentese is recognized as a technique to help children learn language.
Horowitz notes that while we employ similar speech patterns with dogs, significant differences exist. When talking to babies, we often exaggerate our vowel sounds, whereas this is less common when speaking to dogs. This distinction arises from the educational intent behind parentese for human children, as we expect them to eventually grasp language. In contrast, we do not anticipate that dogs will become proficient in human speech, which leads us to focus more on the affectionate aspects of baby talk without the instructional elements.
"Talking The Dog" as a Social Tool
Horowitz also discovered that conversing with dogs can facilitate human interactions, acting as a social lubricant in various situations. For instance, when people speak to dogs in the presence of others, it can open avenues for conversation among humans.
Referencing linguist Deborah Tannen's work, Talking the Dog: Framing Pets as Interactional Resources in Family Discourse, Horowitz highlights how families often incorporate their pets into daily conversations. Family members might even speak on behalf of their dogs, attributing thoughts and feelings to them. For example, during one interaction, Clara and her son Jason engage with their dog, Tater, as follows:
- Jason: “I’m gonna put some of Tater’s toys in there…Where’s Tater’s toys?”
- Clara (high-pitched): “Tater, he’s even puttin’ your toys away! Tater says, (funny voice) ‘Yes, I never put them away! I consider my family to be a slew of maids, servants.’”
In this exchange, Clara not only crafts an identity for Tater but also praises her son for cleaning up, showcasing the multifaceted nature of talking to pets.
Moreover, 'talking the dog' can also serve as a means to lighten the mood after conflicts. Tannen recounts a couple's argument where the man humorously turns to their dog for comfort, eliciting laughter from his partner.
Communicating Through Dogs Across Cultures
This phenomenon of diffusing tension through canine conversations extends beyond cultures. Linguist Samuel Gyasi Obeng studied dog-naming practices among the Akan people in Ghana, revealing that names given to dogs can convey complex messages related to social dynamics and relationships.
For example, a woman named her dog ‘ware-Pa’ or ‘Good Marriage’ to express her happiness in her new relationship. Other names reflected sentiments about social issues and personal experiences.
A Dog-Centric Approach to Our Global Challenges
Alexandra Horowitz highlights a category of dog-directed talk that revolves around 'Forever Unanswered Questions.' These questions, such as “What, are you reinventing the poo?” echo the playful and absurd nature of our interactions with dogs.
Reflecting on my own exchanges with my dogs, I often find myself asking, “What’s up buddy?”—a question that, like many others, remains unanswered. These inquiries could represent what anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski termed 'phatic communication,' designed to create social bonds rather than convey specific messages.
As Horowitz mentions, a significant majority of dog owners express affection daily by saying “I love you” to their pets. This emotional connection reflects a deeper bond that intertwines our lives with those of our dogs, as discussed by science historian Donna Haraway in her work, When Species Meet. She examines the intertwining of love and responsibility in our relationships with dogs, prompting us to consider whether our anthropomorphic tendencies might obscure our understanding of their true nature.
As Merlin Sheldrake notes in Entangled Life, anthropomorphism can obscure our understanding of animal lives. It’s crucial to find a balance, recognizing the rich experiences of dogs while also ensuring we don't project our human needs onto them.
In conclusion, when we converse with our dogs, we not only shape their understanding of us but also gain insights into our own humanity. By observing our interactions with dogs, we might discover new dimensions of what it means to be human.
“Does your dog love you? Watch them, and you tell me.” — Alexandra Horowitz, in Our Dogs, Ourselves.