Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2023
Edited by Sterre Leufkens and Marco Bril
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 40] 2023
► pp. 309–317
Essays ‘LOT Big Questions Prize’

Reimagining language

Towards a better understanding of language by including our interactions with non-humans

| Meertens Institute
| Leiden University
| University of Groningen
| Meertens Institute | Utrecht University
| Tilburg University
| Radboud University
| Radboud University | Radboud University
| Radboud University
What is language and who or what can be said to have it? In this essay we consider this question in the context of interactions with non-humans, specifically: animals and computers. While perhaps an odd pairing at first glance, here we argue that these domains can offer contrasting perspectives through which we can explore and reimagine language. The interactions between humans and animals, as well as between humans and computers, reveal both the essence and the boundaries of language: from examining the role of sequence and contingency in human-animal interaction, to unravelling the challenges of natural interactions with “smart” speakers and language models. By bringing together disparate fields around foundational questions, we push the boundaries of linguistic inquiry and uncover new insights into what language is and how it functions in diverse non-human-exclusive contexts.
Keywords: language, human-animal interaction, human-computer interaction, meaning-making, large language models
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Human-animal interaction
  • 3.Human-computer interaction
  • 4.Discussion
  • LOT Essay Prize
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 3 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00095.ras
References (63)
References
Alač, M., Y. Gluzman, T. Aflatoun, A. Bari, B. Jing & G. Mozqueda. 2020. “Talking to a Toaster: How Everyday Interactions with Digital Voice Assistants Resist a Return to the Individual”. Evental Aesthetics 91: 3–53.Google Scholar
Ameka, F. K. 1992. “Interjections: The Universal Yet Neglected Part of Speech”. Journal of Pragmatics 181: 101–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Amha, Azeb 2013. “Directives to humans and to domestic animals: The imperative and some interjections in Zargulla”. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Cushitic and Omotic languages, ed. by M.C. Simeone-Senelle and M. Vanhove, 211–229. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.
Ashktorab, Z., M. Jain, Q. V. Liao & J. D. Weisz. 2019. “Resilient Chatbots: Repair Strategy Preferences for Conversational Breakdowns”. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–12. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bangerter, A., E. Genty, R. Heesen, F. Rossano & K. Zuberbühler. 2022. “Every Product Needs a Process: Unpacking Joint Commitment as a Process across Species”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 3771: 20210095. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind; Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bender, E. M. & A. Koller. 2020. “Climbing towards NLU: On Meaning, Form, and Understanding in the Age of Data”. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 5185–5198. Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Birhane, A. & J. van Dijk. 2020. “Robot rights? Let’s talk about human welfare instead”. In AIES’20: Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 207–213. Association for Computing Machinery. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brandt, K. 2004. “A language of their own: An interactionist approach to human-horse communication”. Society & Animals 121: 299–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burkart, J. M., J. E. C. Adriaense, R. K. Brügger, F. M. Miss, K. Wierucka & C. P. van Schaik. 2022. “A convergent interaction engine: Vocal communication among marmoset monkeys”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 3771: 20210098. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bynon, J. 1976. “Domestic animal calling in a Berber tribe”. In Language and Man: Anthropological Issues, ed. by W. McCormack and S. A. Wurm, 39–65. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. A. 2016. “From mute objects to militant subjects: The politics of rebellious animals”. In Subjectivation in Political Theory and Contemporary Practices, ed. by A. Oberprantacher and A. Siclodi, 237–63. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Contreras Kallens, P., R. D. Kristensen-McLachlan & M. H. Christiansen. 2023. “Large language models demonstrate the potential of statistical learning in language”. Cognitive Science 471: e13256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornips, Leonie. 2019. “The final frontier: Non-human animals on the linguistic research agenda”. Linguistics in the Netherlands 361: 13–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022. “The animal turn in postcolonial (socio)linguistics: The interspecies greeting of the dairy cow”. Journal of Postcolonial Linguistics 61: 210–32.Google Scholar
Fröhlich, M., P. Kuchenbuch, G. Müller, B. Fruth, T. Furuichi, R. M. Wittig & S. Pika. 2016. “Unpeeling the layers of language: Bonobos and chimpanzees engage in cooperative turn-taking sequences”. Scientific Reports 61: 25887. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fröhlich, M. & C. P. van Schaik. 2022. “Social tolerance and interactional opportunities as drivers of gestural redoings in orang-utans”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 3771: 20210106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. J. 1977. “The Theory of Affordances”. In Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology, ed. by R. Shaw and J. Bransford, 67–82. Hilldale, USA: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, J. 2012. The Interactive Stance: Meaning for Conversation. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, J. & M. Poesio. 2016. “Grammar is a system that characterizes talk in interaction”. Frontiers in Psychology 71: 1938. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goode, D. 2007. Playing with My Dog Katie: An Ethnomethodological Study of Dog-Human Interaction. West Lafayette, Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. 1981. Conversational Organization. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
2000. “Action and embodiment within situated human interaction”. Journal of Pragmatics 321: 1489–1522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harjunpää, K. 2022. “Repetition and prosodic matching in responding to pets’ vocalizations”. Langage et société 1761: 69–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heesen, R., M. Fröhlich, C. Sievers, M. Woensdregt & M. Dingemanse. 2022. “Coordinating social action: A primer for the cross-species investigation of communicative repair”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 3771: 20210110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1987. Refurbishing our foundations: Elementary linguistics from an advanced point of view. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, L. 2018. “What does embodied interaction tell us about grammar?” Research on Language and Social Interaction 511: 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krebs, John R. & R. Dawkins. 1984. “Animal signals: Mind-reading and manipulation”. In Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, ed. by J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies, 380–402. Blackwell Scientific.Google Scholar
Laurier, E., R. Maze & J. Lundin. 2006. “Putting the dog back in the park: Animal and human mind-in-action”. Mind, Culture, and Activity 131: 2–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lipp, B. 2022. “Caring for robots: How care comes to matter in human-machine interfacing”. Social Studies of Science, Advance online publication. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Litman, D., J. Hirschberg & M. Swerts. 2006. “Characterizing and predicting corrections in spoken dialogue systems”. Computational Linguistics 321: 417–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacMartin, C., J. B. Coe & C. L. Adams. 2014. “Treating distressed animals as participants: I know responses in veterinarians’ pet-directed talk”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 471: 151–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malinowski, B. 1922. Argonauts Of The Western Pacific. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Massey, G. J. & D. A. Boyle. 1999. “Descartes’s tests for (animal) mind”. Philosophical Topics 271: 87–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mavrina, L., J. Szczuka, C. Strathmann, L. M. Bohnenkamp, N. Krämer & S. Kopp. 2022. “‘Alexa, you’re really stupid’: A longitudinal field study on communication breakdowns between family members and a voice assistant”. Frontiers in Computer Science 41: 791704. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McIlvenny, P. B. 1993. “Constructing societies and social machines: Stepping out of the turing test discourse”. Journal of Intelligent Systems 31: 119–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meijer, E. 2019. When Animals Speak: Toward an Interspecies Democracy. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Miltenburg, E. van, M. Clinciu, O. Dušek, D. Gkatzia, S. Inglis, L. Leppänen, S. Mahamood, S. Schoch, C. Thomson & L. Wen. 2023. “Barriers and enabling factors for error analysis in NLG Research”. Northern European Journal of Language Technology 91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. 2011. “Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction”. Journal of Pragmatics 431: 542–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. & A. Meguerditchian. 2022. “Sequence organization and embodied mutual orientations: Openings of social interactions between baboons”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 3771: 20210101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondémé, C. 2020. “Touching and petting: Exploring ‘Haptic Sociality’ in interspecies interaction”. In Touch in Social Interaction, ed. by A. Cekaite and L. Mondada, 171–96. Berlin: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022. “Why study turn-taking sequences in interspecies interactions?” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 521: 67–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moore, R. K., Marxer, R. & S. Thill. 2016. “Vocal Interactivity in-and-between Humans, Animals, and Robots”. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 3: 61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicastro, N. 2004. “Perceptual and acoustic evidence for species-level differences in meow vocalizations by domestic cats (Felis Catus) and African wild cats (Felis Silvestris Lybica)”. Journal of Comparative Psychology 1181: 287–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pika, S., R. Wilkinson, K. H. Kendrick & S. C. Vernes. 2018. “Taking turns: Bridging the gap between human and animal Communication”. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2851: 20180598. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Porcheron, M., J. E. Fischer, S. Reeves & S. Sharples. 2018. “Voice interfaces in everyday life”. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–12. Montreal QC Canada: ACM. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rasenberg, M., A. Özyürek & M. Dingemanse. 2020. “Alignment in multimodal interaction: An integrative framework”. Cognitive Science 441: e12911. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossano, F. 2013. “Sequence organization and timing of bonobo mother-infant interactions”. Interaction Studies 141: 160–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, P., C. Coye, S. Steinert-Threlkeld, N. Klinedinst & E. Chemla. 2022. “Beyond anthropocentrism in comparative cognition: Recentering animal linguistics”. Cognitive Science 461: e13220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sejnowski, T. J. 2023. “Large Language Models and the reverse Turing Test”. Neural Computation 351: 309–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J. & N. J. Enfield. 2012. “Language diversity and social action”. Current Anthropology 531: 302–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. 2012. “Language and the Ffontiers of the human: Aymara animal-oriented interjections and the mediation of mind”. American Ethnologist 391: 313–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. & J. Sidnell. 2005. “Introduction: Multimodal Interaction”. Semiotica 156: 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suchman, L. A. 2007. Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. 2nd ed. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2019. “Demystifying the intelligent machine”. In Cyborg Futures: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, ed. by T. Heffernan, 35–61. Cham: Springer International Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swerts, M. & M. Ostendorf. 1997. “Prosodic and lexical indications of discourse structure in human-machine interactions”. Speech Communication 221: 25–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tuncer, S., C. Licoppe, P. Luff & C. Heath. 2023. “Recipient design in human–robot interaction: The emergent assessment of a robot’s competence”. AI & SOCIETY. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turing, A. M. 1950. “Computing machinery and intelligence”. In Parsing the Turing Test, ed. by R. Epstein, G. Roberts and G. Beber, 23–65. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voinea, C. 2018. “Designing for conviviality”. Technology in Society, 521: 70–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Von Uexküll, J. 1921. Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logo
1992. “A stroll through the worlds of animals and men: A picture book of invisible worlds”. Semiotica 891: 319–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weizenbaum, J. 1976. Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Yeon, S. C., Y. K. Kim, S. J. Park, S. S. Lee, S. Y. Lee, E. H. Suh, K. A. Houpt, H. H. Chang, H. C. Lee, B. G. Yang & H. J. Lee. 2011. “Differences between vocalization evoked by social stimuli in feral cats and house cats”. Behavioural Processes 871: 183–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Leufkens, Sterre & Marco Bril
2023. Foreword. Linguistics in the Netherlands 40 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. 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.