<Last Name> 1

<Student’s Name>

<Instructor’s Name>

<Course Name>

28 January 2025

Animal Communication

Despite the widespread conception that language is uniquely human, almost all

living creatures have some form of a communication system that may be very elaborate at

times. Numerous theories have been proposed on the evolution of language based on

various aspects like vocal learning, phonetics, syntax, cognition, morphology, semantics,

and neurobiological adaptations shared by humans and animals. The question of how

animals communicate and whether they can be taught to use human language has been

the subject of considerable linguistic research. It is no doubt that human communication

and language differ from other animals in many ways. As opposed to humans, animals

lack the ability to produce unique sentences as a form of communication, instead, they

use signal codes. Nonetheless, it has been proven that animals can produce simple

responses to certain situations. The closest relatives to humans, the primates, represent a

true example of how animals can communicate, albeit through highly stereotyped and

limited natural sounds and gestures that they use to convey messages.

Animal communication simply refers to the process of information exchange

between animals such that there is a change of behavior from the receiver. There is

considerable evidence demonstrating that animals at least have some sort of

communication system. Some common examples are birds that sing or make short calls,

cats that meow to be fed, or dogs that bark at strangers or growl when they are about to
 <Last Name> 2

attack. This ability of animals to send and receive signals and messages conforms to

some of the general design features of human language thus, it is correct to argue that

animals can actually communicate.

Linguists have identified several design features that characterize the human

communication system, although no animal communication system has all the features

that humans do. Among the common features of all communication systems are the mode

of communication and semanticity or the pragmatic function (Fishbein et al.). The mode

of communication is simply the way in which a message or information is transmitted. In

this sense, different animal communication systems exhibit varied modes, and they

transmit signals through various media.

For instance, some animals like birds, whales, and frogs produce sound and

communicate using their bodies, while some animals produce sounds that are

indiscernible to humans. Elephants communicate by using low-pitched sounds that can

travel over very long distances. For some animals, the process of communication is by

producing sound using objects – kangaroos and hares thump their hind limbs to send

signals, and some species of beetles bang their head on wood to make sounds. Another

mode of communication is through visual cues, whereby some primates can use facial

expressions to express themselves. At times animals also communicate through touch (for

example, rhinos that nuzzle one another). Other animals like fish communicate by

electrical signals, while others, such as ants, use odor to communicate paths.

The pragmatism and semanticity design feature specify that a communication

system must serve a useful purpose, like the way animals pass signals for survival

reasons, including eating and mating. Apart from the design features shared by all
 <Last Name> 3

communication systems, some animals also exhibit additional features like

interchangeability, cultural transmission, and arbitrariness. Interchangeability is the

ability to send and receive information. Although all animals can send messages, not all

of them can receive them. Cultural transmission, on the other hand, encompasses the idea

that one can learn some aspects of communication by interacting with other users of a

given communication system (Dawson et al. 574-89). Most animal communication

systems do not have a cultural transmission because the signals are genetically coded.

However, research shows that some animals can exhibit regional dialectical variation

like birds.

Such common design features are evidence that animal communication systems

are just as complex as human language. Research into animal communication in the wild

shows that the system is neither quantitatively nor qualitatively comparable to human

communication. The ways that bees, birds, primates, and other animals communicate

with one another are inherently different from the human use of language, which portrays

all the nine design features (Fitch). However, despite the difference, it has been proven

that animals can be taught to use the human language. Several primate and non-primate

studies and experiments have demonstrated that animals can be taught language.

The most common experiments have been done using the great apes or primates

because they are the closest to human beings. Although not all the experiments have been

successful, some of them have shown promising results. The earliest experiments that

attempted to teach chimpanzees how to speak the human language were unsuccessful

primarily because they were naturally dexterous and couldn't produce human sounds.

However, Allen and Beatrice Gardner conducted the first successful project, who decided
 <Last Name> 4

to teach a chimpanzee using the American Sign Language. The chimp named Washoe

learned over two hundred and fifty signs and even taught another adopted chimpanzee

sign language. Washoe also began demonstrating productivity in communication by

inventing novel combinations of words.

The use of signed language and visual signs by the chimpanzees was the first

proof that animals can be taught language even with the vocal limitations. However., the

earlier experiments received heavy criticism because of the underlying methods used,

which is why there have been more recent projects with better results. Savage-Rumbaugh

recently began working with the bonobo species, which is more intelligent as compared

to the chimpanzees. The bonobo has recently begun comprehending spoken English and

can use a keyboard with lexigrams to communicate. The project is the closest a primate

has come to learn human language. A variety of non-primate studies, primarily on

domestic animals, have also shown that they can learn at least some aspects of human

language. Domestic dogs are a good example well known for their language ability in

understanding and responding to short commands.

Animal communication and human language are quite different. Animals can

communicate with one another and their communication systems have design features

like the mode of communication, pragmatism, and semanticity. Despite the differences, it

has been shown through various experiments that animals can be taught some aspects of

the human language.

Works Cited

Dawson, Hope, and Michael Phelan. Language Files: Materials for an Introduction to

Language and Linguistics. , 2016. Print.

Fishbein, Adam R., et al. “What Can Animal Communication Teach Us about Human

Language?” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological

Sciences, vol. 375, no. 1789, 18 Nov. 2019, p. 20190042,

[Link]/31735148/, 10.1098/rstb.2019.0042. Accessed 4 May

2022.
‌Fitch, W. Tecumseh. “Animal Cognition and the Evolution of Human Language: Why

We Cannot Focus Solely on Communication.” Philosophical Transactions of the

Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 375, no. 1789, 18 Nov. 2019, p.

20190046, 10.1098/rstb.2019.0046.