Una An overview and analysis of self-reported animal-directed speech in Ibagué, Colombia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15665/re.v18i02.1660Keywords:
Pet talk, animal-directed speech, pet ownershipAbstract
Animals are essential to human civilization and most people have at some time spoken with an animal. Studies regarding animal-directed speech focus on in-play ethnography, using animals as discursive mechanisms and only focus on pets – and all are done in Anglophone countries. This study explores the apparent gap in research. In a study performed in Ibagué, Colombia, 500 people were surveyed in a self-report quantitative study to analyse how many people actually speak with animals (pets and non-pet domestic animals), how they do so and what beliefs they hold about animal-directed human speech. It was found that the majority of the population report speaking with animals and that factors such as gender, level of education, owning a pet and the pet actually exerting strong influences on how the animals are spoken. Additionally, the study highlights a set of contradictions in terms of attitude and practice – particularly in pronoun use and the social proximity enacted in social relationships with animals which are not actually reflected in the linguistic content of the discourse. The study concludes that people in regional Colombia speak to animals, not because they believe the animal understands them but, because humans understand relationships through spoken discourse and as such use linguistic discourse to create or enact a relationship with animals.
Key words: pet-talk, animal-directed speech, human-animal relationships.
References
Allan, K. et al. (2011). The English Language and Linguistics Companion. London: Palgrave Publishing.
Archer, J. (1997). Why Do People Love Their Pets? Evolution and Human Behavior 18:237-259.
Arluke, A. (2010). Our Animals, Ourselves. Contexts, 9, 34–9.
Basten, S. (2009). Pets and the ‘need to nurture’. St. John’s College, Oxford & Vienna Institute of Demography.
Blouin, D. (2012). Understanding Relations between People and their Pets. Sociology Compass, 6/11: 856–869
Burnham, D., Kitamura, C. & Vollmer-Conna, U. (2002). What’s new pussycat? On talking to babies and animals. Science, 296:1435.
Corson, S., & Corson, E. O. L. (1981). Companion animals as bonding catalysts in geriatric institutions. In B. Fogle (Ed.), Interrelations between people and pets (pp. 146–174). Springfield, IL: Thomas.
Eddy, T. (2003). ‘What is a Pet?’ Anthrozoös, 16: 98–105.
Fitch, T. (2011). Unity and diversity in human language. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 366 (1563): 376–88.
Fitch, T., de Boer, B., Mathur, N., & Ghazanfar, A. (2016). Monkey vocal tracts are speech-ready. Science Advances. 2(12): e1600723.doi:10.1126/sciadv.1600723.
Franklin, A. (1999). Animals and Modern Cultures: A Sociology of Human-Animal Relations in Modernity. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Greenebaum, J. (2004). ‘It’s a Dog’s Life: Elevating Status from Pet to ‘Fur Baby’ at Yappy Hour.’ Society & Animals. 12: 117–34
Haghighat, L. (2013). Baboons Can Learn to Recognize Words. Nature News.
Herzog, H. (2010). Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It’s so Hard to Think Straight about Animals. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
Lorenz, K. (1943). "Die angeborenen Formen möglicher Erfahrung." Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 5: 235-409
McConnell, A., Brown, C., Shoda, T.M., Stayton, L.E. & Martin, C.E. (2011). Friends with Benefits: On the Positive Consequences of Pet Ownership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 101:6, 1239–1252.
Mitchell, R. (2001). Americans’ talk to dogs: Similarities and differences with talk to infants. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34:2, 183-210.
Mitchell, R. & Edmonson, E. (1999). Functions of Repetitive Talk to Dogs during Play: Control, Conversation, or Planning? Society and Animals. 7:1, 55-81.
Mugford, R. A. (1980). The social significance of pet ownership. In S. A. Corson & E. O.L. Corson (Eds.), Ethnology and non-verbal communication in mental health: An interdisciplinary biopsychosocial exploration (pp. 111–122). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Prato-Previde, E., Fallani, G. & Valsecchi, P. (2005). Gender Differences in Owners Interacting with Pet Dogs: An Observational Study. Ethology, 112, 64–73.
Ramirez, M. (2006). My Dog’s Just Like Me’: Dog Ownership as a Gender Display. Symbolic Interaction, 29: 373–91.
Ringrose, C. (2015). Pitch Change in Dog-Directed Speech. Lifespans and Styles. 1:4.
Roberts, F. (2004). Speaking to and for Animals in a Veterinary Clinic: A Practice for Managing Interpersonal Interaction, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37:4, 421-446.
Sanders, C. (2003). ‘Actions Speak Louder than Words: Close Relationships between Human and Nonhuman Animals.’ Symbolic Interaction, 26: 405–26.
Schaffer, M. (2009). One Nation Under Dog. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.
Steensland, B. (2008). The Failed Welfare Revolution: America’s Struggle Over Guaranteed Income Policy. Princeton, NY: Princeton University Press.
Tannen, D. (2004). Talking the Dog: Framing Pets as Interactional Resources in Family Discourse. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37:4, 399-420.
Turner, W. (2005). The Role of Companion Animals Throughout the Family Life Cycle. Journal of Family Social Work. 9: 11–21.
Walton, J.R. & McConocha, D.M. (1996). Relational dimensions of dog ownership. Psychological Reports, 79, 947-950.
"Why can't monkeys talk? Their anatomy is 'speech-ready' but their brains aren't wired for it: neuroscientist’’. National Post.
Downloads
Published
Versions
- 2020-09-08 (4)
- 2020-08-17 (3)
- 2020-08-16 (2)
- 2020-07-30 (1)
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Joshua James Zwisler, Cesar Alejandro Cuellar Cedano
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Política propuesta para revistas de acceso abierto
Los autores/as que publiquen en esta revista aceptan las siguientes condiciones:
- Los autores/as conservan los derechos de autor y ceden a la revista el derecho de la primera publicación, con el trabajo registrado con la licencia de atribución de Creative Commons, que permite a terceros utilizar lo publicado siempre que mencionen la autoría del trabajo y a la primera publicación en esta revista.
- Los autores/as pueden realizar otros acuerdos contractuales independientes y adicionales para la distribución no exclusiva de la versión del artículo publicado en esta revista (p. ej., incluirlo en un repositorio institucional o publicarlo en un libro) siempre que indiquen claramente que el trabajo se publicó por primera vez en esta revista.
- Se permite y recomienda a los autores/as a publicar su trabajo en Internet (por ejemplo en páginas institucionales o personales) antes y durante el proceso de revisión y publicación, ya que puede conducir a intercambios productivos y a una mayor y más rápida difusión del trabajo publicado (vea The Effect of Open Access).
