Cover not available
Article published In:
Interaction Studies
Vol. 24:3 (2023) ► pp.484–514
Research report

Dog talk

Dogs and humans barking and growling during interspecies play

 | Eastern Kentucky University
Canid and human barks and growls were examined in videotapes of 24 humans (Homo sapiens) and 24 dogs (Canis familiaris) playing with familiar and unfamiliar cross-species play partners. Barks and growls were exhibited by 9 humans and 9 dogs. Dogs barked and (less often) growled most frequently when being frustrated by humans and/or engaged in competitive games, and less often when being chased or inviting chase, and being instigated or captured. Dogs never growled when playing with an unfamiliar human, and humans did so rarely when playing with an unfamiliar dog. Humans growled and (less often) barked most frequently when chasing and capturing the dog, less often when engaging in competitive games, being frustrated by the dog, and/or instigating the dog, and rarely when showing or throwing an object. Dog barks were most often requests for the human to make an object available to the dog. Dog growls were often pretend threats when competing for an object or being frustrated by the human’s actions. Human barks and growls were typically pretend threats, and were sometimes used to emphasize simultaneous behaviors. Human barks and growls allow humans to connect with their canid partner.
Keywords: dog-human interaction, dog-human play, interspecies communication
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Methods
    • Participants and subjects, and creation of materials
    • Coding
    • Data analysis
  • Results
    • Time spent playing and barking or growling
    • Who barked, who growled?
    • Did humans and dogs imitate each other’s barks and growls?
    • Additional imitative and other vocalizations
    • What was happening when dogs and humans barked and growled?
      • Dogs
      • Humans
    • Barks and growls in different contexts
      • Dogs
      • Humans
      • Comparison of contexts
  • Discussion
  • Acknowledgments
  • References
Published online: 15 February 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.00020.mit
References (56)
References
Bálint, A., Faragó, T., Dóka, A., Miklósi, A., & Pongrácz, P. (2013). ‘Beware, I am big and non-dangerous!’ Playfully growling dogs are perceived larger than their actual size by their canine audience. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 148 1, 128–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faragó, T., Andics, A., Devecseri, V., Kis, A., Gácsi, M., & Miklósi, A. (2014). Humans rely on the same rules to assess emotional valence and intensity in conspecific and dog vocalizations. Biology Letters, 10 (20130926), 1–5. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faragó, T., Pongrácz, P., Miklósi, A., Huber, L., Virányi, Z., & Range, F. (2010). Dogs’ expectations about signalers’ body size by virtue of their growls. PLoS One, 5 (12), e15175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faragó, T., Pongrácz, P., Range, F., Virányi, Z., & Miklósi, A. (2010). ‘The bone is mine’: Affective and referential aspects of dog growls. Animal Behaviour, 79 1, 917–925. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faragó, T., Takács, N., Miklósi, A., & Pongrácz, P. (2017). Dog growls express various contextual and affective content for human listeners. Royal Society Open Science, 4 (170134), 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faragó, T., Townsend, S. & Range, F. (2014). The information content of wolf (and dog) social communication. In G. Witzany (Ed.), Biocommunication in animals (pp. 41–62). Springer. [URL]. DOI logo
Feddersen-Petersen, D. U. (2000). Vocalization of European wolves (Canis lupus lupus L.) and various dog breeds (Canis lupus f. fam.), Archiv Tierzucht/Archives Animal Breeding, 43 (4), 387–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fugazza, C., Dror, S., Sommese, A., Temesi, A., & Miklósi, Á. (2021). Word learning dogs (Canis familiaris) provide an animal model for studying exceptional performance. Scientific Reports, 11 (14070). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gácsi, M., Vas, J., Topál, J., & Miklósi, A. (2013). Wolves do not join the dance: Sophisticated aggression control by adjusting to human social signals in dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 145(3–4), 109–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. M., Scavelli, S. A., Udell, C. J., & Udell, M. A. R. (2014). Domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are sensitive to the “human” qualities of vocal commands. Animal Behavior and Cognition, 1 (3), 281–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Griebel, U., & Oller, D. K. (2012). Vocabulary learning in a Yorkshire Terrier: Slow mapping of spoken words. PLoS One 7 (2), e30182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Győri, B., Gácsi, M., & Miklósi, Á. (2010). Friend or foe: Context dependent sensitivity to human behaviour in dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 128 1, 69–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hantke, S., Cummins, N., & Schuller, B. (2018). What is my dog trying to tell me? The automatic recognition of the context and perceived emotion of dog barks. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing Proceedings (pp. 5134–5138). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harjunpää, K. (2022). Repetition and prosodic matching in responding to pets’ vocalizations. Langage et Société, 176 (2), 69–102. [URL]. DOI logo
Herron, M. E., Shofer, F. S., & Reisner, I. R. (2009). Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 117 1, 47–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heschl, A. (2021). A dog with a sense of humor. Academia Letters, Article 2074. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, A., & Hecht, J. (2016). Examining dog-human play: The characteristics, affect, and vocalizations of a unique interspecific interaction. Animal Cognition, 19 (4), 779–788. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huber, A., Barber, A. L. A., Faragó, T., Müller, C. A., & Huber, L. (2017). Investigating emotional contagion in dogs (Canis familiaris) to emotional sounds of humans and conspecifics. Animal Cognition, 20 1, 703–715. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakovcevic, A., Elgier, A., Mustaca, A., & Bentosela, M. (2013). Frustration behaviors in domestic dogs. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 16 1, 19–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jeannin, S., Gilbert, C., & Leboucher, G. (2017). Effect of interaction type on the characteristics of pet-directed speech in female dog owners. Animal Cognition, 20 1, 499–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jégh-Czinege, N., Faragó, T., & Pongrácz, P. (2020). A bark of its own kind – The acoustics of ‘annoying’ dog barks suggests a specific attention-evoking effect for humans. Bioacoustics, 29 (2), 210–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jerolmack, C. (2009). Humans, animals, and play: Theorizing interaction when intersubjectivity is problematic. Sociological Theory, 27 (4), 371–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maros, K., Pongrácz, P., Bárdos, G., Molnár, C., Faragó, T., & Miklósi, A. (2008). Dogs can discriminate barks from different situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 114 (1–2), 159–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McConnell, P. B., & Baylis, J. R. (1985). Interspecific communication in cooperative herding: Acoustic and visual signals from human shepherds and herding dogs. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 67 1, 302–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McPeake, K. J. (2020). Characterisation and management of frustration in the dog (Canis familiaris). [Doctoral thesis, University of Lincoln]. [URL]
Mitchell, R. W. (2001). Americans’ talk to dogs during play: Similarities and differences with talk to infants. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34 1, 182–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.). (2002). Pretending and imagination in animals and children. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Creativity in the interaction: The case of dog-human play. In A. B. Kaufman & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Animal creativity and innovation (pp. 31–42). Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). A critique and empirical assessment of Alexandra Horowitz and Julie Hecht’s “Examining dog-human play: The characteristics, affect, and vocalizations of a unique interspecific interaction.” Animal Cognition, 20 1, 554–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). You talkin’ to me? An assessment of commands as play signals during dog-human play. Animal Cognition, 24 1, 329–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R. W., & Edmonson, E. (1999). Functions of repetitive talk to dogs during play. Society and Animals, 7 1, 55–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R. W., Reed, E., & Alexander, L. (2018). Functions of pointing by humans, and dogs’ responses, during dog-human play between familiar and unfamiliar players. Animal Behavior and Cognition, 5 (2), 181–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R. W., & Sinkhorn, K. (2014). Why do humans laugh during dog-human play interactions? Anthrozoös, 27 1, 235–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R. W., & Thompson, N. S. (1990). The effects of familiarity on dog-human play. Anthrozoös, 4 1, 24–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991). Projects, routines, and enticements in dog-human play. In P. P. G. Bateson & P. H. Klopfer (Eds.), Perspectives in ethology (Vol. 91, pp. 189–216). Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Molnár, C., Kaplan, F., Roy, P., Pachet, F., Pongrácz, P., Dóka, A., & Miklósi, A. (2008). Classification of dog barks: A machine learning approach. Animal Cognition, 11 (3), 389–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Molnár, C., Pongrácz, P., Faragó, T., Dóka, A., & Miklósi, A. (2009). Dogs discriminate between barks: The effect of context and identity of the caller. Behavioural Processes, 82 (2), 198–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Molnár, C., Pongrácz, P., & Miklósi, A. (2010). Seeing with ears: Sightless humans’ perception of dog bark provides a test for structural rules in vocal communication. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63 (5), 1004–1013. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondémé, C. (2018). Comment parle-t-on aux animaux? Formes et effets pragmatiques de l’adresse des animaux de compagnie [How do we talk with animals? Modes and pragmatic effects of communication with pets]. Langage et Société, 163 (1), 77–99. English translation: [URL]
Paladini, A. (2020). Barking and its meaning in inter and intra-specific language. Dog Behavior, 1 1, 21–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pilley, J. W., & Reid, A. K. (2011). Border collie comprehends object-names as verbal referents. Behavioral Processes, 86 1, 184–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pongrácz, P., Molnár, C., Dóka, A., & Miklósi, A. (2006). Do children understand man’s best friend? Classification of dog barks by pre-adolescents and adults. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 135 1, 95–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pongrácz, P., Molnár, C., & Miklósi, A. (2006). Acoustic parameters of dog barks carry emotional information for humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 100 1, 228–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pongrácz, P., Molnár, C., Miklósi, A., & Csányi, V. (2005). Human listeners are able to classify dog (Canis familiaris) barks recorded in different situations. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 119 1, 136–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pongrácz, P., Szabó, E., Anna, K., András, P., & & Miklósi, A. (2014). More than noise? Field investigations of intraspecific acoustic communication in dogs (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 159 1, 162–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramos, D., & Mills, D. S. (2019). Limitations in the learning of verbal content by dogs during the training of OBJECT and ACTION commands. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 31 1, 92–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reed, B. S. (2020). Reconceptualizing mirroring: Sound imitation and rapport in naturally occurring interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 167 1, 131–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reeve, C., & Jacques, S. (2022). Responses to spoken words by domestic dogs: A new instrument for use with dog owners. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rooney, N. J., Bradshaw, J. W. S., & Robinson, I. H. (2001). Do dogs respond to play signals given by humans? Animal Behaviour, 61 1, 715–722. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, C., & Arluke, A. (1993). If lions could speak: Investigating the animal-human relationship and the perspectives of nonhuman others. Sociological Quarterly, 34 (3), 377–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silva, K., Faragó, T., Pongrácz, P., Romeiro, P., Lima, M., & de Sousa, L. (2021). Humans’ ability to assess emotion in dog barks only slightly affected by their country of residence: A replication of Pongrácz et al. (2005) in a Portuguese sample. Animal Behavior & Cognition, 8 (2), 107–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, A. M., Reby, D., & McComb, K. (2009). Context-related variation in the vocal growling behaviour of the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Ethology, 115 1, 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Size communication in domestic dog, Canis familiaris, growls. Animal Behaviour, 79 1, 205–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yin, S. (2002). A new perspective on barking in dogs (Canis familiaris). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 116 (2), 189–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yin, S., & McCowan, B. (2004). Barking in domestic dogs: Context specificity and individual identification. Animal Behaviour, 68 1, 343–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Szczepek Reed, Beatrice
2025. Horse-directed vocalizations: Clicks, trills, and /ho:/. Language & Communication 100 ► pp. 25 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.