When Animals Speak. Eva Meijer
of non-human mammals who have the most complex forms of vocal communication (Gillam and Fenton 2016). Because most of their vocalizations are beyond the range of the human ear, humans long thought their vocal communication was limited. But new technologies show that their songs are complex both in content—they discuss everything from territory to social status, love, raising children, and other social affairs—and in structure, with fixed elements combined using grammar. They are creative as well; males each develop their own songs to sing to females. Technology helps us perceive and interpret the complexities of the languages of other species. Dolphin researcher Denise Herzing has studied dolphin languages for decades, and uses technologically advanced equipment to translate their language into human language, and vice versa. She first managed to communicate a word in this manner—sargassum, a type of seaweed—in 2013, and emphasizes the importance of studying behavior in parallel with language (Herzing 2016). Elephants use low-pitched sounds to communicate over long distances, and these infrasounds give them a private communication system that plays an important role in their complex social life. Researchers from the Elephant Listening Project use recordings to decipher their languages, and have found that they communicate not only information, but also emotions and intentions. They have different words for categories (such as groups of humans, and bees) and for individuals, in which they also express family relations (Elephant Listening Project 2017).
The use of recordings and technology can help to categorize animal vocalizations and map the structure of their languages, but, as has been explained, to only study structures is not enough if we want to understand what they mean. Lizards have four ways to express themselves: by their posture, the number of legs they have on the ground, nodding their head, and displaying or inflating their chin. This may seem fairly simple, but there are 6,864 possible combinations, of which 172 are frequently used (Slobodchikoff 2012). We can map these movements, but to grasp what they mean we need to study the grammar of the wider context in which they are used, including how these expressions stem from and shape social relations. In linguistics, grammar is usually regarded as the set of rules that governs the composition of words, phrases, and clauses in a natural language. It also refers to the study of these rules. Wittgenstein (1958) reminds us of the relevance of the wider network of rules, linked to social practices, that determines whether or not use of language is meaningful. Meaning does not simply spring from technical instructions for the use of words and sentences; it is always also tied to a given context.
In studying non-human animal language games, we should therefore focus on their structure and on context. In both of these aspects we must also avoid taking human language as the blueprint for what qualifies as proper language, and investigate how non-human animals create meaning.
Meta-Communication: Play and Greeting
Non-human animals use language to express and shape social relations. In a similar way to humans, they can also communicate about communication: they are capable of meta-communication, which plays a major role in developing relations with others. We find meta-communication in different language games—humor between humans is one. In this section I will discuss two non-human animal or interspecies language games in which we find meta-communication, play and greeting, in order to shed further light on the connection between using language and constituting social rules, and to show that non-human animal language games that do not involve human language can still be complex and enable non-human animals to discuss situations that transcend the here and now. These examples shed light on the relations between language and world, which I discuss in more detail in the next chapter.
Play behavior is found in many species, not only in placental mammals, but also in marsupials, birds, reptiles, and fish. Play-like behavior has furthermore been found in different invertebrates, such as crustaceans, cephalopods, and insects, including ants, bees, and cockroaches (Burghardt 2005). In play, non-human animals use behaviors and movements that usually form part of other social situations, such as fights, flights, attacks, and sexual advances. Animals of many species use special play behaviors to indicate that they want to play. Dogs, wolves, and coyotes, for example, use the play bow as an invitation to play; they also use it during play, for example, in order to make amends when something rough or unintended happens. The meaning of the bow might be “I want to play” or “sorry about that, I still want to play.” During play, dogs often change roles; dominant dogs adopt submissive postures and vice versa, and stronger dogs sometimes self-handicap to make play possible. In dog play, however, certain social conventions remain intact (Smuts 2006); for example, dominant dogs will never lick the mouth of a subordinate dog.
Play can be a form of competition and a form of cooperation. Dogs need to play to learn social rules, but it is more than a learning mechanism; dogs are creative in play, they express themselves and enjoy themselves. Furthermore, as we have seen, dogs in play communicate about communication. When the play gets rough and they accidentally hurt one another, they use the play bow and other play behaviors to explain that they mean no harm, that it was just in fun. They also use play gestures when the preferred partner responds in a serious way to acts that were meant as play. Dogs also communicate about the future in play: they negotiate social hierarchies, can work out tensions and conflicts in a safe way, and form friendships (Bekoff 2002; Smuts 2006). This meta-communication enables them to learn about their own strength and the strength of others in the group, allowing the strengthening or clarification of social bonds.
In play, animals of different kinds can use expressions in new and different ways and create new meaning. Massumi (2014) argues that the reflexivity that is needed for this meta-communication to work, or the space between one meaning and another, creates the conditions for the emergence of language, which he sees as the highest or most developed form of animal expression. According to Massumi, many non-human animals use creativity in play, but only humans use language. Both the relation he sees between play and language and his idea of language as human language are problematic. Play can mean many different things for animals of different species, and the relation between play and language is not simply hierarchical. Play and human words can be connected in many ways, depending on the context and the actors involved; play can take place inside human language, as when making a joke, and human words can play a role in interspecies play, as when a dog is asked to fetch a ball. Non-human animal expressions can have a similar relation with play, and, like humans, non-human animals have their own complex forms of creating meaning through play, in which these different expressions, ranging from eye contact to movements, can play a role. As we have seen, equating language with human language is problematic, and it obscures non-human animal agency with regard to using language. Instead of viewing play and language as separate realms, it is better to understand “play” as a set of language games in which different human and non-human expressions play a role. Viewing play as a set of language games that enable human and non-human animals to discuss social issues helps us obtain a better understanding of how other animals shape relations among each other and with humans, and it also helps us to see how they shape their own futures.
Another example of a set of language games that involves meta-communication, and which can involve human, non-human, or interspecies interactions, is greeting. Certain non-human animals use meta-communication in greeting rituals to discuss the future. The greeting rituals of male baboons illustrate how this works. These rituals serve as a means to establish and learn about social hierarchy (Smuts 2002). Male baboons often fight, and because their teeth are sharp they get hurt easily. They do not have many friendly encounters such as playing or grooming; their only friendly approach to each other is in greeting, and they often greet each other. When a male approaches another male, the other will usually either avoid or threaten him. When the approach is accompanied by lip-smacking, the “come hither” face, and an exaggerated gait, it is understood as an invitation to greet and answered by the making of eye contact (which is threatening under other circumstances), lip-smacking, and making the come hither face in return. This is then followed by a series of gestures that usually involve one male presenting his hindquarters and allowing the other to mount him, grasp his hips, and/or touch or mouth his genitals—an act of trust, considering their sharp teeth. The pair sometimes nuzzle or embrace, and in rare circumstances may play briefly. Their roles are mostly asymmetrical, and the greeting ritual only lasts for a few seconds.
Ethologist Barbara Smuts (2002) argues that patterns of greeting