processes—between parrots and humans. Burger describes how Tiko waves goodbye by using his foot in the same way that humans use their hands or pretends to put on his coat when she leaves. Parrots may also nod or shake their heads at the right moment in a conversation. Mimicry in parrots can have different functions. It can be a form of self-defence, or may be used in hunting. When it is used in a close relationship with another parrot or a human, it might have the same function as between humans: to express the connection that is felt or to deepen the relationship.9 Because humans and other animals learn to understand the actions and intentions of others through mimicry, because it is the starting point of empathy, and because it is how we learn, and learn to use language, mimicry involves more than just imitating others. It can lead to and express mutual attunement (see Kamphof 2017 for an example of this in chicken-human relations). Parrots who repeat words should not therefore be seen as mindless imitators of humans, but rather as individuals who respond to their surroundings, which is a starting point for dialogue.
Alarm Calls: From Communication to Language
Another set of non-human animal language games long thought to concern simple mechanistic reactions is alarm calls. In alarm calls, the relation between meaning and use is clear and tight, but they often contain more information than a simple calling out of danger. Prairie dogs, a species of ground squirrel, live in tunnels under the ground and do not leave their “village,” which makes it easy for predators to find and attack them; all they have to do is wait near the entrance of a tunnel and sooner or later a prairie dog will show up to forage. The prairie dogs have therefore developed a complex warning system (Slobodchikoff et al. 2009; Slobodchikoff 2012), using different sounds to describe different predators.10 In their calls, they identify whether the predator is coming from the sky or land; this is important because it requires a different type of response. They do not, however, stop there, describing the intruder in detail. When a human approaches, they describe their species, height, color, and the things they might be carrying (such as umbrellas or guns). When dogs approach, they mention their form and color, and may add the speed at which the dog is approaching. Their calls change meaning when the order of elements in a sentence changes, which can be compared to grammar in human sentences. They use verbs, nouns, and adverbs, which they can combine to make new expressions for unknown predators. In addition to alarm calls, they have a form of social chatter that we do not yet know much about, and some species do the jump-yip—a kind of wave that involves throwing their hands up in the air and jumping backward while yelling “yip,” which is thought to probably be an expression of joy and enthusiasm; they do this when predators such as snakes leave their territory.
Alarm calls are one of the most studied groups of animal vocalizations. There is much variation between species, both in the types of expressions and in the complexity of the calls. Chickadees use the “chickadee” sound to describe predators, and multiply the “dee” as the danger increases. Chickens use different alarm calls for different intruders, describing whether they come from the sky or the ground (Manser 2001). Vervet monkeys also use different alarm calls for different predators. Research has shown they do not react blindly to the alarm calls of others. When a caller proves to be unreliable—for example, because the caller in question is in fact a recording played back by researchers who want to test responses to different predators—the vervet monkeys stop responding. This demonstrates that they can judge the meaning of the call (Seyfarth et al. 1980). Many species also understand and imitate the alarm calls of other species. Campbell’s monkey alarm calls have syntax; the elements hang together as words in a sentence (Zuberbühler 2001). Diana guenon alarm calls do not have this, but they do understand the meaning of the Campbell’s monkeys’ calls (ibid.). Campbell’s monkeys also use different sounds resembling words in different areas of the world (ibid.). I have already discussed the ability of parrots to imitate others, for example, to scare them away and steal their food. Fork-tailed drongos also use mimicry and can imitate the alarm calls of fifty other species. They use this skill to warn other animals and to steal their food (Flower 2011).
Alarm calls are often accompanied by, or consist solely of, visual signals, such as facial expressions, body movements, and gestures. Smell also plays an important role in the alarm calls of many species. As well as sounds, snails use smells in their slime when they are in danger (Breure 2015). African bees use scents to alarm others and to summon the whole swarm for an attack (Slobodchikoff 2012). They can and sometimes do kill humans in this way when they feel threatened. Research into the role of pheromones and smell in animal communication is still in its early stages, but we do know that some smells used as alarm calls consist of different elements, and that the combination of smells, as well as the ratio, provides meaning. Californian thrips insects, for example, use different alarm pheromones for different threats (De Bruijn 2015). Thrips larvae produce a pheromone that consists of two ingredients: decyl acetate and dodecyl acetate. When the danger intensifies, the quantity and ratio of pheromones produced changes. Larvae who receive the signal change their behavior accordingly, so meaning is transferred adequately.
Alarm calls were long thought to be simple instinctive responses to danger, a pre-scripted form of communication, wired into the genetic makeup of an animal. This refers back to a view of non-human animals who act solely on instinct (see chapter 1 and the previous section) and who are not capable of responding intelligently. As ethological research in which other animals are studied in their own habitats progresses, along with technological developments,11 it has been found that in many species, like the prairie dogs, alarm calls are actually very complex. They should be seen as expressions of an individual animal’s intelligence rather than as simple mechanistic reactions: as language, rather than as communication. A single call from a prairie dog shares a large amount of information with others in a much more precise and efficient way than a human scream or word. The language of the prairie dog seems to have a similar structure to human language, including grammar (Slobodchikoff et al. 2009); it might also have functions we cannot yet understand because we do not recognize or perceive them. We cannot hear the complexities in their calls—to us they all sound more or less the same—so it is logical that humans formerly perceived their language as simple calls. We are only now beginning to find out what they are saying thanks to the use of technology. This example shows us that there is more to animal calls than we think, and that it is important to move beyond a view of animals as acting solely on instinct and only using signals with a fixed meaning when we study alarm calls and animal languages more generally.
Viewing alarm calls as a set of language games in which non-human animals create meaning in ways that are sometimes similar to humans, and sometimes very different, provides us with a new way of studying their languages. This begins with recognizing them as subjects, rather than as objects who simply follow their instincts (see also chapter 3). Studying their languages is closely interconnected with studying their social relations, and in order to map and interpret these language games, we also need to study the practices and relations in which they gain meaning. Understanding the context helps us to understand the meaning of signals while getting a better grasp on the structures of non-human animal languages; for example, the grammar in prairie dog alarm calls can help us to better interpret their behavior: both are needed to gain an insight into their languages.
Grammar
The structures, or grammars, of most animal languages have not been studied in detail. This relates back to the fact that while animal languages are studied in biology and ethology, in most of these studies human language is taken as the blueprint for what language—as opposed to communication—is (Slobodchikoff 2012), which precludes many non-human animal expressions. The fact that other animals do not use human language cannot, however, lead us to conclude that they do not have language. If we do not understand their expressions, we cannot conclude that they are not complex or meaningful—different does not automatically equal less. Even if we cannot use human language as a blueprint for what language is, concepts used in studying human language can function as tools for understanding the languages
