Human and Animal Communication
Animal Communication Versus Human Communication
All animals communicate in some way — from the alarm calls of meerkats to the song of birds. But how different is animal communication from the language used by humans? Psychologists and biologists have studied this question carefully, and the evidence points to some fundamental differences in both the functions and properties of communication across species.
The Limited Functions of Animal Communication
Animal communication serves a small set of essential functions. The spec identifies four: survival, reproduction, territory and food. These functions are directly linked to biological drives and immediate circumstances.
Animals signal danger to alert group members to predators (survival); display to attract mates or warn off rivals (reproduction); mark boundaries and warn intruders away (territory); and direct group members to food sources (food). These signals are highly effective within their narrow purpose, but they are tied to the present situation rather than to abstract thinking.
Animal communication is limited to four functions: survival (alerting to danger), reproduction (attracting mates), territory (marking boundaries) and food (signalling food location). These are tied to immediate biological needs rather than abstract or flexible communication.
Von Frisch’s Bee Study
Karl von Frisch conducted pioneering research into animal communication, studying how honeybees communicate the location of food sources to other members of the hive. This is one of the most remarkable examples of animal communication documented by researchers.
Aim: Von Frisch aimed to investigate how honeybees communicate the location and distance of food sources to other bees in the hive.
Method: Von Frisch observed bees returning to the hive after finding food. He watched their movement patterns inside the hive and related these ‘dances’ to the location and distance of the food source he had set up at known positions.
Results: Von Frisch found that returning bees performed two distinct dances. A round dance indicated that food was within approximately 50–100 metres of the hive. A waggle dance (a figure-of-eight pattern with a straight waggle run in the middle) indicated food at a greater distance (beyond approximately 100 metres). The angle of the waggle run corresponded to the direction of the food relative to the sun, and the duration of the waggle run corresponded to the distance to the food — a longer waggle run indicating greater distance.
Conclusion: Von Frisch concluded that bees can communicate specific information about the direction and distance of a food source using a coded system of movement. This is a sophisticated form of animal communication — but it is still limited to the function of communicating about food and is not flexible or generative like human language.
Von Frisch found bees use a round dance for nearby food and a waggle dance for distant food. The waggle dance encodes direction (angle relative to the sun) and distance (duration of the waggle run). This is sophisticated but limited to communicating about food.
Properties of Human Communication Not Present in Animals
Human language has properties that set it apart from even the most complex animal communication systems. The spec highlights the ability to plan ahead and discuss future events as a key distinguishing feature.
Animal communication is largely tied to the here and now. A bee cannot tell the hive “there will be nectar in three days when the flowers bloom.” A vervet monkey cannot warn others that a predator was there yesterday. Human language, by contrast, can discuss things that are distant in time (past and future), abstract concepts, hypothetical situations (“what if”), fiction, and ideas with no physical referent at all.
Human language is also productive: using a finite set of words and grammar rules, humans can create and understand an unlimited number of new sentences they have never encountered before. Animal communication systems typically have a fixed number of signals that cannot be recombined to create new meanings.
Human language is learnt rather than entirely innate: while humans have a biological capacity for language, the specific language spoken is acquired from the social environment. Different human communities use entirely different languages — a contrast to animal communication systems, which are largely species-specific and appear to be mainly instinctive.
A strength of Von Frisch’s research is that it used careful observation over many years, with controlled manipulation of food source positions, allowing the relationship between dance patterns and location to be mapped systematically. The findings have been replicated and have had significant impact on our understanding of animal behaviour.
A limitation is that even Von Frisch’s sophisticated example of bee communication is still limited to one function (food), one context (the hive), and one species. Trying to compare animal communication directly with human language is difficult because they are fundamentally different systems serving different purposes — it may not be a fair comparison to judge animal communication as ‘inferior’ when it perfectly serves its adaptive purpose.