What do you think?
Rate this book


Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
The last basic requirement for language is known as productivity. A true language allow the expression and comprehension of an infinite number of novel expressions, all of which created on the spot. More clearly, this notion is based on the assumption that language is a creative system of communication, as opposed to a repetitive system that works on the basis of recycling a limited set of sentences or phrases. Some researchers might suggest that this requirement seems to rule out canine language. Unfortunately, interpreted strictly, it would also rule out any simple language that has a small vocabulary and limited grammatical rules which keep the sentences short. A child of two or three years of age, with a vocabulary of only 100 words and a sentence length limited to two words, will have a fixed number of possible sentences and will 'recycle' these sentences as needed to communicated with those around him. Yet we give this child credit for having language, even though it fails the test of productivity.I learned much more than what a flapping tail means in this book, including why and how dogs are different than wolves, some linguistics, including that with apes, the effects on children and their language on having being raised by wolves, and of course some of the human/dog history. A wonderful and delightful read.
My predisposition is to accept doggish as a simple language, using the same rules and criteria that we use to credit young children with language. When testing language development in people, in addition to sounds, psychologist do recognize gestures as language components. Consider one such test, the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory, which has forms for measuring language development for children as young as two years of age. It has entire section on 'Communicative Gestures', which it counts as language. These include pointing to interesting objects or events, waving 'bye-bye' when a person leaves, extending the arms upward to signal a wish to picked up, and even smacking the lips 'yum-yum' gesture to show that something tasted good. Certainly, the communicative gestures of dogs are equal to in complexity to these.
In drawing the similarity between canine communication abilities and infant speech we must not go overboard. There are unavoidable parallels, however. In both and dogs and human infants, receptive vocabulary is larger and more reliable than productive vocabulary. The linguistic items that are understood also more likely to contain information about actions that the speaker would like to perform. We say, 'Give me your hand,' to a child and grant it some linguistic ability when it does so. Obviously, then, the dog's response to 'Give me a paw' also represents equivalent language ability. The emitted language for both young infants and dogs is almost exclusively social in nature, attempting to elicit responses from other individuals. In dogs, the emitted language actually a bit more complex than that of infants, since it emphasizes dominance and status relationships as well as the emotional states and desires of the communicator. Although a two year old may well try to manipulate others with displays such as temper tantrums, human children will not commonly attempt to communicate or express real social dominance until they are a few years older (p. 224-225).