Book Review: How Much Can Animals Really Communicate?

Yves here. It seems useful, when suitable opportunities present themselves, to range outside what these days is particularly stressful news-related fare for other informative topics. Animal communication, interests most pet owners as well as animal-lovers and animal professionals (such as farmers and zoo employees). But this article is separately instructive as an exercise in how to treat a natively difficult topic with rigor.

The author of the book profiled here sees animal communication as limited and as I infer, largely  contained to alerts about dangers and identifying members of  the immediate pack/tribe, and therefore by implication also fairly simple. Not having read it, I wonder how he explains crows being able to describe the faces of people they regard as threats to other crows, over time frames and participating crow numbers that would seem to make it impossible for all or even most of the crows to have seen the original “bad”‘ human (as in the number of scolding crows and time distance from the original human offending behavior can’t be readily explained by a crow simply issuing a call “That guy is nasty!”). So how do they convey what “evil person” looks like to crows that have not seen him?

You can find a detailed discussion of the crow study at issue here.

Having said that, considering how to convey information outside our structure of language is useful.

By Erica Goode, a science journalist, is a former reporter and editor at The New York Times and former managing editor of Inside Climate News. Originally published at Undark

Over the last decades, researchers who study animal behavior have succeeded in largely blurring the line between Homo sapiens and other animals. Like their human counterparts, animals feel emotions, they solve problems, they communicate and form complicated relationships, investigators have found.

Any number of books — think of Ed Yong’s “An Immense World” or Marc Bekoff’s “The Emotional Lives of Animals” — have been dedicated to exploring these relatively recently recognized abilities.

Yet few books on the ways animals communicate have been written through the eyes of a scientist as cautious and as thoughtful as zoologist Arik Kershenbaum, the author of “Why Animals Talk: The New Science of Animal Communication.”

Kershenbaum, a lecturer and fellow at the University of Cambridge, is distrustful of simplistic explanations, wary of assumptions, devoted to caveats — few statements come without qualification. In Socratic fashion, he asks a lot of questions, the answers to which, in many cases, neither he nor anyone else can yet provide.

That did not deter him from writing the book and it should not deter other people from reading it. But those who pick up “Why Animals Talk” expecting to find proof of animal telepathy or hoping for a dictionary of elephant-speak or a word-for-word translation of humpback whale songs, will be disappointed. (On Amazon, one disgruntled reviewer summarized the book: “Animals don’t really talk – The End.”)

If there is a message that Kershenbaum wants to get across, it’s that, as much as we’d like to be able to hold conversations with our pets or chat with chimpanzees at the zoo, it makes no sense to expect animals to communicate in the same way that humans do, “with the same equipment as we have, the same ears and eyes and brains.”

The idea of words, as we conceive them, has no meaning in the animal world; language is a human concept. Animal communication, Kershenbaum writes, is intimately bound up with evolutionary strategies for survival: Species develop forms of communication that allow them the best chance of successfully negotiating the environment and social structures they inhabit, whether it’s the underwater world of the dolphin or the highly social forest havens of the wolf.

Scientists, Kershenbaum tells us, are learning a great deal by analyzing animal sounds — the howls of wolves, the whistles of dolphins, the songs of the hyrax, a small, furry mammal related to the elephant and the manatee — and examining them for evidence of syntax and grammar, the building blocks of language. But the “why” in the title of the book is important, underscoring his view that knowing exactly what animals are “saying” is less important than trying to understand why they are communicating at all.

“Even if we discover that we will never talk to animals in the same way as we can talk to other humans, never hold a true conversation with a dolphin, still just by probing those possibilities we will find out why they live their lives the way they do,” he writes.

“Why Animals Talk” is organized around discussions of six different animals (seven if you count humans) extensively studied by researchers, with a chapter set aside for each. Kershenbaum has himself conducted research on some of these, including wolves, dolphins, gibbons, and parrots — but he also weaves in studies by other researchers: The parrot chapter, for example, centers largely on the work of Irene Pepperberg, who famously taught an African gray parrot named Alex to speak.

To understand animals, Kershenbaum tells us in the chapter on wolves, “is to understand the stories of animals as individuals, observed in the wild, but recognized as separate from their brothers and sisters, and from strangers of the same species — who might look the same to us, but can be perceived as mortal enemies by the animals themselves.”

He returns repeatedly throughout the book to these questions: What is language? How different from other animals are we really?

The howl of the wolf is meant for long-range communication, very different from the variety of short-range sounds — growls, whimpers, yelps, and whines that are softer and contain more complex information. Howls can be heard 6 miles (or more) away and are marked by changes in pitch and tempo. Scientists are mostly in agreement, Kershenbaum notes, about three different functions of howls: They can be used to mark out territory, to keep in touch with other wolves in the pack, or just for the joy of howling.

But “do these three roles of howling mean that wolf howls have three different meanings?” he asks. Kershenbaum doesn’t think so.

Some vocalizations — a screech of fear, for example, or a soothing cooing sound — seem to convey emotions across species. But, he writes, “We understand ‘meaning’ as having a clear definition at all only because we have language.”

“If you don’t have a language — you don’t even have a concept of what a language might be — then you probably don’t have a clear concept of unique meaning,” he adds.

Instead, howls seem to convey ideas “without needing distinct, discrete meanings, in the sense that our language-infused brains expect.”

“Why Animals Talk” is full of interesting facts about animal communication: Dolphins identify themselves with signature whistles. The most dominant male hyrax is the one with the most complicated song. Greater honeyguides — small birds in sub-Saharan Africa — engage in a cooperative exchange of information with people hunting for honey, trading calls and whistles back and forth: The birds guide the humans to honey, and the humans break open the hive, giving the birds access to the beeswax and larvae.

The songs of the lar gibbon, one of the most sophisticated communicators of the animal world, continue for 300 or 400 notes, with the potential to be combined into a staggeringly large number of songs.

In every case, as Kershenbaum illustrates, from the basic “I am here” of a songbird to the far more sophisticated utterances of a gibbon or a chimpanzee, the way information is communicated is a product of the animal’s need to survive in specific circumstances, and is developed as far as it needs to be, no more and no less.

No book on animal communication would be complete without writing about dogs, and this one is no exception. Kershenbaum’s own dog, Darwin, makes guest appearances throughout the book. (Before it was finished, however, Darwin died at 16, and the book is dedicated to him.)

Dogs play an important role in any story of animal communication because so much information passes back and forth between dog and owner, in a relationship forged over tens of thousands of years, to the benefit of both. But readers will find no endorsement of their canine companions having telepathic abilities or other common notions that many people have about their dogs — and about animals more generally.

“Why Animals Talk” can be a frustrating book. Kershenbaum often writes in a circular manner — repeating what he has written earlier, in slightly different words, often with some element added — and is overly reliant on posing questions to convey ideas. One would like to think that a good editor could have straightened out these knots.

Yet there is no question that Kershenbaum’s book is also stimulating and that it challenges readers to think hard about what we share with the other animals on our planet, and what separates us from them.

Because there is, in fact, a line, as Kershenbaum eventually concludes. “Yes, there is a lot in common,” he writes. “Animals have some syntax and even some sounds that behave a little like words, and they sometimes communicate complex ideas, although more often simple ones. But animals don’t combine all these abilities with explosive effect as we do.”

What’s more, he adds: “We’ve moved so far away from what animals do, and moved away so quickly, that direct comparisons between ourselves and other species seem almost childish. It should be clear that ‘Do animals have language?’ was never a good question.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

4 comments

  1. DJG, Reality Czar

    This post and the underlying book seem best at conveying that animals don’t have the language of academics. And these other species may be lucky for that reason.

    It may be that the review places too much stress on words, yet it is more than obvious that animals learn words. There are zillions of amusing videos on Ytoob of crows stacking containers, crows giving gifts (lovely), parrots naming colors, dogs listening for words (cookie?), and the list goes on.

    What Goode and Kershenbaum seem unable to appreciate is that there may be other ways of organizing language, although they admit to syntax. In spite of all the “socially constructed” baloney going around these days, human beings may be wired for words. Dolphins and whales may be wired for long songs (any vocalization that long has to have some meaning or the creature wouldn’t do it). Parrots and crows may be wired for all kinds of vocalizations and a kind of culture.

    And dogs have a sense of humor, which anyone who has been around dogs will learn. Humor is situational and also involves language. Hmmm.

    So I am unsatisfied. Further, the assertions that human beings will communicate with animals are unimportant. Heck, those of us living in Italy laugh (constantly) over Americans saying things like, “Italian, it’s just like Spanish.” Well, no. And if a human being can’t figure out that Italian depicts a world different from the world of an English speaker or a Castilian, image the problems of trying to learn what a crow is saying or what makes a catbird the expert on jazz stylings that it is.

    So: Too much use of chattering-class humans as a measure, too little contemplation of what bees see and how, and what their dances mean. Or the wisdom of coyotes and wolves.

    Reply
    1. Jams O'Donnell

      Yes. The book seems to be partly an exercise in subconscious insecurity. Rupert Sheldrake has a very different take on this subject, but he is generally dismissed by ‘real’ scientists, many of whom have a phobia about anything that can’t be pinned down and dissected under a microscope. Yet there are many such things. Scientists must learn to accept reality as it is – not as they want it to be.

      Reply
  2. Jeff W

    Not having read it, I wonder how he explains crows being able to describe the faces of people they regard as threats to other crows, over time frames and participating crow numbers that would seem to make it impossible for all or even most of the crows to have seen the original “bad”‘ human.…So how do they convey what “evil person” looks like to crows that have not seen him?

    The crows are not “describing” anything. All of them haven’t seen the original human. The mask in the original instance becomes a conditioned stimulus because of the threatening behavior of the people wearing it. Over time the offspring of the original crows who saw the threat (and other crows as well) learn that that mask is a threat by observing the “scolding” behavior of the original crows in the presence of the mask and scold as well. It’s just basic learning principles.

    In a response to me on the earlier thread, you pointed to “fact that [Professor] Marzluff was surprised” as supporting (I think) something remarkable about how crows communicate but the only thing that I can see that he might have been surprised about (aside from the persistence of the memory of the crows) was that the scolding behavior propagated through the flock more extensively and for a longer period of time than Marzuff thought it would. All that means—all it has to mean—is that more crows observed the cawing behavior and followed suit (and remembered the threat for a longer period of time) than Marzuff expected. (Crows are really social so the fact that they’re attuned to observing others in the flock seems to be consistent with that.) That’s definitely an interesting finding but, again, it seems to me to be a finding based on basic learning principles—classical conditioning and observational learning—rather than communication per se. (The crows are communicating to the other crows that the mask constitutes a threat in a sense but they’re not scolding in order to communicate that, as far as I can tell. The scolding behavior seems to be directed at the perceived threat. But then again, I wouldn’t rule out that they could be communicating “threat” to the other crows as well.)

    And I’m not disputing that other animals could “talk” in some sense as Arik Kershenbaum argues—just that we don’t have to resort to any special kind of communication on the part of crows to explain the Marzuff study.

    Reply
    1. Yves Smith Post author

      Did you bother reading the original study?

      There was a lapse of YEARS between one of the uses of the mask and a later test. Crows only live on average every 7-8 years. The researchers documented MORE, not less, scolding as time passed. You’d expect it to diminish over time if this was merely original crows who saw the masked person misbehaving then calling out and getting others to pile on.

      And I’ve been in area with lots of crows and regularly heard scolding incidents. They are often not taken up by all the crows. Sometimes you’ll get a general din and other times only some crow whinging.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *