1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Interaction Studies
  4. Volume 24, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 24, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1572-0373
  • E-ISSN: 1572-0381
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Canid and human barks and growls were examined in videotapes of 24 humans () and 24 dogs () playing with familiar and unfamiliar cross-species play partners. Barks and growls were exhibited by 9 humans and 9 dogs. Dogs barked and (less often) growled most frequently when being frustrated by humans and/or engaged in competitive games, and less often when being chased or inviting chase, and being instigated or captured. Dogs never growled when playing with an unfamiliar human, and humans did so rarely when playing with an unfamiliar dog. Humans growled and (less often) barked most frequently when chasing and capturing the dog, less often when engaging in competitive games, being frustrated by the dog, and/or instigating the dog, and rarely when showing or throwing an object. Dog barks were most often requests for the human to make an object available to the dog. Dog growls were often pretend threats when competing for an object or being frustrated by the human’s actions. Human barks and growls were typically pretend threats, and were sometimes used to emphasize simultaneous behaviors. Human barks and growls allow humans to connect with their canid partner.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/is.00020.mit
2024-02-15
2024-12-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/is.00020.mit
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bálint, A., Faragó, T., Dóka, A., Miklósi, A., & Pongrácz, P.
    (2013) ‘Beware, I am big and non-dangerous!’ Playfully growling dogs are perceived larger than their actual size by their canine audience. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 1481, 128–137. 10.1016/j.applanim.2013.07.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2013.07.013 [Google Scholar]
  2. Faragó, T., Andics, A., Devecseri, V., Kis, A., Gácsi, M., & Miklósi, A.
    (2014) Humans rely on the same rules to assess emotional valence and intensity in conspecific and dog vocalizations. Biology Letters, 10(20130926), 1–5. 10.1098/rsbl.2013.0926
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2013.0926 [Google Scholar]
  3. Faragó, T., Pongrácz, P., Miklósi, A., Huber, L., Virányi, Z., & Range, F.
    (2010) Dogs’ expectations about signalers’ body size by virtue of their growls. PLoS One, 5(12), e15175. 10.1371/journal.pone.0015175
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015175 [Google Scholar]
  4. Faragó, T., Pongrácz, P., Range, F., Virányi, Z., & Miklósi, A.
    (2010) ‘The bone is mine’: Affective and referential aspects of dog growls. Animal Behaviour, 791, 917–925. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.01.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  5. Faragó, T., Takács, N., Miklósi, A., & Pongrácz, P.
    (2017) Dog growls express various contextual and affective content for human listeners. Royal Society Open Science, 4(170134), 1–11. 10.1098/rsos.170134
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170134 [Google Scholar]
  6. Faragó, T., Townsend, S. & Range, F.
    (2014) The information content of wolf (and dog) social communication. InG. Witzany (Ed.), Biocommunication in animals (pp.41–62). Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-7414-8_4. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑7414‑8_4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7414-8_4 [Google Scholar]
  7. Feddersen-Petersen, D. U.
    (2000) Vocalization of European wolves (Canis lupus lupus L.) and various dog breeds (Canis lupus f. fam.), Archiv Tierzucht/Archives Animal Breeding, 43(4), 387–398. 10.5194/aab‑43‑387‑2000
     https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-43-387-2000 [Google Scholar]
  8. Fugazza, C., Dror, S., Sommese, A., Temesi, A., & Miklósi, Á.
    (2021) Word learning dogs (Canis familiaris) provide an animal model for studying exceptional performance. Scientific Reports, 11(14070). 10.1038/s41598‑021‑93581‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-93581-2 [Google Scholar]
  9. Gácsi, M., Vas, J., Topál, J., & Miklósi, A.
    (2013) Wolves do not join the dance: Sophisticated aggression control by adjusting to human social signals in dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 145(3–4), 109–122. 10.1016/j.applanim.2013.02.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2013.02.007 [Google Scholar]
  10. Gibson, J. M., Scavelli, S. A., Udell, C. J., & Udell, M. A. R.
    (2014) Domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are sensitive to the “human” qualities of vocal commands. Animal Behavior and Cognition, 1(3), 281–295. 10.12966/abc.08.05.2014
     https://doi.org/10.12966/abc.08.05.2014 [Google Scholar]
  11. Griebel, U., & Oller, D. K.
    (2012) Vocabulary learning in a Yorkshire Terrier: Slow mapping of spoken words. PLoS One7(2), e30182. 10.1371/journal.pone.0030182
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0030182 [Google Scholar]
  12. Győri, B., Gácsi, M., & Miklósi, Á.
    (2010) Friend or foe: Context dependent sensitivity to human behaviour in dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 1281, 69–77. 10.1016/j.applanim.2010.10.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2010.10.005 [Google Scholar]
  13. Hantke, S., Cummins, N., & Schuller, B.
    (2018) What is my dog trying to tell me? The automatic recognition of the context and perceived emotion of dog barks. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing Proceedings (pp.5134–5138). 10.1109/ICASSP.2018.8461757
     https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP.2018.8461757 [Google Scholar]
  14. Harjunpää, K.
    (2022) Repetition and prosodic matching in responding to pets’ vocalizations. Langage et Société, 176(2), 69–102. https://www.cairn.info/revue-langage-et-societe-2022-2-page-69.htm. 10.3917/ls.176.0071
     https://doi.org/10.3917/ls.176.0071 [Google Scholar]
  15. Herron, M. E., Shofer, F. S., & Reisner, I. R.
    (2009) Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 1171, 47–54. 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.12.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.12.011 [Google Scholar]
  16. Heschl, A.
    (2021) A dog with a sense of humor. Academia Letters, Article 2074. 10.20935/AL2074
     https://doi.org/10.20935/AL2074 [Google Scholar]
  17. Horowitz, A., & Hecht, J.
    (2016) Examining dog-human play: The characteristics, affect, and vocalizations of a unique interspecific interaction. Animal Cognition, 19(4), 779–788. 10.1007/s10071‑016‑0976‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-016-0976-3 [Google Scholar]
  18. Huber, A., Barber, A. L. A., Faragó, T., Müller, C. A., & Huber, L.
    (2017) Investigating emotional contagion in dogs (Canis familiaris) to emotional sounds of humans and conspecifics. Animal Cognition, 201, 703–715. 10.1007/s10071‑017‑1092‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-017-1092-8 [Google Scholar]
  19. Jakovcevic, A., Elgier, A., Mustaca, A., & Bentosela, M.
    (2013) Frustration behaviors in domestic dogs. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 161, 19–34. 10.1080/10888705.2013.740974
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2013.740974 [Google Scholar]
  20. Jeannin, S., Gilbert, C., & Leboucher, G.
    (2017) Effect of interaction type on the characteristics of pet-directed speech in female dog owners. Animal Cognition, 201, 499–509. 10.1007/s10071‑017‑1077‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-017-1077-7 [Google Scholar]
  21. Jégh-Czinege, N., Faragó, T., & Pongrácz, P.
    (2020) A bark of its own kind – The acoustics of ‘annoying’ dog barks suggests a specific attention-evoking effect for humans. Bioacoustics, 29(2), 210–225. 10.1080/09524622.2019.1576147
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09524622.2019.1576147 [Google Scholar]
  22. Jerolmack, C.
    (2009) Humans, animals, and play: Theorizing interaction when intersubjectivity is problematic. Sociological Theory, 27(4), 371–389. 10.1111/j.1467‑9558.2009.01353.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2009.01353.x [Google Scholar]
  23. Maros, K., Pongrácz, P., Bárdos, G., Molnár, C., Faragó, T., & Miklósi, A.
    (2008) Dogs can discriminate barks from different situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 114(1–2), 159–167. 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.022
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.022 [Google Scholar]
  24. McConnell, P. B., & Baylis, J. R.
    (1985) Interspecific communication in cooperative herding: Acoustic and visual signals from human shepherds and herding dogs. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 671, 302–328. 10.1111/j.1439‑0310.1985.tb01396.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1985.tb01396.x [Google Scholar]
  25. McPeake, K. J.
    (2020) Characterisation and management of frustration in the dog (Canis familiaris). [Doctoral thesis, University of Lincoln]. https://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/id/eprint/48548/
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Mitchell, R. W.
    (2001) Americans’ talk to dogs during play: Similarities and differences with talk to infants. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 341, 182–210. 10.1207/S15327973RLSI34‑2_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI34-2_2 [Google Scholar]
  27. (Ed.) (2002) Pretending and imagination in animals and children. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511542282
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511542282 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2004) Controlling the dog, pretending to have a conversation, or just being friendly? Influences of sex and familiarity on Americans’ talk to dogs during play. Interaction Studies, 51, 99–129. 10.1075/is.5.1.06mit
     https://doi.org/10.1075/is.5.1.06mit [Google Scholar]
  29. (2015) Creativity in the interaction: The case of dog-human play. InA. B. Kaufman & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Animal creativity and innovation (pp.31–42). Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑800648‑1.00002‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800648-1.00002-4 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2017) A critique and empirical assessment of Alexandra Horowitz and Julie Hecht’s “Examining dog-human play: The characteristics, affect, and vocalizations of a unique interspecific interaction.” Animal Cognition, 201, 554–565. 10.1007/s10071‑017‑1075‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-017-1075-9 [Google Scholar]
  31. (2021) You talkin’ to me? An assessment of commands as play signals during dog-human play. Animal Cognition, 241, 329–339. 10.1007/s10071‑021‑01469‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-021-01469-5 [Google Scholar]
  32. Mitchell, R. W., & Edmonson, E.
    (1999) Functions of repetitive talk to dogs during play. Society and Animals, 71, 55–81. 10.1163/156853099X00167
     https://doi.org/10.1163/156853099X00167 [Google Scholar]
  33. Mitchell, R. W., Reed, E., & Alexander, L.
    (2018) Functions of pointing by humans, and dogs’ responses, during dog-human play between familiar and unfamiliar players. Animal Behavior and Cognition, 5(2), 181–200. 10.26451/abc.05.02.01.2018
     https://doi.org/10.26451/abc.05.02.01.2018 [Google Scholar]
  34. Mitchell, R. W., & Sinkhorn, K.
    (2014) Why do humans laugh during dog-human play interactions?Anthrozoös, 271, 235–250. 10.2752/175303714X13903827487566
     https://doi.org/10.2752/175303714X13903827487566 [Google Scholar]
  35. Mitchell, R. W., & Thompson, N. S.
    (1990) The effects of familiarity on dog-human play. Anthrozoös, 41, 24–43. 10.2752/089279391787057314
     https://doi.org/10.2752/089279391787057314 [Google Scholar]
  36. (1991) Projects, routines, and enticements in dog-human play. InP. P. G. Bateson & P. H. Klopfer (Eds.), Perspectives in ethology (Vol.91, pp.189–216). Plenum Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Molnár, C., Kaplan, F., Roy, P., Pachet, F., Pongrácz, P., Dóka, A., & Miklósi, A.
    (2008) Classification of dog barks: A machine learning approach. Animal Cognition, 11(3), 389–400. 10.1007/s10071‑007‑0129‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-007-0129-9 [Google Scholar]
  38. Molnár, C., Pongrácz, P., Faragó, T., Dóka, A., & Miklósi, A.
    (2009) Dogs discriminate between barks: The effect of context and identity of the caller. Behavioural Processes, 82(2), 198–201. 10.1016/j.beproc.2009.06.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2009.06.011 [Google Scholar]
  39. Molnár, C., Pongrácz, P., & Miklósi, A.
    (2010) Seeing with ears: Sightless humans’ perception of dog bark provides a test for structural rules in vocal communication. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(5), 1004–1013. 10.1080/17470210903168243
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210903168243 [Google Scholar]
  40. Mondémé, C.
    (2018) Comment parle-t-on aux animaux? Formes et effets pragmatiques de l’adresse des animaux de compagnie [How do we talk with animals? Modes and pragmatic effects of communication with pets]. Langage et Société, 163(1), 77–99. English translation: https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_LS_163_0077--how-do-we-talk-to-animals-modes-and.htm
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Paladini, A.
    (2020) Barking and its meaning in inter and intra-specific language. Dog Behavior, 11, 21–30. 10.4454/db.v6i1.106
     https://doi.org/10.4454/db.v6i1.106 [Google Scholar]
  42. Pilley, J. W., & Reid, A. K.
    (2011) Border collie comprehends object-names as verbal referents. Behavioral Processes, 861, 184–195. 10.1016/j.beproc.2010.11.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2010.11.007 [Google Scholar]
  43. Pongrácz, P., Molnár, C., Dóka, A., & Miklósi, A.
    (2006) Do children understand man’s best friend? Classification of dog barks by pre-adolescents and adults. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 1351, 95–102. 10.1016/j.applanim.2011.09.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  44. Pongrácz, P., Molnár, C., & Miklósi, A.
    (2006) Acoustic parameters of dog barks carry emotional information for humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 1001, 228–240. 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.12.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  45. Pongrácz, P., Molnár, C., Miklósi, A., & Csányi, V.
    (2005) Human listeners are able to classify dog (Canis familiaris) barks recorded in different situations. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 1191, 136–144. 10.1037/0735‑7036.119.2.136
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.119.2.136 [Google Scholar]
  46. Pongrácz, P., Szabó, E., Anna, K., András, P., & & Miklósi, A.
    (2014) More than noise? Field investigations of intraspecific acoustic communication in dogs (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 1591, 162–168. 10.1016/j.applanim.2014.08.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2014.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  47. Ramos, D., & Mills, D. S.
    (2019) Limitations in the learning of verbal content by dogs during the training of OBJECT and ACTION commands. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 311, 92–99. 10.1016/j.jveb.2019.03.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2019.03.011 [Google Scholar]
  48. Reed, B. S.
    (2020) Reconceptualizing mirroring: Sound imitation and rapport in naturally occurring interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 1671, 131–151. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.05.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.05.010 [Google Scholar]
  49. Reeve, C., & Jacques, S.
    (2022) Responses to spoken words by domestic dogs: A new instrument for use with dog owners. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105513
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105513 [Google Scholar]
  50. Rooney, N. J., Bradshaw, J. W. S., & Robinson, I. H.
    (2001) Do dogs respond to play signals given by humans?Animal Behaviour, 611, 715–722. 10.1006/anbe.2000.1661
     https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2000.1661 [Google Scholar]
  51. Sanders, C., & Arluke, A.
    (1993) If lions could speak: Investigating the animal-human relationship and the perspectives of nonhuman others. Sociological Quarterly, 34(3), 377–390. 10.1111/j.1533‑8525.1993.tb00117.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1993.tb00117.x [Google Scholar]
  52. Silva, K., Faragó, T., Pongrácz, P., Romeiro, P., Lima, M., & de Sousa, L.
    (2021) Humans’ ability to assess emotion in dog barks only slightly affected by their country of residence: A replication of Pongrácz et al. (2005) in a Portuguese sample. Animal Behavior & Cognition, 8(2), 107–123. 10.26451/abc.08.02.02.2021
     https://doi.org/10.26451/abc.08.02.02.2021 [Google Scholar]
  53. Taylor, A. M., Reby, D., & McComb, K.
    (2009) Context-related variation in the vocal growling behaviour of the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Ethology, 1151, 1–11. 10.1111/j.1439‑0310.2009.01681.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2009.01681.x [Google Scholar]
  54. (2010) Size communication in domestic dog, Canis familiaris, growls. Animal Behaviour, 791, 205–210. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.10.030
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.10.030 [Google Scholar]
  55. Yin, S.
    (2002) A new perspective on barking in dogs (Canis familiaris). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 116(2), 189–193. 10.1037/0735‑7036.116.2.189
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.116.2.189 [Google Scholar]
  56. Yin, S., & McCowan, B.
    (2004) Barking in domestic dogs: Context specificity and individual identification. Animal Behaviour, 681, 343–355. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.07.016
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.07.016 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/is.00020.mit
Loading
Dog talk
Interaction Studies 24, 484 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/is.00020.mit
/content/journals/10.1075/is.00020.mit
/content/journals/10.1075/is.00020.mit
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): dog-human interaction; dog-human play; interspecies communication

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