1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Linguistics in the Netherlands
  4. Volume 40, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 40, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-7332
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9919
PDF
EPUB

Abstract

Abstract

What is language and who or what can be said to have it? In this essay we consider this question in the context of interactions with non-humans, specifically: animals and computers. While perhaps an odd pairing at first glance, here we argue that these domains can offer contrasting perspectives through which we can explore and reimagine language. The interactions between humans and animals, as well as between humans and computers, reveal both the essence and the boundaries of language: from examining the role of sequence and contingency in human-animal interaction, to unravelling the challenges of natural interactions with “smart” speakers and language models. By bringing together disparate fields around foundational questions, we push the boundaries of linguistic inquiry and uncover new insights into what language is and how it functions in diverse non-human-exclusive contexts.

© 2023 Algemene Vereniging voor Taalwetenschap
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/avt.00095.ras
2023-11-03
2025-04-27

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/avt.00095.ras
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/avt.00095.ras.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/avt.00095.ras&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Alač, M., Y. Gluzman, T. Aflatoun, A. Bari, B. Jing & G. Mozqueda
    2020 “Talking to a Toaster: How Everyday Interactions with Digital Voice Assistants Resist a Return to the Individual”. Evental Aesthetics91: 3–53.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Ameka, F. K.
    1992 “Interjections: The Universal Yet Neglected Part of Speech”. Journal of Pragmatics181: 101–18. 10.1016/0378‑2166(92)90048‑G
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90048-G [Google Scholar]
  3. Amha, Azeb
    2013 “Directives to humans and to domestic animals: The imperative and some interjections in Zargulla”. InProceedings of the 5th International Conference on Cushitic and Omotic languages, ed. byM.C. Simeone-Senelle and M. Vanhove, 211–229. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Ashktorab, Z., M. Jain, Q. V. Liao & J. D. Weisz
    2019 “Resilient Chatbots: Repair Strategy Preferences for Conversational Breakdowns”. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–12. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. 10.1145/3290605.3300484
     https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300484 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bangerter, A., E. Genty, R. Heesen, F. Rossano & K. Zuberbühler
    2022 “Every Product Needs a Process: Unpacking Joint Commitment as a Process across Species”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences3771: 20210095. 10.1098/rstb.2021.0095
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0095 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bateson, G.
    1972 Steps to an Ecology of Mind; Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bender, E. M. & A. Koller
    2020 “Climbing towards NLU: On Meaning, Form, and Understanding in the Age of Data”. InProceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 5185–5198. Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/2020.acl‑main.463
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.463 [Google Scholar]
  8. Birhane, A. & J. van Dijk
    2020 “Robot rights? Let’s talk about human welfare instead”. InAIES’20: Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 207–213. Association for Computing Machinery. 10.1145/3375627.3375855
     https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627.3375855 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brandt, K.
    2004 “A language of their own: An interactionist approach to human-horse communication”. Society & Animals121: 299–316. 10.1163/1568530043068010
     https://doi.org/10.1163/1568530043068010 [Google Scholar]
  10. Burkart, J. M., J. E. C. Adriaense, R. K. Brügger, F. M. Miss, K. Wierucka & C. P. van Schaik
    2022 “A convergent interaction engine: Vocal communication among marmoset monkeys”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences3771: 20210098. 10.1098/rstb.2021.0098
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0098 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bynon, J.
    1976 “Domestic animal calling in a Berber tribe”. InLanguage and Man: Anthropological Issues, ed. byW. McCormack and S. A. Wurm, 39–65. The Hague: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Cohen, A. A.
    2016 “From mute objects to militant subjects: The politics of rebellious animals”. InSubjectivation in Political Theory and Contemporary Practices, ed. byA. Oberprantacher and A. Siclodi, 237–63. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑51659‑6_13
     https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51659-6_13 [Google Scholar]
  13. Contreras Kallens, P., R. D. Kristensen-McLachlan & M. H. Christiansen
    2023 “Large language models demonstrate the potential of statistical learning in language”. Cognitive Science471: e13256. 10.1111/cogs.13256
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13256 [Google Scholar]
  14. Cornips, Leonie
    2019 “The final frontier: Non-human animals on the linguistic research agenda”. Linguistics in the Netherlands361: 13–19. 10.1075/avt.00015.cor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00015.cor [Google Scholar]
  15. 2022 “The animal turn in postcolonial (socio)linguistics: The interspecies greeting of the dairy cow”. Journal of Postcolonial Linguistics61: 210–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Fröhlich, M., P. Kuchenbuch, G. Müller, B. Fruth, T. Furuichi, R. M. Wittig & S. Pika
    2016 “Unpeeling the layers of language: Bonobos and chimpanzees engage in cooperative turn-taking sequences”. Scientific Reports61: 25887. 10.1038/srep25887
     https://doi.org/10.1038/srep25887 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fröhlich, M. & C. P. van Schaik
    2022 “Social tolerance and interactional opportunities as drivers of gestural redoings in orang-utans”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences3771: 20210106. 10.1098/rstb.2021.0106
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0106 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gibson, J. J.
    1977 “The Theory of Affordances”. InPerceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology, ed. byR. Shaw and J. Bransford, 67–82. Hilldale, USA: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Ginzburg, J.
    2012 The Interactive Stance: Meaning for Conversation. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697922.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697922.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ginzburg, J. & M. Poesio
    2016 “Grammar is a system that characterizes talk in interaction”. Frontiers in Psychology71: 1938. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01938
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01938 [Google Scholar]
  21. Goode, D.
    2007 Playing with My Dog Katie: An Ethnomethodological Study of Dog-Human Interaction. West Lafayette, Purdue University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Goodwin, C.
    1981 Conversational Organization. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 2000 “Action and embodiment within situated human interaction”. Journal of Pragmatics321: 1489–1522. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00096‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X [Google Scholar]
  24. Harjunpää, K.
    2022 “Repetition and prosodic matching in responding to pets’ vocalizations”. Langage et société1761: 69–102. 10.3917/ls.176.0071
     https://doi.org/10.3917/ls.176.0071 [Google Scholar]
  25. Heesen, R., M. Fröhlich, C. Sievers, M. Woensdregt & M. Dingemanse
    2022 “Coordinating social action: A primer for the cross-species investigation of communicative repair”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences3771: 20210110. 10.1098/rstb.2021.0110
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0110 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hockett, C. F.
    1987 Refurbishing our foundations: Elementary linguistics from an advanced point of view. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/cilt.56
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.56 [Google Scholar]
  27. Keevallik, L.
    2018 “What does embodied interaction tell us about grammar?” Research on Language and Social Interaction511: 1–21. 10.1080/08351813.2018.1413887
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413887 [Google Scholar]
  28. Krebs, John R. & R. Dawkins
    1984 “Animal signals: Mind-reading and manipulation”. InBehavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, ed. byJ. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies, 380–402. Blackwell Scientific.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Laurier, E., R. Maze & J. Lundin
    2006 “Putting the dog back in the park: Animal and human mind-in-action”. Mind, Culture, and Activity131: 2–24. 10.1207/s15327884mca1301_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca1301_2 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lipp, B.
    2022 “Caring for robots: How care comes to matter in human-machine interfacing”. Social Studies of Science, Advance online publication. 10.1177/03063127221081446
     https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127221081446 [Google Scholar]
  31. Litman, D., J. Hirschberg & M. Swerts
    2006 “Characterizing and predicting corrections in spoken dialogue systems”. Computational Linguistics321: 417–38. 10.1162/coli.2006.32.3.417
     https://doi.org/10.1162/coli.2006.32.3.417 [Google Scholar]
  32. MacMartin, C., J. B. Coe & C. L. Adams
    2014 “Treating distressed animals as participants: I know responses in veterinarians’ pet-directed talk”. Research on Language and Social Interaction471: 151–74. 10.1080/08351813.2014.900219
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2014.900219 [Google Scholar]
  33. Malinowski, B.
    1922 Argonauts Of The Western Pacific. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Massey, G. J. & D. A. Boyle
    1999 “Descartes’s tests for (animal) mind”. Philosophical Topics271: 87–146. 10.5840/philtopics199927119
     https://doi.org/10.5840/philtopics199927119 [Google Scholar]
  35. Mavrina, L., J. Szczuka, C. Strathmann, L. M. Bohnenkamp, N. Krämer & S. Kopp
    2022 “‘Alexa, you’re really stupid’: A longitudinal field study on communication breakdowns between family members and a voice assistant”. Frontiers in Computer Science41: 791704. 10.3389/fcomp.2022.791704
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2022.791704 [Google Scholar]
  36. McIlvenny, P. B.
    1993 “Constructing societies and social machines: Stepping out of the turing test discourse”. Journal of Intelligent Systems31: 119–156. 10.1515/JISYS.1993.3.2‑4.119
     https://doi.org/10.1515/JISYS.1993.3.2-4.119 [Google Scholar]
  37. Meijer, E.
    2019 When Animals Speak: Toward an Interspecies Democracy. New York: New York University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Miltenburg, E. van, M. Clinciu, O. Dušek, D. Gkatzia, S. Inglis, L. Leppänen, S. Mahamood, S. Schoch, C. Thomson & L. Wen
    2023 “Barriers and enabling factors for error analysis in NLG Research”. Northern European Journal of Language Technology91. 10.3384/nejlt.2000‑1533.2023.4529
     https://doi.org/10.3384/nejlt.2000-1533.2023.4529 [Google Scholar]
  39. Mondada, L.
    2011 “Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction”. Journal of Pragmatics431: 542–52. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019 [Google Scholar]
  40. Mondada, L. & A. Meguerditchian
    2022 “Sequence organization and embodied mutual orientations: Openings of social interactions between baboons”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences3771: 20210101. 10.1098/rstb.2021.0101
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0101 [Google Scholar]
  41. Mondémé, C.
    2020 “Touching and petting: Exploring ‘Haptic Sociality’ in interspecies interaction”. InTouch in Social Interaction, ed. byA. Cekaite and L. Mondada, 171–96. Berlin: Routledge. 10.4324/9781003026631‑8
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003026631-8 [Google Scholar]
  42. 2022 “Why study turn-taking sequences in interspecies interactions?” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour521: 67–85. 10.1111/jtsb.12295
     https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12295 [Google Scholar]
  43. Moore, R. K., Marxer, R. & S. Thill
    2016 “Vocal Interactivity in-and-between Humans, Animals, and Robots”. Frontiers in Robotics and AI3: 61. 10.3389/frobt.2016.00061
     https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2016.00061 [Google Scholar]
  44. Nicastro, N.
    2004 “Perceptual and acoustic evidence for species-level differences in meow vocalizations by domestic cats (Felis Catus) and African wild cats (Felis Silvestris Lybica)”. Journal of Comparative Psychology1181: 287–96. 10.1037/0735‑7036.118.3.287
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.118.3.287 [Google Scholar]
  45. Pika, S., R. Wilkinson, K. H. Kendrick & S. C. Vernes
    2018 “Taking turns: Bridging the gap between human and animal Communication”. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences2851: 20180598. 10.1098/rspb.2018.0598
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.0598 [Google Scholar]
  46. Porcheron, M., J. E. Fischer, S. Reeves & S. Sharples
    2018 “Voice interfaces in everyday life”. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–12. Montreal QC Canada: ACM. 10.1145/3173574.3174214
     https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174214 [Google Scholar]
  47. Rasenberg, M., A. Özyürek & M. Dingemanse
    2020 “Alignment in multimodal interaction: An integrative framework”. Cognitive Science441: e12911. 10.1111/cogs.12911
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12911 [Google Scholar]
  48. Rossano, F.
    2013 “Sequence organization and timing of bonobo mother-infant interactions”. Interaction Studies141: 160–89. 10.1075/is.14.2.02ros
     https://doi.org/10.1075/is.14.2.02ros [Google Scholar]
  49. Schlenker, P., C. Coye, S. Steinert-Threlkeld, N. Klinedinst & E. Chemla
    2022 “Beyond anthropocentrism in comparative cognition: Recentering animal linguistics”. Cognitive Science461: e13220. 10.1111/cogs.13220
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13220 [Google Scholar]
  50. Sejnowski, T. J.
    2023 “Large Language Models and the reverse Turing Test”. Neural Computation351: 309–42. 10.1162/neco_a_01563
     https://doi.org/10.1162/neco_a_01563 [Google Scholar]
  51. Sidnell, J. & N. J. Enfield
    2012 “Language diversity and social action”. Current Anthropology531: 302–333. 10.1086/665697
     https://doi.org/10.1086/665697 [Google Scholar]
  52. Smith, B.
    2012 “Language and the Ffontiers of the human: Aymara animal-oriented interjections and the mediation of mind”. American Ethnologist391: 313–324. 10.1111/j.1548‑1425.2012.01366.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1425.2012.01366.x [Google Scholar]
  53. Stivers, T. & J. Sidnell
    2005 “Introduction: Multimodal Interaction”. Semiotica156: 1–20. 10.1515/semi.2005.2005.156.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2005.2005.156.1 [Google Scholar]
  54. Suchman, L. A.
    2007 Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. 2nd ed.Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. 2019 “Demystifying the intelligent machine”. InCyborg Futures: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, ed. byT. Heffernan, 35–61. Cham: Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑21836‑2_3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21836-2_3 [Google Scholar]
  56. Swerts, M. & M. Ostendorf
    1997 “Prosodic and lexical indications of discourse structure in human-machine interactions”. Speech Communication221: 25–41. 10.1016/S0167‑6393(97)00011‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6393(97)00011-3 [Google Scholar]
  57. Tuncer, S., C. Licoppe, P. Luff & C. Heath
    2023 “Recipient design in human–robot interaction: The emergent assessment of a robot’s competence”. AI & SOCIETY. 10.1007/s00146‑022‑01608‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01608-7 [Google Scholar]
  58. Turing, A. M.
    1950 “Computing machinery and intelligence”. InParsing the Turing Test, ed. byR. Epstein, G. Roberts and G. Beber, 23–65. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433
     https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433 [Google Scholar]
  59. Voinea, C.
    2018 “Designing for conviviality”. Technology in Society, 521: 70–78. 10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.07.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.07.002 [Google Scholar]
  60. Von Uexküll, J.
    1921 Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑662‑24819‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-24819-5 [Google Scholar]
  61. 1992 “A stroll through the worlds of animals and men: A picture book of invisible worlds”. Semiotica891: 319–391. 10.1515/semi.1992.89.4.319
     https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1992.89.4.319 [Google Scholar]
  62. Weizenbaum, J.
    1976 Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Yeon, S. C., Y. K. Kim, S. J. Park, S. S. Lee, S. Y. Lee, E. H. Suh, K. A. Houpt, H. H. Chang, H. C. Lee, B. G. Yang & H. J. Lee
    2011 “Differences between vocalization evoked by social stimuli in feral cats and house cats”. Behavioural Processes871: 183–89. 10.1016/j.beproc.2011.03.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2011.03.003 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/avt.00095.ras
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): human-animal interaction; human-computer interaction; language; large language models; meaning-making

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error