essay about communication in animals

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

AP®︎/College Biology

Course: ap®︎/college biology   >   unit 8.

• Intro to animal behavior
• Innate behaviors
• Learned behaviors

Animal communication

• Animal behavior: foraging
• Responses to the environment

• Communication is when one animal transmits information to another animal causing some kind of change in the animal that gets the information.
• Communication is usually between animals of a single species, but it can also happen between two animals of different species.
• Animals communicate using signals , which can include visual; auditory, or sound-based; chemical, involving pheromones ; or tactile, touch-based, cues.
• Communication behaviors can help animals find mates, establish dominance, defend territory, coordinate group behavior, and care for young.

Introduction

Communication takes many forms.

• Pheromones—chemicals
• Auditory cues—sounds
• Visual cues
• Tactile cues—touch

Auditory signals

• Monkeys cry out a warning when a predator is near, giving the other members of the troop a chance to escape. Vervet monkeys even have different calls to indicate different predators.
• Bullfrogs croak to attract female frogs as mates. In some frog species, the sounds can be heard up to a mile away!
• Gibbons use calls to mark their territory, keeping potential competitors away. A paired male and female, and even their offspring, may make the calls together.

Visual signals

Tactile signals—touch, what is communication used for.

• Obtaining mates. Many animals have elaborate communication behaviors surrounding mating, which may involve attracting a mate or competing with other potential suitors for access to mates. See more information. Communication behaviors surrounding mating are often highly ritualized. For instance, a male may perform an intricate dance, show off decorative features—such as bright patches or elaborate patterns—or perform a characteristic song to attract a female. Similarly, males may compete with each for mates other using ritualized display behaviors , which usually involve posturing and gestural or vocal "threats" rather than actual fighting.
• Establishing dominance or defending territory. In many species, communication behaviors are important in establishing dominance in a social hierarchy or defending territory. See more information. Communication, for example, may allow disputes over status or territory to be settled without the need for fighting. By posturing, vocalizing, or making aggressive gestures, both participants make a relatively honest advertisement of their ability and willingness to fight. This allows both parties to size each other up, and the weaker may voluntarily back down.
• Coordinating group behaviors. In social species, communication is key in coordinating the activities of the group, such as food acquisition and defense, and in maintaining group cohesion. See more information. Communication may be used, for example, to direct other group members to a food source. Honeybee foragers use the waggle dance for this purpose, and ants use pheromone trails. Pack-hunting predators, such as wolves, also communicate to capture prey as a group. Group members may signal to coordinate defensive behaviors. For example, this is the case when a crushed ant incites other ants to swarm, or when a monkey gives an alarm call upon spotting a predator. Communication behaviors can also maintain cohesion within a group or establish social bonds and relationships. For instance, grooming among primates fosters cooperation and cohesion among group members.
• Caring for young. Among species that provide parental care to offspring, communication coordinates parent and offspring behaviors to help ensure that the offspring will survive. See more information. Tactile signals exchanged between newborn animals and their mothers, for example, trigger the mother to provide food and may also stimulate the formation of parent-child bonds through hormone release. Gull chicks tapping on the red spots on their parents' beaks—see article on innate behavior —is another example of a communication behavior that favors the survival of offspring.

Attribution

• " Behavioral biology: Proximate and ultimate causes of behavior " by OpenStax College, Biology, CC BY 4.0 ; download the original article for free at http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected] .
• " Communication behavior in animals " by Douglas Wilkin and Jean Brainard, CC BY-NC 3.0

Works cited

• Eric Gillam, "An Introduction to Animal Communication," Nature Education Knowledge 3, no. 10 (2011): 70, http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/an-introduction-to-animal-communication-23648715 .
• Peter Tyson, "Dogs' Dazzling Sense of Smell," Nova, last modified October 4, 2012, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/dogs-sense-of-smell.html .
• Duncan E. Jackson and Francis L. W. Ratnieks, "Communication in Ants," Current Biology 16, no. 15 (2006): R570-R574, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.07.015 .
• "Trail Pheromone," Wikipedia, last modified April 11, 2016, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_pheromone .
• "Ant," Wikipedia, last modified June 18, 2016, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant .
• "Chemical Pheromone Communication Between Ants," antARK, accessed June 18, 2016, https://antark.net/ant-life/ant-communication/ant-pheromones/ .
• "Dog Communication," Wikipedia, last modified June 17, 2016, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_communication .
• "Dog Behavior," Wikipedia, last modified June 9, 2016, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_behavior .
• "Whale Vocalization," Wikipedia, last modified June 8, 2016, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_vocalization .
• Marina Haynes and Cassandra Moore-Crawford, "Animal Behavior Laboratory Exercise 8 Communication," ANSC 455: Applied Animal Behavior, accessed June 18, 2016, http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~wrstrick/secu/ansc455/lab8.htm .
• SparkNotes Editors, “Signal Types: Mechanisms and Relative Advantages (page 2),” SparkNotes, accessed May 27, 2016, http://www.sparknotes.com/biology/animalbehavior/signalingandcommunication/section2/page/2/ .
• John R. Meyer, "Tactile Communication," General Entomology, accessed June 18, 2016, https://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/ent425/tutorial/Communication/tactcomm.html .
• "Social Grooming," Wikipedia, last modified June 13, 2016, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_grooming .
• David Krueger and Lanlan Jin, "Adaptive Value," Social Grooming in Primates, accessed June 18, 2016, http://www.reed.edu/biology/professors/srenn/pages/teaching/web_2008/dklj_site_final/adaptive.html .
• Beth Vanhorn and Robert Clark, "Instinctive Behaviors," in Veterinary Assisting Fundamentals & Applications (Clifton Park: Delmar/Cengage Learning, 2011), 517.

Want to join the conversation?

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

This page has been archived and is no longer updated

An Introduction to Animal Communication

The ability to communicate effectively with other individuals plays a critical role in the lives of all animals. Whether we are examining how moths attract a mate, ground squirrels convey information about nearby predators, or chimpanzees maintain positions in a dominance hierarchy, communication systems are involved. Here, I provide a primer about the types of communication signals used by animals and the variety of functions they serve. Animal communication is classically defined as occurring when “...the action of or cue given by one organism [the sender] is perceived by and thus alters the probability pattern of behavior in another organism [the receiver] in a fashion adaptive to either one both of the participants” (Wilson 1975). While both a sender and receiver must be involved for communication to occur (Figure 1), in some cases only one player benefits from the interaction. For example, female Photuris fireflies manipulate smaller, male Photinus fireflies by mimicking the flash signals produced by Photinus females. When males investigate the signal, they are voraciously consumed by the larger firefly (Lloyd 1975; Figure 2). This is clearly a case where the sender benefits and the receiver does not. Alternatively, in the case of fringe-lipped bats, Trachops cirrhosus , and tungara frogs, Physalaemus pustulosus , the receiver is the only player that benefits from the interaction. Male tungara frogs produce advertisement calls to attract females to their location; while the signal is designed to be received by females, eavesdropping fringe-lipped bats also detect the calls, and use that information to locate and capture frogs (Ryan et al . 1982). Despite these examples, there are many cases in which both the sender and receiver benefit from exchanging information. Greater sage grouse nicely illustrate such “true communication”; during the mating season, males produce strutting displays that are energetically expensive, and females use this honest information about male quality to choose which individuals to mate with (Vehrencamp et al . 1989).

Figure 1 A model of animal communication.

Figure 2:  Photinus fireflies. Courtesy of Tom Eisner.

Signal Modalities

Animals use a variety of sensory channels, or signal modalities, for communication. Visual signals are very effective for animals that are active during the day. Some visual signals are permanent advertisements; for example, the bright red epaulets of male red-winged blackbirds, Agelaius phoeniceus, which are always displayed, are important for territory defense. When researchers experimentally blackened epaulets, males were subject to much higher rates of intrusion by other males (Smith 1972). Alternatively, some visual signals are actively produced by an individual only under appropriate conditions. Male green anoles, Anolis carolinensis, bob their head and extend a brightly colored throat fan (dewlap) when signaling territory ownership. Acoustic communication is also exceedingly abundant in nature, likely because sound can be adapted to a wide variety of environmental conditions and behavioral situations. Sounds can vary substantially in amplitude, duration, and frequency structure, all of which impact how far the sound will travel in the environment and how easily the receiver can localize the position of the sender. For example, many passerine birds emit pure-tone alarm calls that make localization difficult, while the same species produce more complex, broadband mate attraction songs that allow conspecifics to easily find the sender (Marler 1955). A particularly specialized form of acoustic communication is seen in microchiropteran bats and cetaceans that use high-frequency sounds to detect and localize prey. After sound emission, the returning echo is detected and processed, ultimately allowing the animal to build a picture of their surrounding environment and make very accurate assessments of prey location. Compared to visual and acoustic modalities, chemical signals travel much more slowly through the environment since they must diffuse from the point source of production. Yet, these signals can be transmitted over long distances and fade slowly once produced. In many moth species, females produce chemical cues and males follow the trail to the female’s location. Researchers attempted to tease apart the role of visual and chemical signaling in silkmoths, Bombyx mori , by giving males the choice between a female in a transparent airtight box and a piece of filter paper soaked in chemicals produced by a sexually receptive female. Invariably, males were drawn to the source of the chemical signal and did not respond to the sight of the isolated female (Schneider 1974; Figure 3). Chemical communication also plays a critical role in the lives of other animals, some of which have a specialized vomeronasal organ that is used exclusively to detect chemical cues. For example, male Asian elephants, Elaphus maximus , use the vomeronasal organ to process chemical cues in female’s urine and detect if she is sexually receptive (Rasmussen et al . 1982).

Figure 3 Male silkmoths are more strongly attracted to the pheromones produced by females (chemical signal) than the sight of a female in an airtight box (visual signal). Tactile signals, in which physical contact occurs between the sender and the receiver, can only be transmitted over very short distances. Tactile communication is often very important in building and maintaining relationship among social animals. For example, chimpanzees that regularly groom other individuals are rewarded with greater levels of cooperation and food sharing (de Waal 1989). For aquatic animals living in murky waters, electrical signaling is an ideal mode of communication. Several species of mormyrid fish produce species-specific electrical pulses, which are primarily used for locating prey via electrolocation, but also allow individuals searching for mates to distinguish conspecifics from heterospecifics. Foraging sharks have the ability to detect electrical signals using specialized electroreceptor cells in the head region, which are used for eavesdropping on the weak bioelectric fields of prey (von der Emde 1998).

Signal Functions

Some of the most extravagant communication signals play important roles in sexual advertisement and mate attraction. Successful reproduction requires identifying a mate of the appropriate species and sex, as well as assessing indicators of mate quality. Male satin bowerbirds, Ptilonorhynchus violaceus , use visual signals to attract females by building elaborate bowers decorated with brightly colored objects. When a female approaches the bower, the male produces an elaborate dance, which may or may not end with the female allowing the male to copulate with her (Borgia 1985). Males that do not produce such visual signals have little chance of securing a mate. While females are generally the choosy sex due to greater reproductive investment, there are species in which sexual roles are reversed and females produce signals to attract males. For example, in the deep-snouted pipefish, Syngnathus typhle , females that produce a temporary striped pattern during the mating period are more attractive to males than unornamented females (Berglund et al . 1997). Communication signals also play an important role in conflict resolution, including territory defense. When males are competing for access to females, the costs of engaging in physical combat can be very high; hence natural selection has favored the evolution of communication systems that allow males to honestly assess the fighting ability of their opponents without engaging in combat. Red deer, Cervus elaphus , exhibit such a complex signaling system. During the mating season, males strongly defend a group of females, yet fighting among males is relatively uncommon. Instead, males exchange signals indicative of fighting ability, including roaring and parallel walks. An altercation between two males most often escalates to a physical fight when individuals are closely matched in size, and the exchange of visual and acoustic signals is insufficient for determining which animal is most likely to win a fight (Clutton-Brock et al . 1979). Communication signals are often critical for allowing animals to relocate and accurately identify their own young. In species that produce altricial young, adults regularly leave their offspring at refugia, such as a nest, to forage and gather resources. Upon returning, adults must identify their own offspring, which can be especially difficult in highly colonial species. Brazilian free-tailed bats, Tadarida brasiliensis , form cave colonies containing millions of bats; when females leave the cave each night to forage, they place their pup in a crèche that contains thousands of other young. When females return to the roost, they face the challenge of locating their own pups among thousands of others. Researchers originally thought that such a discriminatory task was impossible, and that females simply fed any pups that approached them, yet further work revealed that females find and nurse their own pup 83% of the time (McCracken 1984, Balcombe 1990). Females are able to make such fantastic discriminations using a combination of spatial memory, acoustic signaling, and chemical signaling. Specifically, pups produce individually-distinct “isolation calls”, which the mother can recognize and detect from a moderate distance. Upon closer inspection of a pup, females use scent to further confirm the pup’s identity. Many animals rely heavily on communication systems to convey information about the environment to conspecifics, especially close relatives. A fantastic illustration comes from vervet monkeys, Chlorocebus pygerythrus , in which adults give alarm calls to warn colony members about the presence of a specific type of predator. This is especially valuable as it conveys the information needed to take appropriate actions given the characteristics of the predator (Figure 4). For example, emitting a “cough” call indicates the presence of an aerial predator, such as an eagle; colony members respond by seeking cover amongst vegetation on the ground (Seyfarth & Cheney 1980). Such an evasive reaction would not be appropriate if a terrestrial predator, such as a leopard, were approaching.

Figure 4 Vervet monkeys. Many animals have sophisticated communication signals for facilitating integration of individuals into a group and maintaining group cohesion. In group-living species that form dominance hierarchies, communication is critical for maintaining ameliorative relationships between dominants and subordinates. In chimpanzees, lower-ranking individuals produce submissive displays toward higher-ranking individuals, such as crouching and emitting “pant-grunt” vocalizations. In turn, dominants produce reconciliatory signals that are indicative of low aggression. Communication systems also are important for coordinating group movements. Contact calls, which inform individuals about the location of groupmates that are not in visual range, are used by a wide variety of birds and mammals. Overall, studying communication not only gives us insight into the inner worlds of animals, but also allows us to better answer important evolutionary questions. As an example, when two isolated populations exhibit divergence over time in the structure of signals use to attract mates, reproductive isolation can occur. This means that even if the populations converge again in the future, the distinct differences in critical communication signals may cause individuals to only select mates from their own population. For example, three species of lacewings that are closely related and look identical are actually reproductively isolated due to differences in the low-frequency songs produced by males; females respond much more readily to songs from their own species compared to songs from other species (Martinez, Wells & Henry 1992). A thorough understanding of animal communication systems can also be critical for making effective decisions about conservation of threatened and endangered species. As an example, recent research has focused on understanding how human-generated noise (from cars, trains, etc) can impact communication in a variety of animals (Rabin et al . 2003). As the field of animal communication continues to expand, we will learn more about information exchange in a wide variety of species and better understand the fantastic variety of signals we see animals produce in nature.

Vomeronasal organ – auxiliary olfactory organ that detects chemosensory cues

Altricial – the state of being born in an immature state and relying exclusively on parental care for survival during early development

Refugia – areas that provide concealment from predators and/or protection from harsh environmental conditions

Conspecifics – organisms of the same species

References and Recommended Reading

Balcombe, J.P. Vocal recognition of pups by mother Mexican free-tailed bats, Tadarida brasiliensis mexicana . Animal Behaviour 39 , 960-966 (1990). Berglund, J., Rosenqvist G. and Bernet P. Ornamentation predicts reproductive success in female pipefish. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 40 , 145-150 (1997). Clutton-Brock, T., Albon S., Gibson S. & Guinness F. The logical stag: Adaptive aspects of fighing in the red deer. Animal Behaviour 27 , 211-225 (1979). de Waal F.B.M. Food sharing and reciprocal obligations among chimpanzees. Journal of Human Evolution 18 , 433–459 (1989).

Hauser, M. 1997. The Evolution of Communication . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lloyd, J.E. Aggressive mimicry in Photuris: signal repertoires by femmes fatales. Science 197 , 452-453 (1975).

Marler, P. Characteristics of some animal calls. Nature 176 , 6-8 (1955). Martinez Well, M. & Henry C.S. The role of courtship songs in reproductive isolation among populations of green lacewings of the genus Chrysoperla . Evolution 46 , 31-43 (1992). McCracken, G.F. Communal nursing in Mexican free-tailed bat maternity colonies. Science 223 , 1090-1091(1984).

Rabin, L.A., McCowan B., Hooper S.L & Owings D.H. Anthropogenic noise and its effect on animal communication: an interface between comparative psychology and conservation biology. International Journal of Comparative Psychology 16 , 172-192 (2003). Ryan M.J., Tuttle M.D., & Rand A.S. Sexual advertisement and bat predation in a neotropical frog. American Naturalist 119 , 136–139 (1982). Schneider, D. The sex attractant receptors of moths. Scientific American 231 , 28-35 (1974). Seyfarth, R.M., Cheney D.L. & Marler P. Monkey responses to three different alarm calls: Evidence for predator classification and semantic communication. Science 210 , 801-803 (1980). Smith, D. The role of the epaulets in the red-winged blackbird, ( Agelaius phoeniceus ) social system. Behaviour 41 , 251-268 (1972).

Vehrencamp, S.L., Bradbury J.W., & Gibson R.M. The energetic cost of display in male sage grouse. Animal Behaviour 38 , 885-896 (1989). von der Emde, G. Electroreception. In D. H. Evans (ed.). The Physiology of Fishes , pp. 313-343. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press (1998). Wilson, E.O. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (1975).

Article History

Flag inappropriate.

Email your Friend

•  |  Lead Editor:  Sara Tenney

Within this Subject (24)

• Basic (13)
• Intermediate (5)
• Advanced (6)

Other Topic Rooms

• Ecosystem Ecology
• Physiological Ecology
• Population Ecology
• Community Ecology
• Global and Regional Ecology
• Conservation and Restoration
• Animal Behavior
• Teach Ecology
• Earth's Climate: Past, Present, and Future
• Terrestrial Geosystems
• Marine Geosystems
• Scientific Underpinnings
• Paleontology and Primate Evolution
• Human Fossil Record
• The Living Primates

© 2014 Nature Education

• Press Room |
• Terms of Use |
• Privacy Notice |

Visual Browse

• Fundamentals NEW

• Biographies
• Compare Countries
• World Atlas

animal communication

Related resources for this article.

• Primary Sources & E-Books

Introduction

Animal communication is the process by which one animal provides information that other animals can use to make decisions that affect their survival and well-being. Pet owners know that a dog’s bark may signal a warning or a welcome; the meow of a cat may indicate hunger or loneliness. In nature, animals use various forms of communication to identify another animal as friend or foe and to share information about resources such as food or territory. Animals also communicate information in order to influence behavior, such as to attract a mate or to indicate dominance within a group.

The means by which animals communicate are called signals or displays. The animal that provides a signal is called a sender. The animal to which the signal is directed is the receiver. Signals may be actions, such as sounds or body postures, or special physical features whose sole purpose is communication. An example of the latter is the male green anole lizard’s large, colorful dewlap (loose skin under the neck). To signal ownership of territory, the lizard extends the dewlap, which resembles a brightly colored fan.

Types of Signals

The signals that animals use to communicate can be classified in several broad categories. Animals can communicate through sound, visual, chemical, tactile (touching), and electric signals.

Many animals transmit information by a sound display. Sound spreads rapidly, and other animals in the vicinity can readily tell from what direction it comes. The most common sounds are vocalizations made by vertebrates (animals with segmented spinal columns), such as birds , reptiles , and mammals . The howls of coyotes, wolves, and other wild canids (members of the dog family) help members of the pack stay in contact and may strengthen social bonds among pack members. A squirrel may vocalize a special bark in the presence of a predator such as a hawk or a cat , thus warning other squirrels in the area to flee. Special courtship songs are often an essential part of mating, especially among birds.

Many animals use nonvocal sounds to communicate information. Some insects rub one body part against another, an act called stridulation. Although beavers and gorillas can vocalize, they also use nonvocal sounds for some communications. Beavers slap their tails on the water surface to warn other beavers of danger. Male silverback gorillas stand upright and beat their chests to display dominance and strength.

Animals may use a variety of visual signals to communicate information. Badges of bright coloring or antlers are examples of this. Such badges may indicate the sender’s identity, such as its species, sex, and age. In some social animals, badges may signal the sender’s rank. Bright coloring in many species indicates the animal is poisonous—the bright color is a signal to potential predators that attacking the sender will cause the attacker harm.

Some species create a display arena or build a structure that is itself intended as a form of communication. An example is the elaborate bowerlike nest of the bowerbird, which the male builds solely for the purpose of attracting a mate. Other visible signs include special dung heaps left by rabbits and the scars left on tree trunks by bears , both of which are used to mark territory.

Behavioral displays such as postures and dances also are visual cues. For example, a worker honeybee lets the other workers know about a new source of food it has discovered by rapidly vibrating its wings and performing a series of movements known as the dance of the honeybee. In many animal species, males compete with each other for mates through elaborate courtship dances. The strutting and bowing of male cranes is an example of this. The highly colorful plumage of the male in many bird species, including peacocks , is a visual signal important at mating season.

Many animals use special display postures to send a threat signal to potential predators or show dominance . The alpha, or top-ranking member, of a dog pack, for example, on occasion will bare its teeth at other pack members to assert its authority.

The freeze reflex is a visual signal used by many species to signal danger. Faced with an imminent threat, the animal will “freeze,” or stop moving, until the danger has passed. Deer and rabbits are just two types of animals that employ the freeze reflex.

Many mammals, fishes , and insects secrete chemicals called pheromones to communicate with others of their species or to issue warnings. Some of these chemicals are distasteful or injurious to other animals. Many animals, for example moths, release pheromones into the air as sexual attractants. Ants secrete them to lay food trails or to warn the ant colony of danger. The disadvantage of pheromones is the rapid fading of the odor, making them an inadequate means of communication in situations that may change rapidly. Pheromone effectiveness is also considerably decreased in wind and rain.

Some species of animals, especially birds and mammals, use tactile, or touching, behaviors to convey information. Birds, primates, and cats often engage in mutual grooming that seems to communicate acceptance. Wolves , dogs , and other canids have mock fights to establish and reestablish dominance and rank in a pack.

Tactile signals also involve vibrations transmitted through air, water, and ground. Arthropods make wide use of these types of signals. For example, male copepods (tiny arthropods found in freshwater and ocean plankton) can identify the distinct eddies left by swimming females and track them for mating. Spiders glean information about potential prey and possible danger from vibrations in their webs.

A few species of fishes can emit electrical discharge patterns as part of a sensory system intended to gather information about surroundings and to fend off predators. Similarly, bats , dolphins , and porpoises have a sonar scanning system to enable them to perceive the environment without necessarily seeing it. Some sharks have specialized electroreceptors in their skin that can detect electric discharges produced by fish.

Signal Repertoires

The number of signals in a species’ repertoire can range greatly depending on the species. Very simple animals that live a somewhat solitary, or nonsocial, life may have about 5 or 6 different signals. Social insects, such as bees and ants, may have as many as 20 types of signals, and social vertebrates, such as wolves and primates, may have even more. For example, wolves communicate with one another by visual signals (facial expression, body position, tail position), sounds (barks, grunts, and howls), and chemical cues (scent marking). Along with howling, marking of territory with urine and feces lets neighboring packs know they should not intrude.

Additional Reading

Brooks, Bruce. Making Sense: Animal Perception and Communication (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1993). Downer, Ann. Elephant Talk: The Surprising Science of Elephant Communication (Twenty-First Century Books, 2011). Zimmer, Marc. Bioluminescence: Nature and Science at Work (Twenty-First Century Books, 2016).

It’s here: the NEW Britannica Kids website!

We’ve been busy, working hard to bring you new features and an updated design. We hope you and your family enjoy the NEW Britannica Kids. Take a minute to check out all the enhancements!

• The same safe and trusted content for explorers of all ages.
• Accessible across all of today's devices: phones, tablets, and desktops.
• Improved homework resources designed to support a variety of curriculum subjects and standards.
• A new, third level of content, designed specially to meet the advanced needs of the sophisticated scholar.
• And so much more!

Want to see it in action?

Start a free trial

To share with more than one person, separate addresses with a comma

Choose a language from the menu above to view a computer-translated version of this page. Please note: Text within images is not translated, some features may not work properly after translation, and the translation may not accurately convey the intended meaning. Britannica does not review the converted text.

After translating an article, all tools except font up/font down will be disabled. To re-enable the tools or to convert back to English, click "view original" on the Google Translate toolbar.

• Privacy Notice
• Terms of Use

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Science

Essay Samples on Animal Communication

Ways wolves communicate with each other.

Wolf signals show strong bonds and communication with other wolves in their packs. Wolves have an advanced level of communication shown through their social organization within their pack community, survival instinct, and relations with rivaling or opposing packs, using vocalization, scent, and body language. The...

• Animal Communication

Communication Methods Used by Lions

Introduction This report will explain the different communication methods used by lions (Panthera leo) and their reasons for it as well as discussing the costs and benefits of each. Animals have a variety of communication methods to show how they are feeling in a certain...

Greater Sage-Grouses: Methods of Communication

Introduction This essay is going to evaluate methods of communication, explaining how optimal foraging and sexual selection behaviour is influenced in Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) (IUCN Red List, 2016). Males have a grey crown and white around their neck whereas females have less white colouring...

• Natural Selection

Preemptive Scheduling with Honey Bee Foraging

Extended bee algorithm utilizes divisible load scheduling theorem and follows honey bees’ foraging behavior. A new agent model is suggested to reduce network delay and to increase throughput. The authors have mapped the dancing floor of honey bees to the routing table in the network....

Stable Isotopes And Cougar Dispersal Patterns

Mammals Cougar populations in Midwestern North America have been recolonizing some of their former ranges in recent decades, however the dispersal routes taken from established populations by these animals are unknown. Insight into these patterns and movements is of the utmost importance in facilitating cougar...

• Animal Intelligence

Stressed out with your paper?

Consider using writing assistance:

• 100% unique papers
• 3 hrs deadline option

Best topics on Animal Communication

1. Ways Wolves Communicate With Each Other

2. Communication Methods Used by Lions

3. Greater Sage-Grouses: Methods of Communication

4. Preemptive Scheduling with Honey Bee Foraging

5. Stable Isotopes And Cougar Dispersal Patterns

• Space Exploration
• Archaeology
• Endangered Languages
• Bilingualism

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci
• v.375(1789); 2020 Jan 6

What can animal communication teach us about human language?

Adam r. fishbein.

1 Neuroscience and Cognitive Science Program, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

2 Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Jonathan B. Fritz

3 Institute for Systems Research, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

William J. Idsardi

4 Department of Linguistics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Gerald S. Wilkinson

5 Department of Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Associated Data

This article has no additional data.

Language has been considered by many to be uniquely human. Numerous theories for how it evolved have been proposed but rarely tested. The articles in this theme issue consider the extent to which aspects of language, such as vocal learning, phonology, syntax, semantics, intentionality, cognition and neurobiological adaptations, are shared with other animals. By adopting a comparative approach, insights into the mechanisms and origins of human language can be gained. While points of agreement exist among the authors, conflicting viewpoints are expressed on several issues, such as the presence of proto-syntax in animal communication, the neural basis of the Merge operation, and the neurogenetic changes necessary for vocal learning. Future comparative research in animal communication has the potential to teach us even more about the evolution, neurobiology and cognitive basis of human language.

This article is part of the theme issue ‘What can animal communication teach us about human language?’

1. Introduction

This theme issue is dedicated to the memory of Dorothy Cheney—an extraordinary and insightful primatologist who, with her husband Robert Seyfarth, studied vervet and baboon vocal communication and illuminated the importance of social cognition in primate evolution and language origins [ 1 , 2 ].

For centuries, scientists have been interested in the biological origins of human language and its relations to other animal communication systems. Darwin, in his Descent of man , for instance, commented on babbling in songbirds, singing in gibbons and ‘the intimate connection between the brain, as it is now developed in us, and the faculty of speech’ [ 3 , p. 88]. Since Darwin's time, though, much progress has been made in understanding the faculty of human language and its neurobiological underpinnings. Fundamental questions, of course, remain, as human language is a multi-faceted and highly specialized network of interlocking systems. In order to understand how the system arose, one approach is to analyse its multiple components, such as phonology, syntax, semantics, auditory perception and memory, the vocal–motor articulatory system, the conceptual–intentional system and theory of mind [ 4 ]. One can then investigate the structure, function and evolution of these components by drawing on comparative studies of animal communication and cognition in a diversity of species and by engaging a variety of methods and theoretical frameworks. Animal communication itself is incredibly diverse in its forms and mechanisms [ 5 ] (consider the diversity of song learning behaviour in songbirds alone [ 6 ]), necessitating extensive comparative and interdisciplinary efforts to understand human language and its origins in the context of the broader world of biological signalling.

This theme issue is driven by a recognition of the value of comparative perspectives on human language and the powerful insights that can be gained from studies of animal communication and cognition. The inspiration for this special issue, and many of the contributed articles, arose from an international conference entitled ‘New Perspectives in Animal Models of Language’ held at the University of Maryland, College Park, in September 2017. Researchers at this meeting, and a growing number of scientists worldwide, are engaged in comparative studies of animal communication in diverse species and using innovative new methods, so it is important to bring these voices together to encourage fruitful dialogue between linguists, ethologists, biologists, psychologists and neuroscientists, so that investigators can draw inspiration from each other's ideas and work together to generate new paths forward.

2. Part I: vocal learning

The questions of what constitutes vocal learning and which species are capable of it are sources of intense debate, and the subject of ongoing experimental studies, in discussions of the evolution of language. Humans are often described as the only primate capable of vocal learning, a trait shared with several disparate groups of mammals (bats, pinnipeds, cetaceans and elephants) and several orders of birds (songbirds, parrots and hummingbirds). But researchers consistently raise questions about how vocal learning in other species compares with that in humans, the extent of vocal learning in other primates and how vocal learning emerged in humans.

Tyack [ 7 ] provides an overview of vocal learning and clarifies the debate by distinguishing between limited and complex vocal learning. He describes limited vocal learning (which has a broad taxonomic distribution) as the ability to fine-tune the acoustic features of species-specific vocalizations, which can be generated by innate motor programmes. By contrast, complex vocal learning (which has a much narrower distribution, including humans) occurs when an animal hears a sound, creates an acoustic template in memory and then develops a vocalization that matches the template. Tyack emphasizes the importance of critically evaluating evidence for complex vocal learning, as animals with only limited vocal learning are likely not very good models for human vocal learning.

Bats are sometimes overlooked in discussions of vocal learning, but here Vernes & Wilkinson [ 8 ] provide a detailed overview of direct and indirect evidence for vocal learning in bats. Vocal learning in bats usually involves modifications to calls used for group integration and/or recognition, which Vernes & Wilkinson argue constitutes a form of ‘limited’ vocal learning according to Tyack's framework. With their small size and highly vocal nature (and also high diversity in gene variants of FoxP2—the gene famously implicated in human language evolution), the authors highlight the value of using bats in studies of the neural circuity and genetic basis of vocal learning.

In contrast with Tyack's approach and classification of different types of vocal production learning, Fischer & Hammerschmidt [ 9 ] shift the focus by discussing the importance of auditory comprehension learning in non-human primates and by examining the mechanisms that support vocal adjustment in relation to auditory experience. They describe, for instance, the influence of parental vocal feedback on vocal development in marmosets [ 10 ], which would not be described as complex vocal learning under Tyack's definition, but, they argue, involves a similar kind of sensory–motor integration to human language. Further, they emphasize a different framework from Tyack's by listing multiple mechanisms for vocal production in primates, some of which are unique to humans, while others are shared with non-human primates.

3. Part II: phonology, syntax, semantics

Since the mid twentieth century, the field of linguistics, led by the revolutionary work of Noam Chomsky, has significantly advanced our understanding of phonology, syntax and semantics. In recent decades, there has been an explosion of interest in the evolution of language and research exploring to what extent these components of human language are found in the communication systems of other animals [ 11 ]. Although the contributions in this issue show that progress has been made, they also make clear that there are still many difficult questions that remain.

Suzuki et al . [ 12 ] review evidence and criteria for compositional syntax in birds and primates, which has long been thought to be unique to humans. Some of the best evidence for compositional syntax in animals, they suggest, comes from recent studies in the southern pied babbler [ 13 , 14 ] and in Japanese tits. In the latter, birds produce an alert-recruitment call sequence in which the meaning of the whole sequence depends not only on the meaning of the individual calls but also on the order in which they are combined. They also identify cases of idiomatic sequences (like the phrase ‘kick the bucket’) observed in animal calls, in which a vocal sequence is composed of meaningful elements, but the meaning does not depend on the meaning of the parts. Based on these insights, they propose new approaches for examining the syntax–semantics interface in animal communication.

Birdsong has been quite a popular and successful model for human speech production in large part because birds learn to produce their songs according to sequential rules, as humans do in phonology and syntax. But Fishbein et al . [ 15 ] argue that sequences may not be as important for conveying information in birdsong perception as they are in human language, despite the intriguing evidence presented by Suzuki et al . for a functional role of sequential rules in bird call perception in a few species. Fishbein et al . review behavioural evidence that zebra finches are quite poor at hearing changes to song syllable sequence and are much better at hearing changes in the acoustic properties of individual elements. While some species (e.g. budgerigars) are better than zebra finches and several other avian species at perceiving sequence information, the authors argue that birds might be communicating in a fundamentally different way in song, largely independent of sequence, compared with what we do in speech.

The question of whether animal communication exhibits even a primitive form of human syntax has sparked some of the fiercest debates in the field. Zuberbühler [ 16 ] reviews several theories for the evolution of syntax and distinguishes types of syntax (i.e. permutation and combination) and compositionality. He proposes that animal and human syntax may differ in the complexity of Merge operations (where two syntactic elements are merged into a set) but not in kind—a conceptualization that differs from the unitary, human-specific version of Merge as proposed by Friederici [ 17 ]. Zuberbühler suggests that the difference in complexity may be due to variation in short-term memory limits, with only large-brained animals capable of merging already merged units. He also highlights the importance of animal cognition of event perception (perceiving, representing and recalling natural events in ordered and hierarchical ways) for the evolution of syntax and compositionality.

Regarding animal models for phonology and syntax, Idsardi [ 18 ] offers cautions concerning Fitch's phonological continuity hypothesis [ 19 ]: that animals share with humans the ability to process finite-state patterns and not context-free ones, like those of human syntax. For a machine or brain to recognize context-free patterns, it requires push-down automata (PDA) computational capacity. But Idsardi points out that even with simple finite-state patterns, we might want to use a PDA architecture to accurately capture the computations made by animal and human learners. Similarly, if we find PDA circuits in the brain, he argues that they could be used for phonology/sound patterns, not necessarily syntax as others have suggested, posing a challenge for efforts to localize syntax in the brain.

4. Part III: neurobiological and genetic adaptations

Recent innovations in human neuroimaging, neurophysiological studies during vocal behaviour and new cellular and molecular techniques, such as genetically identifying and manipulating specific neural circuits, have enabled significant advances in our understanding of the neurobiology of language and animal communication. The contributions in this issue show the power of these techniques applied to animal models to reveal the neural mechanisms and genetic adaptations underlying the human language faculty.

Nieder & Mooney [ 20 ] offer a comprehensive review of the neural mechanisms underlying innate and learned vocalizations in birds and mammals. They describe the neural circuits controlling these systems from respiratory–vocal integration in the brainstem to the role of the periaqueductal grey (PAG) in the midbrain in switching on and off innate vocalizations, all the way to the forebrain networks that provide volitional control of vocalizations. In doing so, they emphasize the value of using multiple animal model systems, including birds, rodents, non-human primates and other mammals, as each has distinct advantages for understanding components of vocal production. Indeed, they provide considerable evidence that human speech is built upon ancient, conserved brainstem circuitry that forms a general platform for vocal production shared by most vertebrates and that speech (and birdsong) arose with the additional evolution of forebrain–brainstem coordination.

Seminal recent work by Jarvis and colleagues [ 21 ] revealed the evolutionary convergence of vocal learning at the level of gene expression in birds and humans. Here, Aamodt et al . [ 22 ] explore the genetic landscape of this convergence, analysing thousands of genes in avian song production to provide insights into the neurogenetic underpinnings of human communication disorders. They review shared genes in humans and songbirds related to vocal learning, including genes encoding a linked reward system that are also implicated in human communication disorders. They discuss shared genes in songbirds and humans that influence vocal communication, social cognition and intelligence, such as AUTS2. This gene is upregulated in both songbird and human striatum, which is part of the basal ganglia, and variants in humans have been linked to autism and dyslexia. Given the similarities between the songbird and human genomes, they suggest that studies of songbird genes could be used to drive translational research.

Echoing and extending the views of other authors in this issue, Bodin & Belin [ 23 ] emphasize the shared features of animal and human vocal communication, rather than focusing on divergent properties. Here, they review parallels in areas of human and non-human primate brains that are sensitive to conspecific voices. Similar to Nieder & Mooney, who emphasize the shared vocal production circuitry in vertebrates, Bodin & Belin emphasize the importance of the evolutionarily conserved voice perception system. Specifically, they argue for a conserved network of cortical voice areas or ‘voice patches’ in higher auditory cortical regions of the primate brain from which language could have emerged. They also draw parallels between this voice-processing system in the auditory cortex and the face-processing system of the visual cortex. They highlight how these systems interact to combine visual and auditory social information in the superior temporal sulcus and frontal cortex, which may have been a target of evolution in primates.

Friederici [ 17 ], in contrast with Bodin & Belin's emphasis on shared basic mechanisms in primate voice perception, focuses on specific neural adaptations in humans that enable the language capacity to emerge. She argues that human language is rooted in the capacity to process hierarchically structured sequences and that this ability is grounded in a system consisting of a left lateralized network with a frontal cortex hub in the posterior part of Broca's area (Brodmann's area 44) and its connection to temporal cortex via the dorsal pathway, which is more developed in adult humans than in non-human primates and prelinguistic infants. She contends that this network for processing hierarchy is language-specific and is not a general processor of hierarchy, such as in music or mathematics or in the hierarchy of event perception (in contrast with Zuberbühler). She also emphasizes Merge as the basis of the human-specific capacity for language which she argues can be localized in BA44. This is a controversial but testable claim—though Idsardi's article in this issue raises important questions about the localizability of the Merge function in the brain.

5. Part IV: intentionality and cognition

Human language is intimately linked to social cognition—we communicate concepts and intentionally influence other people's mental states. The three final contributions in this issue explore to what extent animals and humans share cognitive processes underlying their communication systems.

Graham et al . [ 24 ] critically evaluate the criteria used to identify the degree of intentionality in a signal and how the criteria are applied to animal, especially primate, communication. They emphasize the difficulty of differentiating between zero-order intentionality (in which an animal vocalizes with no intention of communicating to others, and no mentality is involved in signalling) and first-order intentionality (where the signaller intends to signal in order to alter the behaviour of the recipient). They argue that we need better ways to accurately assess arousal to rule out zero-order explanations of first-order intentionality. They stress the importance of such attempts to ‘scratch beneath the surface’ and avoid anthropomorphic assumptions, as communication behaviours of humans and non-human primates may appear to be the same on the surface but may fundamentally differ in underlying cognitive processes.

Similarly, Novack & Waxman [ 25 ] ask whether the signals used in ape communication influence core cognitive capacities, such as object representation or categorization. The authors review how these cognitive capacities develop links with vocalizations and gestures in human infants. For or instance, in infants as young as three months, listening to human language boosts formation of object categories. They review evidence in apes, focusing on gestures, and argue that signals are used primarily for imperative purposes (i.e. to get attention and make requests) rather than to share intentions. This urge and ability to share intentions, which human infants develop as early as 12 months, does not appear to emerge in great apes and may place constraints on cognitive development in non-human primates.

While most studies of the evolution of human language focus on communication, Fitch [ 26 ] argues for the importance of examining precursors for components of human language in animal cognition. He points out that many species share sophisticated cognitive abilities that long preceded human language. He reviews the evidence that animals know far more than they can communicate and have conceptual representations that they cannot express—e.g. honeybees can learn to discriminate and make associations with different flower colours or patterns but cannot express them in dance language—arguing for caution in identifying discontinuities between humans and animals in cognition based on discontinuities in communication. Fitch emphasizes the importance of complementing research in animal communication with comparative studies of animal cognition that may provide deeper insight into the evolutionary path to language.

6. Concluding remarks

The array of articles in this theme issue illustrates the value of using the comparative approach to investigate the mechanisms and origins of human language. While the authors find much common ground, the conflicting viewpoints expressed on several fundamental issues, such as the presence of proto-syntax or compositionality in animal communication, the neural basis and human specificity of the Merge operation, and the underlying neurogenetic changes leading to vocal learning and the emergence of language, also promise to inspire future research in animal communication that will teach us even more about the evolution, neurobiology and cognitive basis of human language.

Data accessibility

Authors' contributions.

A.R.F. wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to revisions and gave approval for publication.

Competing interests

We declare we have no competing interests.

The authors thank the Brain and Behavior Initiative and other programme support at the University of Maryland for funding the initial workshop in 2017 and the follow-up 2019 workshop.

How Animals Communicate

In recent years enormous advances have taken place in the field of animal communication. This two-volume collection of essays by experts of international renown presents the latest developments in three main divisions. The introduction and the first six chapters examine major theoretical issues, including both the phylogeny and the ontogeny of communication, as well as pertinent aspects of language and other forms of human communication. The chief mechanisms of communication are taken up in turn in the next seven chapters. The heart of the book consists of surveys of communicative processes in selected groups of organisms, ranging from octopuses and squids to social insects, birds, dog-like and cat-like animals, whales, and the Great Apes, and a special chapter devoted to man—chimpanzee communication. A taxonomic index of animals is included. Contributors to How Animals Communicate are George W. Barlow, Gordon M. Burg-hardt, René-Guy Busnel, David K. Caldwell, Melba C. Caldwell, James A. Cohen, John F. Eisenberg, Arthur W. Ewing, Michael L. Fine, Roger S. Fouts, Michael W. Fox, A. Gautier, J-P. · Gautier, Frank A.Geldard, Ilan Golani, Donald R. Oriffin, Jack P. Hailman, Bert Hölldobler, Carl D. Hopkins, A. Ross Kiester, Devra G. Kleiman, Hans Klingel, Peter H. Klopfer, Philip Lieberman, James E. Lloyd, Peter Marler, Martin H. Moynihan, Bori L. Olla, John R. Oppenheimer, Daniel Otte, Walter Poduschka, Cheryl H. Pruitt, Randall L. Rigby, Anthony Robertson, Arcadia F. Rodaniche, Jack Schneider, Thomas A Sebeok, Robert E. Silberglied, Kate Scow, Harry H. Shorey, W. John Smith, Richard Tenaza, Fritz R. Walther, Christen Wemmer, Peter Weygoldt, and Howard E. Winn.

Table of Contents

• isbn 978-0-253-05093-9
• publisher Indiana University Press
• publisher place Bloomington, Indiana USA
• restrictions CC-BY-NC-ND
• rights Copyright © Trustees of Indiana University
• rights holder Indiana University Press
• rights territory World
• doi https://doi.org/10.2979/HowAnimalsCommunicat

We use cookies to analyze our traffic. Please decide if you are willing to accept cookies from our website. You can change this setting anytime in Privacy Settings .

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

Senders and receivers

• Signal production
• Signal transmission
• Signal reception
• Costs and benefits of communication
• Evolution of signals
• Signal design rules
• Honesty and deceit

animal communication

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Khan Academy - Animal communication
• animal communication - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
• Table Of Contents

Recent News

animal communication , process by which one animal provides information that other animals can incorporate into their decision making . The vehicle for the provision of this information is called a signal. The signal may be a sound , colour pattern, posture, movement, electrical discharge , touch , release of an odorant, or some combination of these mediums.

Animals face daily decisions about how to behave. Choices can be as simple as a sea anemone deciding when to expand its tentacles or as complex as a male lion deciding whether to approach a reluctant mate. The decision, which may be reflexive or conscious, is guided by evolutionary biases based on alternative outcomes of choice, recent experience about likely conditions, and sensory information. An animal with access to complete information can always choose correctly. However, life is rarely so accommodating, and inputs often fail to provide complete information. Thus, communication is an important source of additional information that is incorporated into the decision-making process.

Signals are actions or anatomical structures whose primary function is the provision of information to another animal. However, not all actions by one animal that provide information to another animal qualify as signals. The noise created by a foraging mouse and used by an owl to locate and kill the mouse is a case in point. Mice have to feed, and the noises they create while feeding (e.g., through movement and chewing) are an inadvertent result of that activity. Thus, these sounds are not a signal. In contrast, the song of a wren is not inadvertent—wrens sing solely to communicate with other birds .

An animal that provides a signal is called a sender. The animal to which the signal is directed is the receiver. The receiver uses the signal information to help make a decision. For example, if a receiver must choose either to fight with or to flee from an opponent, it brings to this decision biases and thresholds passed on to it by successful prior generations. This information helps the receiver avoid harm and find food, shelter, and mates. Prior experience in the receiver’s own life may also play a role in shaping its evaluation of the situation. If it has routinely lost fights to larger animals, a useful strategy would be to assess the size of the opponent. This may be done by using vision or other means. For example, in some cases an opponent broadcasts a low-frequency sound signal at the receiver. Because only large animals can produce low-frequency sounds, this signal provides evidence that the opponent is large. The receiver integrates its perception of the sound frequency with its prior experience and inherited avoidance of harmful situations and thus decides to flee.

In this example, the receiver can interpret the signal only if it understands that low-frequency sounds tend to be associated with large body sizes. The association between alternative signals (e.g., sounds of different frequencies) and different alternative circumstances (e.g., relative sizes of opponents) is called a code. Codes can be characterized as probabilities that a sender will emit a given signal in any given circumstance. In a perfect code, only one signal will be used in a given context , and only one context will evoke that signal. Real codes do not need to be perfect, but they do need to be good enough that a receiver attending to signals makes better decisions than if it ignored the signals and relied only on other sources of information.

Animals differ widely in the mechanisms by which they acquire signal codes. Some codes are inherited genetically. For example, the sound-producing structures of many male insects generate a limited range of sound frequencies, and the ears of females are pretuned to be most sensitive to those frequencies. In other species, senders’ sounds or body odours are determined by random genetic processes, and receivers must learn which signals go with which individuals. Many songbirds have genetic limits on the range of sounds they can sing, but they can learn one or more local variants within those limits during a short period in their youth. In certain species, such as parrots or humans, both sender and receiver must learn the appropriate vocal coding, and they can continue to learn alternative coding systems throughout life.

Different contexts require different kinds of information and thus different signals. The number of signals in a species’ repertoire can range from 5 or 6 in the simplest nonsocial animals to 10–20 in social insects , such as bees and ants , or to 30–40 in social vertebrates , such as wolves and primates . Most animals produce signals to attract mates and then produce additional signals to synchronize mating. Signals for mediating conflicts, including signals of aggressive intention and signals of submission, are also widespread. In addition, territorial species require signals for declaring territory ownership, and in situations in which adults guard or feed their young, both parents and offspring require signals to coordinate parental care. Social animals may use signals to coordinate group movements, to assemble dispersed group members, or to display social affiliations. Some animals have special signals that they use to share food finds, to alert others about predator attacks, and even to alert approaching predators that they have been detected. In addition, bats , oilbirds , porpoises , and electric fish use the differences between their own emitted and subsequently received signals to extract information about the ambient environment . In many of these contexts, the relevant animal signals are designed to provide a receiver with ancillary information about the identity, sex, social affiliation, and location of the sender.

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.

• How Animals Communicate

In this Book

• Thomas A. Sebeok
• Published by: Indiana University Press
• View Citation

Table of Contents

• Half Title Page
• pp. vii-viii
• Acknowledgments
• Biographical Sketches
• Part I. Some Theoretical Issues
• 1. The Phylogeny of Language
• Philip Lieberman
• 2. Expanding Horizons in Animal Communication Behavior
• Donald R. Griffin
• 3. Cellular Communication
• Anthony Robertson
• 4. The Evolution of Communication
• Peter Marler
• 5. Ontogony of Communication
• Gordon M. Burghardt
• 6. Modal Action Patterns
• George W. Barlow
• Part II. Some Mechanisms of Communication
• pp. 135-136
• 7. Pheromones
• Harry H. Shorey
• pp. 137-163
• 8. Bioluminescence and communication
• James E. Lloyd
• pp. 164-183
• 9. Communication by Reflected Light
• Jack P. Hailman
• pp. 184-210
• 10. Tactile Communication
• Frank A. Geldard
• pp. 211-232
• 11. Acoustic Communication
• René-Guy Busnel
• pp. 233-251
• 12. Echolocation and Its Relevance to Communication Behavior
• pp. 252-262
• 13. Electric Communication
• Carl D. Hopkins
• pp. 263-290
• Part III. Communication in Selected Groups
• pp. 291-292
• 14. Communication, Crypsis, and Mimicry Among Cephalopods
• Martin H. Moynihan and Arcadio F. Rodaniche
• pp. 293-302
• 15. Communication in Crustaceans and Arachnids
• Peter Weygoldt
• pp. 303-333
• 16. Communication in Orthoptera
• Daniel Otte
• pp. 334-361
• 17. Communication in the Lepidoptera
• Robert E. Silberglied
• pp. 362-402
• 18. Communication in Diptera
• Arthur W. Ewing
• pp. 403-417
• 19. Communication in Social Hymenoptera
• Bert Hölldobler
• pp. 418-471
• 20. Communication in Fishes
• Michael L. Fine, Howard E. Winn, and Bori L. Olla
• pp. 472-518
• 21. Communication in Amphibians and Reptiles
• A. Ross Kiester
• pp. 519-544
• 22. Communication in Birds
• W. John Smith
• pp. 545-574
• 23. Communication in Metatheria
• John F. Eisenberg and Ilan Golani
• pp. 575-599
• 24. Insectivore Communication
• Walter Poduschka
• pp. 600-633
• 25. Communication in Lagomorphs and Rodents
• John F. Eisenberg and Devra G. Kleiman
• pp. 634-654
• 26. Artiodactyla
• Fritz R. Walther
• pp. 655-714
• 27. Communication in Perissodactyla
• Hans Klingel
• pp. 715-727
• 28. Canid Communication
• Michael W. Fox and James A. Cohen
• pp. 728-748
• 29. Communication in the Felidae With Emphasis on Scent Marking and Contact Patterns
• Christen Wemmer and Kate Scow
• pp. 749-766
• 30. Communication in Terrestrial Carnivores: Mustelidae, Procyonidae, and Ursidae
• Cheryl H. Pruitt and Gordon M. Burghardt
• pp. 767-793
• 31. Cetaceans
• David K. Caldwell and Melba C. Caldwell
• pp. 794-808
• 32. Communication in Sireniens, Sea Otters, and Pinnipeds
• Howard E. Winn and Jack Schneider
• pp. 809-840
• 33. Communication in Prosimians
• Peter H. Klofer
• pp. 841-850
• 34. Communication in New World Monkeys
• John R. Oppenheimer
• pp. 851-889
• 35. Communication in Old World Monkeys
• J-P. Gautier and A. Gautier
• pp. 890-964
• 36. Signaling Behavior of Apes With Special Reference to Vocalization
• Peter Marler and Richard Tenaza
• pp. 965-1033
• 37. Man-Chimpanzee Communication
• Roger S. Fouts and Randall L. Rigby
• pp. 1034-1054
• 38. Zoosemiotic Components of Human Communication
• pp. 1055-1078
• Index of Names
• pp. 1079-1104
• Index of Animals
• pp. 1105-1128

Additional Information

Project MUSE Mission

Project MUSE promotes the creation and dissemination of essential humanities and social science resources through collaboration with libraries, publishers, and scholars worldwide. Forged from a partnership between a university press and a library, Project MUSE is a trusted part of the academic and scholarly community it serves.

2715 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

+1 (410) 516-6989 [email protected]

©2024 Project MUSE. Produced by Johns Hopkins University Press in collaboration with The Sheridan Libraries.

Now and Always, The Trusted Content Your Research Requires

Built on the Johns Hopkins University Campus

ESSAY SAUCE

FOR STUDENTS : ALL THE INGREDIENTS OF A GOOD ESSAY

Essay: Animal Communication

Essay details and download:.

• Subject area(s): Coursework
• Reading time: 7 minutes
• Price: Free download
• Published: 1 October 2019*
• File format: Text
• Words: 2,036 (approx)
• Number of pages: 9 (approx)

Text preview of this essay:

This page of the essay has 2,036 words. Download the full version above.

How do animal communication systems differ from human language? Can primates acquire language?

Animals can communicate in various ways, using both verbal and non-verbal forms of communication. However, whether animals can communicate using a form of language is something which can be debated. In order to decide whether an animal has language abilities, the actual definition of language must first be considered.

“A language is a set of arbitrary vocal symbols by means of which a social group communicates.” Bloch and Trager (1942)

This kind of definition would seem to apply to methods of communication in both humans and animals as regardless of the form the language may take, vocal symbols are used by animals in order to communicate with another member of their species, much like humans. However, there are features of human language which must be satisfied before a type of animal communication can be deemed to be similar to human language. There are five main properties of language, language is creative, highly structured , meaningful, referential and communicative. Can an animals communication system satisfy these characteristics?

Take, for example the vervet monkey. This is an animal which has what can be deemed to be a communication system which displays the characteristics of language. Struhsaker (1967) observed that the monkeys had developed several alarm calls, which can be used to signal to other monkeys that there is a particular type of predator looming. The monkeys essentially use a language code to warn other monkeys of the type of predator that may be approaching. Struhsaker categorised the different alarm calls that make up the vervet monkeys alarm call system. For instance, the ‘chutter’ sound warns of the presence of a cobra or puff adder, whereas the ‘rraup’ warns of an eagle nearby. Whether or not this kind of communication could be defined as a language depends on how it can satisfy the five known characteristics of language.

The vervet monkey conveys meaning in the use of each call to convey to other monkeys that there is a specific predator nearby. Therefore the language is meaningful. Furthermore, the language is referential in that it refers to an event or object in the world. But most importantly, the system is communicative in that it is an interpersonal form of communication directed at other animals. However, one of the most important aspects of human language is the use of structure and creativity in order to communicate in an associative way that allows an individual to understand words and sentence structures that may be new to us. The vervet monkey does not display creativity in it’s communication as there is no evidence of each call being incorporated into sentences or words being associated with one another to create similar or new meaning. Similarly, there is no grammatical structure to the vervet monkey’s communication, with each word being singular and having no evident prescriptive or descriptive rules governing the language and how it is spoken. Although there have been no concrete examples of animals using grammatical structure in language, it is believed that in line with present research, animals do not use structure-dependant operations when communicating.

As with grammatical structure in language, the ability to use communication to refer to things in the past or a situation or object which is not available at the time, is an ability which seems to be present in human language but not in animals. As communication in animals is usually only utilised in two areas, survival (i.e.food etc) and danger, it would seem logical that animals have no need for this type of communication. This design feature of language is referred to as displacement and refers to the ability to be able to convey things that have happened in the past to others e.g. “yesterday I visited a lovely restaurant”. There is no specific need for an animal to be able to communicate in this manner in terms of prolonging survival and preventing danger. However, there is a form of displacement found in bees in their ‘waggle dance’ Bees perform a ‘round dance’ or a ‘waggle dance’ to convey to other bees the location of nectar. The bee is therefore able to communicate about an object (the flower) that is not present at the time, a feature of displacement.

As in human language, forms of communication by animals can be species-specific, much like the culturally-specific forms of human language. Most notably, birdsong is a form of communication that is not only species-specific but in some species is a learned form of communication, not innate. A human infant reared on their own will not acquire language, whereas in the animal world the role of genetics and the development of communication is more pronounced with animal communication being more of an innate feature. However, the skylark’ song is entirely learned, and the song of the chaffinch is partly modified and changed through learning (Thorpe, 1961, 1963). The bird is the exception to the innate features of language evident in other animals, a bird reared on it’s own can sing but it’s song is deemed to be abnormal and a poor form of communication for other birds. Thus, in this characteristic it would seem that birds are able to learn their form of communication through experience, much like the way the human language is developed by an infant. Although, the actual difference between birdsong and human language is quite large, with human language being developed into a more complex and structured form of language

It is clear that animal communication systems do not occupy some of the important design features of language which human communication shows evidence of. But, if animals do not entirely communicate like humans in terms of design features of the human language can they be taught to acquire it? Research into the acquisition of language by animals has mainly focused on apes and has been conducted over the last fifty years or so. In teaching apes to communicate, researchers focus on using sign language as a form of language due to the fact that apes are in actual fact physiologically unable to create human sounds. Two of the more successful attempts to teach chimps sign language occurred with two apes by the name of Washoe and Sarah. Washoe was acquired by Professor and Mrs Gardner in 1966 and was taught American sign language since she was approximately one year old. This form of sign language meant that Washoe was able to sign for specific words by performing a certain action e.g. putting her finger on top of her tongue to signify ‘sweet’. Washoe was constantly surrounded by humans who communicated to her through sign language only, thus Washoe developed her skills quite naturally with no formal training. In her acquisition of language, Washoe developed language skills that have not been widely seen in animal communication systems thus far.

One of the main skills which Washoe developed was her ability to apply meaning to an object or place by using a word to represent it. Although this kind of ability was present in the vervet monkey’s alarm call system, the purpose of the action was quite different in both cases. The vervet monkey’s applied meaning to a predator and had a call to indicate it’s presence to warn others of danger. Washoe, however was able to applying meaning to an object by signing it’s name even if the object posed no threat and had no real significance. For example, Washoe was able to recognise a flower and sign the action to signify it when she saw one. This kind of language ability shows evidence of speaking freely, a characteristic of human language. Spontaneous use of language is something which humans initiate in social situations and is not a recognised characteristic of animal communication. Animals are more likely to communicate when they need to convey something to another animal e.g. that they have found something (like a bees ‘waggle dance’), that they are being threatened (the vervet monkeys alarm call) or to protect territory or find a mate (birdsong). Therefore, the ability of Washoe to spontaneously refer to an object shows that she is able to speak freely and not just when she needs to convey information to another animal/person.

Washoe could also refer to items which may differ slightly by using the same word e.g. a key will be the same as a bunch of keys. This shows Washoe was able to extend her ability to generalise and be more associative in her language, a characteristics of human language development in infants. Possibly one of the most interesting aspects of Washoe’s language ability was her ability to creatively create two to three word sentences to convey what she wanted. Washoe’s ability to create basic sentences such as ‘ more tickle’ or ‘open food drink’ (open the fridge) shows creativity that is not entirely evident in animal communication systems. Her grasp of sign language allowed her to be able to communicate with researchers, however as expected Washoe has limited grammatical structure to her language. Unlike a human infants developed ability to understand sentence structure and basic grammar, Washoe’s sentences had no apparent constant structure and instead seemed to be given in no apparent order. This could be due to Washoe signing words instead of speaking them, it could be easier to maintain a constant structure if Washoe was able to communicate vocally.

A lack of structure in language seems evident in most forms of animal communication, even if the animal is trying to communicate using human language skills with grammatical rules and structure. Sarah, a chimp at the Univeristy of California was taught more rigidly than Washoe with training schedules and lessons involving manipulating plastic tokens that represent a word. Sarah’s sign language showed evidence of meaning in her ability to recognise words and use them as well as showing that she had developed awareness of logical notions such as ‘if’ or ‘when’. Sarah was often presented with such sentences that used logical notions, for example Sarah was presented with an apple and a banana and asked to choose one, then she was told ‘if apple, then chocolate’, Sarah then was able to understand and choose the apple to get chocolate. However, whether this understanding of logical process indicates that Sarah had learned language is not clear. Sarah’s learning was more based on associations and conditioning techniques than an actual independent grasp of language. Sarah’s grasp of word order came from the fact that if she said the correct word order she got a chocolate, if she didn’t she would get anything. Therefore, if Sarah wasn’t getting a treat every time she said something right, would she say it right at all?

Washoe and Sarah are both examples of primates who have learned to have grasp on human language techniques using sign language. Both Sarah and Washoe showed evidence of meaning, reference and attempts to be communicative in their attempts at human language. However, as with animal communication systems both Washoe and Sarah were unable to apply structure and be sufficiently creative with their language abilities, a major characteristic of human language that seems to be lacking in animals. Possibly the main differnce between human and animal communication systems is the reason behind the need to communicate. Animals need to communicate more as a necessity to survive than a social need to be able to communicate with a group. Animal communication is more based on the need to warn of danger or to describe the location of food, it is more of a necessary means of survival. Human language however adopts these characteristics of needing communication for survival but adds to them to form a language system that is both needed for survival but is also a social communication device, that is used spontaneously, something an animal does not especially require in order to survive in the animal world.

Bibliography:

Fromkin, V. Rodman, R. (1998) An Introduction to Language. Sixth edition. London: Harcourt Brace.

Aitchison, J. (1998) The Articulate Mammal. Third edition. London:Routledge

Gleitman, H., Fridlund, Alan J. and Reisberg, D. (1999) Psychology. Fifth edition. London: W.W.Norton & Co.

...(download the rest of the essay above)

About this essay:

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, Animal Communication . Available from:<https://www.essaysauce.com/coursework/animal-communication/> [Accessed 09-06-24].

These Coursework have been submitted to us by students in order to help you with your studies.

* This essay may have been previously published on Essay.uk.com at an earlier date.

Essay Categories:

• Accounting essays
• Architecture essays
• Business essays
• Computer science essays
• Criminology essays
• Economics essays
• Education essays
• Engineering essays
• English language essays
• Environmental studies essays
• Essay examples
• Finance essays
• Geography essays
• Health essays
• History essays
• Hospitality and tourism essays
• Human rights essays
• Information technology essays
• International relations
• Leadership essays
• Linguistics essays
• Literature essays
• Management essays
• Marketing essays
• Mathematics essays
• Media essays
• Medicine essays
• Military essays
• Miscellaneous essays
• Music Essays
• Nursing essays
• Philosophy essays
• Photography and arts essays
• Politics essays
• Project management essays
• Psychology essays
• Religious studies and theology essays
• Sample essays
• Science essays
• Social work essays
• Sociology essays
• Sports essays
• Types of essay
• Zoology essays

• Environment
• Information Science
• Social Issues
• Argumentative
• Cause and Effect
• Classification
• Compare and Contrast
• Descriptive
• Exemplification
• Informative
• Controversial
• Exploratory
• What Is an Essay
• Length of an Essay
• Generate Ideas
• Types of Essays
• Structuring an Essay
• Outline For Essay
• Essay Introduction
• Thesis Statement
• Body of an Essay
• Writing a Conclusion
• Essay Writing Tips
• Drafting an Essay
• Revision Process
• Fix a Broken Essay
• Format of an Essay
• Essay Examples
• Essay Checklist
• Essay Writing Service
• Pay for Research Paper
• Write My Research Paper
• Write My Essay
• Custom Essay Writing Service
• Admission Essay Writing Service
• Pay for Essay
• Academic Ghostwriting
• Write My Book Report
• Case Study Writing Service
• Dissertation Writing Service
• Coursework Writing Service
• Lab Report Writing Service
• Do My Assignment
• Buy College Papers
• Capstone Project Writing Service
• Buy Research Paper
• Custom Essays for Sale

Can’t find a perfect paper?

• Free Essay Samples
• Animal Communication

Essays on Animal Communication

Animal Communication Animal communication occurs when one animal gives or receives information that affects the behavior of the other. This may occur intentionally, as in courtship displays, or unintentionally, such as the transfer of scent from predator to prey. Whatever the reason, there are many examples of animal communication in nature....

Found a perfect essay sample but want a unique one?

Request writing help from expert writer in you feed!

Animal communication Animal communication is a process by which animals transfer information, such as sounds, scents, or motion, to other animals. The recipient may then use the information to coordinate group movements or alert others to predator attacks. The transfer of information can be intentional, such as in courtship displays, or...

Related topic to Animal Communication

You might also like.

Home / Essay Samples / Science / Animal Communication / Whether Animals Have Language

Whether Animals Have Language

• Category: Science
• Topic: Animal Communication

Pages: 4 (1770 words)

• Downloads: -->

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Plate Tectonics Essays

Plant Essays

Machu Picchu Essays

Microbiology Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->