English (pdf)
Article in xml format
Article references
Automatic translation
Send this article by e-mail
Cited by SciELO 
Cited by Google 
Similars in
SciELO 
Similars in Google 
Permalink
INTRODUCTION
All speech modes, be they aimed at humans or animal, express proximity and how the speaker perceives the relationship between the speaker and the spoken-to. Sociolinguistic proximity can be broadly understood as how proximate (i.e. close) a certain relationship is in terms of intimacy (be it physical or emotional) where different intimacy options are available in speech. Different relationships express different degrees and varieties of intimacy and, as such, proximity may vary according to the interaction being examined e.g. a friendship may be more linguistically proximate than a relationship between lovers, whereas the latter relationship would be more sexually and, possibly, physically proximate. Every utterance in language encodes not only the direct semantic level of information but layers of identity forming and relationship expressing information as well. Thus, verbal interactions allow sociolinguistic proximity to be understood through the analysis of the discourse of the interactants. However, this leads to the question of how to gauge the sociolinguistic proximity if the interlocutor1 is not a human but an animal?
The relationship between humans and domestic animals has been one of the most influential in the development of human society and the world as we know it - the progress of humanity has depended on animals and their domestication. For many, pets represent the most meaningful relationship in their lives, and, as such, investigating our relationship with animals presents an opportunity to examine an often-overlooked aspect of sociolinguistic interaction - how sociolinguistic proximity with animals is conceived and enacted. This article seeks to explore some new areas in the field of human-animal verbal interaction and examines how sociolinguistic proximity is created and perceived in a quantitative study of 500 regional Colombians in relation to their interactions with pets and non-pet domestic animals, and thus provide an examination of the different varieties of relationship created through speech with animals.
Literature
While it is evident that animals cannot use human language, it is important to note that this does not mean that they cannot understand it given that several recent studies indicate that pets can indeed understand at some a variety of human words (Andics, Gábor, Gácsi, Faragó, Szabó & Miklósi, 2016). Yet, given the apparently one-side linguistic relationship between humans and animals, why do humans talk to them? Generally, humans talk to domesticated animals, both pets and non-pets. Pets can be defined as animals that are allowed inside the house, to whom a name is given, and which are not eaten (Eddy, 2003). Whereas pets are used for companionship, non-pets are used in other ways: instrumentally, for their body parts (e.g. wool/leather), and/or as food. Sociologists and social psychologists propose that the human-pet relationship is a social construction that reflects current prevailing attitudes (Arluke, 2010; Herzog, 2010). Blouin (2012) asserts that there are differences between social classes and ethnicities (even within the same society) in terms of the treatment of pets and argues that the lower classes of society tend to use pets in more instrumentally (e.g. dogs for safety) while upper classes usually keep animals for their beauty. Gender also influences our interactions with pets with some men and women interpreting their dogs’ behaviour from a masculine or feminine perspective (Prato-Previde, Fallani & Valsecchi, 2006; Ramirez, 2006).
There are a variety of studies that show that where pets are actively spoken to, pet owners often talk to their pets as friends or with baby-talk. In terms of friend-talk, several studies show that some people (particularly men) use vocabulary that is indicative of relating to friends when interacting with pets, particularly during play (Mitchell, 2004). Baby-talk with pets is more common in women than in men (Mitchell, 2001, 2004; Prato-Previde et al., 2006). It has also been observed that the use of baby-talk with pets varies in some ways from that which is used with human babies (Burnham, Kitamura, & Vollmer-Conna, 2002; Mitchell, 2001; Ringrose, 2015). Specifically, for pets there is a lack of tutoring (e.g. the absence of deictics, and the naming of new items) which provides active linguistic stimulation and training for the child. Additionally, Burnham et al. (2002) note that there is less phonetic articulation and that this is not surprising given that the pet will not learn to speak human language.
While these two registers are relatively common, they are not the only registers available for animal-directed speech as a variety of relationships, different in terms of proximity, are expressed. In order to expand upon the current literature, we asked people in Ibagué, Colombia to answer a questionnaire about their speech to domesticated animals, both pets and non-pets. Whereas earlier studies on what people say to animals provide a wealth of detail about exactly what people say to pets in particular human social interaction (e.g. during play - Mitchell, 2001 - or problem solving - Ringrose, 2015), the current study uses retrospective accounts of speech to animals to broaden the inquiry to include pet and non-pet domesticated animals in diverse circumstances. It seeks to discover whether other registers, gauged through sociolinguistic proximity, are used with pets, and how prevalent they may or may not be. Additionally, it also poses the same question to non-pet domesticated animals: a field that has yet to be explored.
METHODOLOGY
Sample, participants and survey delivery
The sample size for the survey was decided to be 500 - producing a statistical margin of error of 4.4% at 95% reliability given Ibagué’s population of 541 101. In order to participate, the participant had to be of legal age (18+), of Colombian nationality and an Ibagué resident. The surveys were distributed by the two researchers within Ibagué over the course of a week (June 12-19, 2017). The participants were approached on the street (in the university district) by the researchers (in university uniform with university identification) and were asked if they would like to participate. Participants were given an explanation form that explained the purpose of the study and the possible implications of their participation. Any questions or doubts that the participants had were answered immediately by the researchers, and consenting participants were then given the survey to complete.
Instrument design
The survey had 28 questions asking about attitudes regarding human-animal verbal interaction and how participants speak to animals. The first six questions were demographic, asking for age, gender, whether they worked with animals2, whether they had pets, and, if so, an open question asking them to write the pet species and number. These questions were followed by 15 questions with a visual analogue scale with a range of 1-7. The analogue scale questions asked for attitudes relating to human-animal speech and relationships. Finally, there were 7 questions asking the participant to describe if and how they speak with their pets, why they do so and additionally a set of questions about pronoun use which can effectively gauge sociolinguistic proximity in Spanish. After being designed, the survey was tested twice with different groups to ensure data reliability before launching the final survey. This article deals only with the questions that were related to sociolinguistic proximity and speech (not all of the questions from the survey).
Creating the sociolinguistic proximity in language scale
Sociolinguistic proximity is not something that can be easily measured from a superficial perusing of responses. In order to perform analysis of sociolinguistic proximity, it was necessary to create a scale that could stratify levels degrees of intimacy between humans and animals in terms of language use. A scale of 10 degrees of inter-speaker linguistic relationship was created using a set of numerical values with a range from onomatopoeia (given the numerical value of 13) to a level of relationship where the speaker had such a level of esteem for the animal where the speaker spoke to the animal as if the animal were the human’s social superior (with a numerical value of 10). It is important to keep in mind that the scale does not encode ‘better’ or ‘worse’ relationships, it only seeks to gauge the perceived intimacy/proximity in the relationship acted out by the human through human speech. Table 1 below shows the sociolinguistic proximity scale.
Table 1 Category and criteria for the classification of open answers
| Category | Criteria | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Onomatopoeia | Participant only uses onomatopoeia with animals i.e. mimics the animal’s sounds. Human language is not used. Onomatopoeic communication shows a willingness by the human to interact with the animal, though a lack of human language indicates that no relationship is formed. | 1 |
| Imperatives only. | Communication is limited to imperatives. Human does not expect the animal to respond apart from executing the order given. Human does not greet the animal and uses human language to facilitate instrumental use of the animal. | 2 |
| Recognized Non-Person Interlocutor | Human-animal linguistic interaction is limited to the human using human language to greet the animal and give imperatives. No further interaction is recorded. Animal is not expected to understand. Human states that animal is spoken to but specifies that they do not expect the animal to understand and that the animal is not treated linguistically as a person. | 3 |
| Treated as a person: Indifferent | Answer indicates that the animal receives the same linguistic treatment as a person i.e. they human speaks with the animal as they would with another human, although not a human with whom they are acquainted. Linguistic interaction may be restricted to reflexive comments, imperatives, greetings and basic conversation. | 4 |
| Treated as a person: Polite | Linguistic treatment is courteous and considerate of the animal. Animal is greeted and asked how it is. Consideration is given to the animal in that permission is asked etc. when imperatives are given. | 5 |
| Treated as a person: Friend | Participant specifies that they speak with the animal or treat it as they would with a friend or gives lexical indicators of friendship (e.g. uses the word amigo (friend) in conversation). | 6 |
| Treated as a person: Family member | Participant specifies that they speak with the animal or treat it as they would with a family member without specifying that the linguistic content is necessarily aimed at children. This level on intimacy implies a level of intimacy above classification 6 and may confide in the animal not seen in prior classifications. | 7 |
| Treated as a person: Child | Participant speaks with the animal or treats it as they would with a child with whom they are family above language acquisition age. Language may be simple, and intonation is indicative of child directed speech yet there is the implication that the animal understands. | 8 |
| Treated as a person: Baby | Participant speaks with the animal as they would with an infant in the language acquisition phase. This is the classification for ‘baby-talk’ i.e. infant directed speech. | 9 |
| Better than a person | Answer indicates that the animal is linguistically placed in a social position superior to humans. This relationship is marked by treated where the animal is given a superior social position to the human. This classification requires the participant to mark it as such. | 10 |
Data coding and entry
All data were entered into the programme SPSS 23 for analysis; however data entry was broken into two phases: quantitative data entry, and qualitative data coding and entry. First, all data from quantitative questions were entered into the programme. Questions 24-25, which were open-response, were classified using the scale described in the previous section. Answers were analysed using linguistic content analysis in order to determine the type of relationship being enacted through language where it was not specified by the participant. In the case where different classifications were applicable to the response, it was given the lowest rating as we decided it would be better to lower the degree of intimacy instead of inflating it. To calculate the sociolinguistic proximity score for any given group, the average of the scores was taken.
Table 1. Category and criteria for the classification of open answers. Lower scores indicate decreased sociolinguistic proximity while higher scores indicate increased sociolinguistic proximity in the perceived human-animal discursive relationship.
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Demographics
Of the 500 people surveyed, 306 were women and 194 men, with 83.2% of the population surveyed belonging to the 18-29 age group. Six percent of the sample stated that they work with animals either with pets or non-pet domestic animals. The education ranges of the participants can be found below in Figure 1 4.
As for pet ownership, 82.2%5 of the sample surveyed have at least one pet (average number = 1.8), with dogs being the most common pet, followed by cats. Table 2 below shows levels of pet ownership in Ibagué6.
Table 2. Pet ownership. Figure shows self-reported rates of pet ownership. The categories for turtle, fish and rabbit never coincided with other pet species.
Sociolinguistic proximity in linguistic interaction with animals
Reporting on speaking to animals
In Ibagué, there is a strong tendency towards talking to animals; most (98.4%) participants reported talking to pets (be it their own or others’ pets), and most (74.2%) reported talking to non-pet animals. This indicates that animal direct speech is considered a normal verbal interaction in Ibagué society. In terms of individual variables that influence speaking to animals, three variables influenced self-reported speech with animals; these being gender, pet ownership and the animal owned by the pet-owner. Interestingly neither age nor level of education produced differences in reporting animal-directed speech. There was a statistically significant gender difference in reporting speaking to animals. For pets, the percentage of women who reported talking to them was 100% compared to 95.9% for men (significant at p 0.01). For non-pet animals, these percentages were 75.5% for women and 72.6% for men (insignificant at p 0.01). Pet ownership itself was also a factor in the likelihood of talking to animals with pet owners being 4% more likely to report talking to animals (99.2% vs. 95.2%) (significant at, p 0.01). While the inverse appears to occur in terms of speaking with non-pet animals with 79.8% of non-pet owners speaking to non-pet domesticated animals and 72.99% of pet owners peaking to non-pet domesticated animals it is insignificant at P 0.01. The pet that one owned produced slight, yet statistically significant, differences in terms of animal directed speech. Among the two most-owned pets in Ibagué (cats and dogs), 98.65% of cat owners reported talking to animals compared to 99.13% of dog owners and 100% of participants with both cats and dogs reported speaking to animals (significant at p 0.01). As for speaking with non-pet domesticated animals, these percentages are 66.21% for cat owners, 74.56% for dog owners and 74.4% for owners of both cats and dogs which are insignificant at p 0.01.
Sociolinguistic proximity with pets
As stated in section 3, the questions relating to which animals are spoken to were open questions and the answers to these questions were categorized into one of eleven categories and given a sociolinguistic proximity value. Question 24 asked the participant to describe how they talk to pets, being: ‘Describe how you speak to pets’7. There is a strong tendency to perform close linguistic relationships with pets. Most (70.5%) of the communication can be classified as showing greater sociolinguistic proximity than would be used with a common person and, of the different proximity classifications, the most common was that of baby-talk (value 9) with 45.1% of participants responding that they treat pets verbally as they would a human baby. The average sociolinguistic proximity value that was produced by the total of the people was 6.84 (SD = 2.23), indicating that people from Ibagué talk to pets with a level of closeness somewhere between friends and family.
There are a variety of variables that effect discursive sociolinguistic proximity with pets. Having or not having a pet has only a minimal effect on the average sociolinguistic proximity score with pet owners producing an average score of 6.98 (SD = 2.17) and non-pet owners 6.71 (SD = 2.48) which is insignificant at p 0.01. Gender affects the overall sociolinguistic proximity enacted with pets through language producing marked differences in how men and women report talking to pets. Men are usually more socially distant when talking to a pet, which is represented in the average value of 6.03 (SD = 2.24) (‘Treated as friends’), which is significantly below the average value of women of 7.366 (SD = 2.11) (‘Treated as family’) (significant at p 0.01). There are two classifications that draw attention: ‘Treated as friends’ and ‘Treated as a baby’. Men report higher frequencies of ‘Treated as friends’ than women do (18.3% vs 4.6%) whereas women present much higher incidences of ‘Treated as a baby’ (57.2% vs 24.7%). Level of education is also a factor in how people report talking to pets. It is important to clarify that the variables apart from high school, technical education and professional did not reach reasonable numbers to produce significant statistics. However, among the three main variables (high school, technical education and professional) there is a clear and interesting pattern as to the average value of this question. The values for high school, technical and professional are 7.29 (SD = 2.02), 7.06 (SD = 2.25), and 6.71 (SD = 2.27) respectively (significant at p 0.01). This indicates that the more advanced the participant's studies, they report less sociolinguistic proximity when they talk to pets.
Sociolinguistic proximity with non-pet domesticated animals
Speech directed at non-pet domesticated animal was the subject of the twenty-fifth question (‘Describe how you speak with domestic animals that aren’t pets’8) and shows very different trends in how participants talk to non-pet domestic animals. Figure 2 below shows the differences between classifications of sociolinguistic proximity in speech directed towards pets and non-pet domesticated animals.
The trends in this figure show a statistically significant change when comparing the classification of reported communication with pets (M = 6.81, SD = 2.376), t (499) = 64,116, p = 0 and non-pet domesticated animals (M = 3.56, SD = 2.756), t (499) = 28,954, p = 0. There are significant differences across all classifications, but interesting differences are found between the sociolinguistic proximity classifications of polite, baby and distant. As expected, the 'baby' rating fell dramatically with a 33.7% drop between pets and non-pet animals. The average sociolinguistic proximity value also shows a difference in the same vein: 4.81 (SD = 2.04) compared to the 6.84 produced with pet directed speech, thus indicting a significant difference in how people talk to non-pet animals when compared to pets. Despite the differences in these classifications we can infer that although the treatment with non-domestic animals is more distant than that with pets, it is marked for being kind and representative of a relationship of respect.
Owning a pet or not did change the overall classification of proximity. Owning a pet produced an average proximity of 4.57 (SD = 2.02) while not owning a pet produced a social closeness of 4.91 (SD = 2.13) - both inside the classification of ‘Like a person’ which is insignificant at p 0.01. The type of pet produces an effect on the proximity of the linguistic relationship. While the average scores for sociolinguistic proximity fall within the same category (4 - Distant: Person Interlocutor), there is a slight trend for dog owners to enact more proximate relationships with an average of 4.6 compare to the average of 4.97 produced by both cat owners and owners of both animals (significant at p 0.01). Gender also produces a significant difference in terms of how non-pet domesticated animals are spoken to. Women produce greater proximity than men do, with a score of 5.1 (´Polite’) (SD = 1.94) where men produce a score of 4.4 (SD = 2.12) (‘Like a person’) (significant at p 0.01). This indicates the whereas men treat non-pet domesticated animals as people when speaking to them, women are more polite and enact closer linguistic relationships with them.
Level of education also influences the proximity enacted with non-pet domesticated animals with a statistically significant trend (at p 0.01). However, it is the opposite trend to that seen in pet-directed speech as Figure 3 below illustrates. As can be seen, the more educated the person, the more closely they speak with non-pet domesticated animals and the more distance they produce with pets.
DISCUSSION
This investigation provides a complex image about how people from Ibagué report sociolinguistic proximity with animals in speech. In general, there is a strong tendency towards talking to animals, which indicates that, although animals cannot speak (at least with humans), the overwhelming majority of people from Ibagué report treating them as interlocutors of some kind. As for the animal with whom the person speaks, there is a difference between pets and non-pet animals suggesting that humans build more proximate linguistic relationships with companion animals, treating them as either equals or childlike interlocutors. Although it is obvious that the participants do not expect the animals to respond, they report treating the pets as if they understood or as if they were children during language acquisition. In contrast, the results suggest that people from Ibagué talk to non-pet animals out of respect for the animal. This in itself is interesting since it indicates that humans realize linguistic activity to show a social quality (respect) towards the animals even though they know that it will not result in linguistic or behavioural reciprocation.
There are a variety of different sociolinguistically proximate relationships/registers enacted out through with animals - both pets and non-pet domesticated animals. All proximities with the exception of value 2 (Imperatives), received scores for both classifications of animals. This indicates that baby-talk and friend-talk are only two of a wide array of proximity registers available and enacted with animals. Animal-directed speech may be baby-talk or friend talk, but it may also be onomatopoeic, impersonal or polite. The statistical spread of the different proximal registers indicates that humans, at least in Ibagué Colombia, are not limited to baby-talk or friend-talk and engage in a variety of different linguistically constructed relationships but, generally, speak to them in way that is at least equal to how they would treat another human.
However, this array of proximity registers is affected by several demographic variables. Level of education, gender, and even owning a pet all affect the general register used towards animals. Pet-owning as a general demographic provides insignificant effects on the proximity reported. Pet-owners and non-pet-owners report the same general levels of proximity with pets and non-pet domesticated animals. The type of pet one has does though affect that relationship but only in terms of non-pet domesticated animals. Owners of dogs only (not people who have both cats and dogs) report forming slightly more proximate with non-pet animals. The level of education possessed results in two opposing effects. The more educated a person is, the less proximate their register with pets but the more proximate their register with non-pet domesticated animals. University educated individuals produce more proximate communicate with non-pet domesticated animals than their high-school educated counterparts, but the opposite occurs when it comes to pets high school educated individuals report more proximate relationships. This seems to indicate that with education, the human interlocutor forms more distant relationships with their pet companion animals but develop greater interaction with animals that are not companions. Why this happens exactly is a question for future research.
Among all variables, gender produces the most differences in results. Men and women presented differences in every category that reflect observations made in other countries. Women are more likely not only talk to animals, whether pets or not, but produce more socially proximate linguistic relationships with them. Ramirez (2006) argues that men use animals to enact their masculinity while women use them to build interpersonal relationships. Although the assertion of masculinity in speech was not overtly evident, there is room to argue that women use animals for interpersonal relationships evidenced by the closer sociolinguistic proximity scores that women produce. Ramirez, in addition to Prato-Previde et al. (2006), also mentions that men treat them as friends and women as babies; and the results of this study agree. The proximity scores for men and women support this argument: men’s scores average into the rating of ‘Friends’ and whereas women have an average rating of ‘Family’ with exceptionally high incidences in the score of ‘Baby-talk’.
CONCLUSION
This look at animal-directed speech provides some interesting. Humans, at least in Ibagué Colombia, speak with both pets and non-pet domesticated animals. There are a variety of different social proximities and registers enacted out through animal-directed speech. The proximities and registers in talking to animals vary from establishing a relationship of friendship or care to simply showing respect for the animal with a linguistic assertion. Baby-talk and friend-talk are only two of several social proximities enregistered through speech. Supporting previous studies, this article also indicates that women are more likely than men to use baby-talk with animals, and men are more likely to treat animals as friends. However, there are more variables that affect sociolinguistic proximity enregistered through speech. Level of education produces contrary effects depending on the type of animal spoken to, and the pet owned affects how a non-pet domesticated animal is spoken to.
While this article produces some interesting insights, it opens even more interesting questions. Why do dog owners report producing closer proximity with non-pet domesticated animals than cat owners and pet owners who have both cats and dogs? Why do university pet owners report closer proximity with non-pet domesticated animals but more distant relationships with pets than high school educated individuals? Why are non-pets spoken to and what does this say about human linguistic interaction as a behaviour? There is still much work to be done in terms of animal-directed speech, particularly in the case of non-pet animals.
