Dogs have been communicating with humans for thousands of years;
it is not a new concept or phenomenon. Dogs will go get their leash
to prompt us to walk them, they nudge our hand when they want to be
petted, they go to the door or whine when they need to go out, they
bark when someone is at the door.
In the canine world, communication extends well beyond simple vocal
tones, growls, whines, and barks. The canine communicates on many
visual levels simultaneously as well; through facial expressions,
postures, the way they hold their heads, their ears, and also their
tails. These all have an underlying meaning and represent an inner
emotion or thought.
Many researchers have conducted detailed studies on two-way communication
using dolphins, primates, parrots and other animals as their research
subjects. However, little has been done with canines, the animal that
is already an integral part of our society. Not only do we rely on
canines for several tasks, they have evolved to rely on us. Therefore,
it seems logical that we develop a language system that allows us
to communicate with our canines, and, in turn, allows them to communicate
with us.
Communication is the act of transmitting a message, exchanging of
information or opinions, where language can be any method using words,
gestures, sounds, signs, or symbols which are understood as a means
of communicating by a community or species. Over thousands of years,
humans and canines have developed their own specific independent and
interdependent forms of audio and symbolic communication. But not
the same language.
Over the years, I've become increasingly interested in the act of
human to canine and canine to human communication. Acting on this
interest, I've attempted to develop a symbolic form of communication
that could be understood and utilized by my dogs. When I performed
rudimentary experiments with my interdependent communication method,
I learned that canines appear to possess the perceptual and cognitive
capacities to understand my system (comprehension) as well as utilize
my system to perform and communicate simple requests (production).
In 1975, I started doing symbol work with a deaf American Pit Bull
Terrier. Originally, I used hand cues with him, but then found it
was easier for me to use a series of symbols that I developed. As
I will discuss later, symbols also opened the possibility of 2-way
communication. The symbols I used were two dimensional (2D) symbols
which consisted of white diagrams on a black background. With my symbols,
I continued to train deaf canines and in 1983, I expanded my research
by including birds, horses, pot-bellied pigs and other animals.
In the mid '90's, I was diagnosed with a debilitating disease. I
lived alone, so my dependence on my two American Pit Bull Terriers,
Cheyenne and Dakota, was elevated, and at times critical. Since my
quality of life was linked to my ability to communicate with my dogs,
I started conducting experiments to develop a more effective way to
communicate with them when I was unable to give verbal commands. In
between treatments for my disease, I consulted several canine ophthalmologists,
behaviorists, and trainers, and I experimented with 2D diagrams and
3D objects of different shapes, sizes and colors. I conducted experiments
at different times of the day, with different lighting, indoors, outdoors,
in laboratory settings and real-life settings. Additionally, I engaged
other people, men and women, of varying ages, heights, weight, and
ethnicity to present the symbols to control for the possibility of
contaminating behavior or outcomes.
Canines are said to have dichromatic vision, as they do not see all
the hues of the electromagnetic spectrum. In addition, canines do
not have the ability to focus as well on the detail shape of objects
as humans do (their visual acuity is lower). A variety of studies
have been done, using a number of different methodologies, to estimate
the visual acuity of dogs. These studies indicate that the normal
dog has a visual acuity of approximately 20/75, according to the Snellen
fraction (the most commonly used indicator of visual acuity, which
relates the ability to distinguish objects or letters at a fixed distance
with the standard response). So I designed my 2D symbols using very
simple shapes.
In my experiments, my dogs picked up on the 2D diagram symbols faster
and their retention was considerably longer than when I used 3D objects.
In addition, diagram symbols that are 2D are easier to transport and
can be easily duplicated on the spot with any writing instrument and
paper.
Currently, I've developed 2D symbols which communicate the following
actions/objects: "bring/fetch", "sit", "down",
"stay", "here", "stop", "no",
"speak", "potty", "right", "left",
"up", "back", "out", "push",
"pull", "phone", "water", "food",
"towel", "bag", "leash", "truck",
"keys", "live" and "dead". I have symbols
for some of their body parts; "head", "eye", "nose",
"arm", "leg", "butt" and "tum".
I also have symbols for the names of each dog.
|
|
Left w/lg
symbol |
Right w/lg
symbol |
After four years of communicating with Cheyenne and Dakota and making
requests of them with symbols, I wondered if they had the cognitive
ability to request things from me using those same symbols. Realizing
that the ability to understand language nearly always outstrips the
ability to produce it, my expectations as to the number of symbols
they would be able to produce were not that high. Just as with young
children, language comprehension develops earlier than language production
and even into adulthood comprehension vocabularies exceed speaking/production
vocabularies.
In 1998, I started working with Cheyenne and Dakota (along with my
molluccan cockatoo, Peaches, my sulphur crested Cockatoo, Minnie,
and my two pot-bellied pigs, Little Orphan Hammie and Tammy Faye Bacon)
to have them request "water" using the same symbols I used
to request them to bring me water. When they wanted water, they would
have to touch the "bring" symbol and then the "water"
symbol. Dakota picked up on it after two sessions (four repetitions
equal a session). However, it took Cheyenne five sessions before she
began using the symbols to request water (it took Peaches six sessions,
Minnie two, Hammie two and Tammy three). The training sessions for
Cheyenne were identical to those for Dakota. I hypothesized that this
behavior suggested that intelligence is unique in form to each species
and then varies widely again with the individual. Although it generally
takes Cheyenne longer to produce the correct symbols to request things,
my work still supported the theory that the canine possesses the ability
for cognitive thought. My findings were replicated in 2001 with an
additional American Pit Bull Terrier, Tahoe, who can comprehend symbols
and utilize them for simple requests.
A subsequent application to my original research with symbols is
transfering this application of communication to speech and hearing
impaired childern. By enabling these children to communciate with
their dogs it helps them form and learn about relationships as well
as making their lives more enjoyable by giving them a means of two-way
communication with their dogs.
My future plans are to increase my dogs' symbolic vocabulary --comprehension
and production--with the goal of enabling them to tell me when something
on them hurts. Other plans will include syntactic rules and word order.
Two-way communication allows us a window into the "animal mind"
and is an extremely useful approach to understanding how animals perceive
their environment and how they ultimately process and use such information.
My original intention for my experiments was simply to enhance my
relationship with my dogs so that we could live more fulfilled lives
by helping each other, but I feel I've formed the foundation for continued
studies and additional research.
*Note: In June of 2003, we started experimenting with
pink diagrams on black.
Scent
Discrimination Exercise
________________________________________________________________________________
"What
right has man to inflict such long and fearful agony on a fellow creature
simply because that creature does not speak his language?" -
Ernest Thompson Seton
"If you
talk to the animals they will talk with you and you will know each
other. If you do not talk to them you will not know them, and what
you do not know you will fear. What one fears one destroys." - Chief
Dan George
________________________________________________________________________________
References
Gardner, B. T. & Gardner, R. A. (1971). Two-way
communication with an infant chimpanzee. In A. M. Schrier & F.
Stollnitz (Eds.). Behavior of nonhuman primates. Vol. 4. pp. 117-184.
Academic Press, New York.
Gardner, R.A. and Gardner, B.T. (1979). "Teaching
Sign Language to a Chimpanzee," in Language Intervention from
Ape to Child. Ed. R.L. Schiefelbusch and J.H. Hollis, pp. 171 - 195.
Baltimore: University Park Press.
Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S. (1986). Ape Language: from
Conditioned Response to Symbol. Columbia University Press, New York.
Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S., Rumbaugh, D.M., and Boysen,
S. "Symbolic Communication Between Two Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)."
Science, 201, 1978. pp. 641-644.
Rumbaugh, D. M. (1977). Language Learning by a Chimpanzee:
The Lana Project. Academic Press, New York.
Rumbaugh, D. M. and Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S. (1994)
Language in Comparative Perspective. pp 307-333 in N.J. Mackintosh
(ed.) Animal Learning and Cognition. Academic Press: New York
Savage-Rumbaugh, S. and Lewin, R. (1994) Kanzi: The
Ape at the Brink of the Human Mind. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Savage-Rumbaugh S. & Rumbaugh D.M. (1978). Symbolization,
language, and Chimpanzees: A theoretical reevaluation on Initial language
acquisition processes in four Young Pan troglodytes. Brain and Language,
6: 265-300.
Anstotz, C. (1993) "Profoundly Intellectually
Disabled Humans and the Great Apes: A Comparison," in The Great
Ape Project: Equality Beyond Humanity. Ed. P. Cavalieri and P. Singer,
pp. 158-172. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Greenfield P.M. & Savage-Rumbaugh S. (1990). Grammatical
combination in Pan paniscus: Process of learning and invention in
the evolution and development of language. In S.T. Parker & K.R.
Gibson (eds), Language and intelligence in monkeys and apes, Cambridge
University Press, 540-579.
Harnad S. (Ed.) (1987). Categorical Perception: The
groundwork of cognition. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Patterson, F.G. (1979). Linguistic Capabilities of
a Lowland Gorilla. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms.
Patterson, F., and Linden, E. (1981) The Education
of Koko. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Pepperberg, I.M. (1986). Acquisition of anomalous
communicatory systems: Implications for studies of interspecies communication.
In R.J. Schusterman, J.A.
Pepperberg, I.M. (1990). Conceptual abilities of some
nonprimate species with an emphasis on an African Grey Parrot. In
S.T. Parker and K.R. Gibson (ed.s),
Pepperberg, I.M. (1991). A communicative approach
to animal cognition: A study of conceptual abilities of an African
Grey Parrot. In C.A. Ristau (ed.), Cognitive
Herman, L. M. (1986). Cognition and language competencies
of bottlenosed dolphins. In Dolphin cognition and behavior: A comparative
approach (R. J. Schusterman, J. Thomas, and F. G. Wood eds.) pp. 221-251.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Herman, L. M. and Forestell, P. H. (1985). Reporting
presence or absence of named objects by a language-trained dolphin.
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 9, 667-691.
Herman, L. M. & Uyeyama, R. K. (1999). The dolphin's
grammatical competency: Comments on Kako (1998). Animal Learning &
Behavior 27, 18-23.
Terrace, H. S., Petitto, L .A., Sanders, R. J. &
Bever, T. G. (1979). Can an ape create a sentence? Science, 206, 891-902.
Schusterman, R. J. & Gisiner, R. (1988). Artificial
language comprehension in dolphins and sea lions: The essential cognitive
skills. The Psychological Record, 34, 3-23.
Blough, D.S. (1982). Pigeon perception of letters
of the alphabet. Science, 218, 397-398.
Herrnstein, R.J., and Loveland, D.H. (1964). Complex
visual concepts in the pigeon. Science, 146, 549-551.
Fetterman, J. G. (1996). Dimensions of stimulus complexity.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 22,
3-18.
Fisher, J., & Hinde, R. A. (1949). The opening
of milk bottles by birds. British Birds, 42, 347-357.
Griffin, D.R. (1976). The Question of Animal Awareness:
Evolutionary Continuity of Mental Experience. New York: Rockefeller
University Press.
Griffin, D.R. (1984). Animal Thinking. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Griffin, D.R. (1992). Animal Minds. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
MacDonald, I. (2001) Modal Theory: Relationshop between
Emotional Status and the Cognitive & Learning Abilities of Domestic
Canines.
Goodwin, D., Bradshaw, J.W.S., and Wickens, S.M.,
1997 Paedomorphosis affects agonistic visual signals of domestic dogs
Animal Behaviour 53 p297-304
Fox, M.W. 1971 Integrative Development of Brain and
Behavior in the dog. University of Chicago Press
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior
Processes, 2, 285-302.
T.G. Bever, and H.S. Terrace (eds.), Animal Cognition
(pp. 233-261).
Cangelosi A. & Parisi D. (1998). The emergence
of a "language" in an evolving population of neural networks.
Connection Science, 10(2): 83-97.
Oliphant, M. (1998). Rethinking the language bottle-neck:
Why don't animals learn to communicate? Un-published manuscript, Department
of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, University of Edinburgh.
Pfungst, O. (1907). Das Pferd des Herrn von Osten
(Der Kluge Hans). Ein Beitrag zur experimentellen Tier- und Menschen-Psychologie.
Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth; the book was translated into English
by C.L. Rahn, with a prefatory note by J.R. Angell as Pfungst, O.
(1911). Clever Hans (The Horse of Mr. Von Osten). A Contribution to
Experimental Animal and Human Psychology. New York: Henry Holt.
Pfungst, O. (1965). Clever Hans: The horse of Mr.
Von Osten. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Domjan, M. (1987). Comparative psychology and the
study of animal learning. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 101,
237-241.
