Globalpaw.com Dog Forum » General Dog Discussion » Dog Debate Forum

[flyndog]

Originally Posted by qingcong

...In the same way a dog learns what to do when someone says "sit" or "come", the name can represent a cue to do something. It seems we agree on what they understand, the only difference is that you consider it knowing their name while I don't. By the same token, I would argue that dogs don't really know what "sit" means either. They do it because of the prior reinforcement history, not because they understanding the meaning of the word (this is from The Culture Clash)....

How is that different from they way a toddler learns his name or "sit down" "come here"?

[Carrie]

I had a GSD that would learn peoples' names in a room in just a couple of repititions. We use to show off when we had people over for dinner or something. We'd show him a couple of times and then say, "Go see so and so." And he knew who we meant. I think it is important to remain open minded and humble about what we think we know because it is true...so often new discoveries are made. The example in this article (following) about how it wasn't that long ago that people discovered chimpanzees made and used tools. So do birds. That was something that, in the past, only humans were thought capable of.

Animal Minds - National Geographic Magazine

[Dogsareme]

Originally Posted by flyndog

How is that different from they way a toddler learns his name or "sit down" "come here"?

Actually it is very different. Human infants are biologically programed to understand and learn language. At two months they are cooing and conversing with their caregivers as a means of what they are currently understanding about language. By 8 months they are already taking the words we say and breaking them down into phrases.

Dogs only learn 'human' language as a means to survive. They are not biologically programed to learn human language just as we are not biologically programed to learn their body language and signals - we learn a dogs body language through living with the dog just as the dog learns words through living with us.

[flyndog]

I'm no child development expert! I know that humans are unique in the ability to speak and understand complex language due to specific brain structure and genes. But that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about associative learning - the example given by Quigcong of how a dog learns "sit". Don't children don't learn words by association?

[Carrie]

Yes, dogs and children learn words by association. I don't think we're all talking about the same thing. Or else....we are talking about the same thing. I think all words are learned through association, regardless of who's learning them. But when you take it a step further....after making the association, what is different about humans and dogs....once the human child grows older? Don't human children take these words they've learned by association and develop them into a deeper, more sophisticated meaning perhaps? A ball is a ball. I think basic objects are probably pretty much looked at the same way by human children and dogs. But what about a name? Does the dog know that when you say his name, it is referring to him exactly? Or does it mean that he has learned that when he hears his name, it pays off to pay attention. (or it doesn't pay off to not pay attention) Does he really know that this is a label describing who he is? Is he aware that it has something to do with him personally? Do children know...and at what age do they realize their name refers to themselves? There are ongoing studies trying to figure out for sure if dogs are aware of themselves. They don't think so because they don't recognize themselves in a mirror, a pre-requisit to self awareness. (so far as science has determined) But....I wonder...how can they not have a sense or an awareness of self and avoid danger or get food. If they're not aware of themself, would they not perish? Now, maybe they don't have a long, in depth thought process about themselves, thinking in language like we do. Or maybe they have some degree of similarity. I think the jury is still out. And it is fascinating to think about what they might know. They may be more sophisticated than they're letting on, for all we know.

[qingcong]

Originally Posted by Carrie

I had a GSD that would learn peoples' names in a room in just a couple of repititions. We use to show off when we had people over for dinner or something. We'd show him a couple of times and then say, "Go see so and so." And he knew who we meant. I think it is important to remain open minded and humble about what we think we know because it is true...so often new discoveries are made. The example in this article (following) about how it wasn't that long ago that people discovered chimpanzees made and used tools. So do birds. That was something that, in the past, only humans were thought capable of.

Animal Minds - National Geographic Magazine

This is the sort of example everybody gives to suggest that dogs have a concept of names and nouns, but it doesn't prove that.

If instead of "Go see Peter!" we said "Gooble Jubi!" and the dog did the correct action, how would we explain that? Does the dog think that the human's name is Gooble, Jubi, or Gooble Jubi?

No, the more likely scenario is that the dog took a cue from the human (the human points at Peter), and the dog is rewarded for going to Peter and thus repeats the behavior in the future when it hears the command. Just as "Gooble Jubi" makes no sense to you, "Go see Peter" has no meaning to the dog. The dog simply learns what to do when it hears those words.

It is ridiculous to think that dogs actually understand subject/verb. Even humans can't understand a foreign language within our own species, how on earth would a dog remotely understand language? If someone repeated a phrase to you in Arabic and gave you $10 for doing the right thing, you'd repeat what you did to get the $10. You wouldn't have any idea what any of the words meant, nor would you care, you'd do it because it gets you good things.

How do dogs seem to understand what we are saying? Dogs actually understand physical cues from humans better than our closest relatives, the chimps. So what we mistakenly think is them understanding what we say, may simply be a case of them understanding our body language.

[Carrie]

Well duh! Of course! We could call Peter "Smoof" and we could change the words, "go see" to " "cha zong" and use those instead of the English words and associate them with the same thing we associate "Go see Peter" with and the dog would still learn to go to Peter. We could say it German, Spanish, Icelandic or some made up language. The sounds, whatever we use become associated with the object (person, ball, stick, food, walk, anything that becomes familiar to the dog) and the dog learns what those sounds/words represent. We do the same thing with a toddler who's just beginning to learn language. My kids grew up learning English and Czech. They learned to associate various objects with various sounds. They didn't start out automatically knowing what the words meant. They had to be paired with something. If we said to a baby who hadn't had time to learn any words or make associations between words and objects, "go see Peter," the baby wouldn't know what to do either. (even if he were physically able to go over to see Peter.)

No, dogs may not understand what a verb is or how to diagram sentences. But they might a little bit. Not the same way we do, but possibly in some rudimentary way. I can say, "bone" to Toker and she does nothing...just stands there. (I actually did this just today) But then I say, "Go find your bone." She looked perky, wagged her tail and ran from the living room, down the hall, turned left into the den and came back with her Nyla bone. I think she may be picking out the word, "find" and "bone" as something different in meaning than just "bone." Sure, it's reinforcing. But she's learned to make an association between my words and going to find the bone. No, she wouldn't automatically know what those words mean if she never heard them before or never was reinforced for making the connection. Of course not. Neither would a human toddler. None of us would be able to use language, whether verbal or body language if we couldn't make associations. Yes, yes, yes....we all see that dogs learn visually better than verbally. But that isn't the point. It is apparent (by science too) that dogs understand rudimentary concepts of language, fast mapping, making associations and finding representations of objects in language.

I know what you mean about rewarding behavior and that is what causes it to be repeated. That's basic. Reinforcement or consequences drives behavior in all animals, including humans. The dog goes and gets his bone when told, "go find your bone." Either the bone is rewarding or the fuss the human makes over the dog for going to get the bone is reinforcing. But how is that different than a toddler learning a new word? There is some kind of reinforcement there too, for the toddler when he makes a match between a word and the object....and gets it right. Either self satisfaction for making the connection or a fuss made over him for getting it right. I remember making big smiles and exclamations when my wee ones would learn a new word. I remember once, one of my toddlers said a swear word. The adults in the room, tried covering their mouths and not snickering. Didn't work. The little one laughed and repeated it over and over. LOL. There's reinforcement for ya at work... and the child repeating a bad word.

The complexity that goes on in a dog's mind about words vs. what goes on in a humans mind, is no doubt not as great. Nobody is saying that we're sure they understand the complexity of how verbs, adjectives and all language in general all fits together. A high level of reinforcement(that we provide or recognize) is not always necessary with all dogs. I've seen dogs learn all kinds of words and behaviors without rewarding them myself. Something is reinforcing about it, most likely. But that's the same with babies learning new words.

If someone repeated a phrase to you in Arabic and gave you $10 for doing the right thing, you'd repeat what you did to get the $10. You wouldn't have any idea what any of the words meant, nor would you care, you'd do it because it gets you good things.

You would come to learn though, what the Arabic words meant by this repitition, by hearing it over and over in connection with doing the right thing. You may not need $10.00. The virtue or pleasure of learning what the words meant might be enough reinforcement for you. Perhaps you've never learned a foreign language. I speak a wee bit of German and Czech, albeit not fluently. I was married to a Czech for 21 years. What you describe is how one learns what things mean and what new words are. I didn't get any $10.00 for it though. I would hear a word or a group of words. (sounds, to me really...not words yet) I'd hear them more than once and they'd be associated with something and soon they'd come to mean something. (this was reinforcing to me...to make the association) This was with simpler, concrete nouns and things. Then I moved up to a little more and a little more, trying to get the whole, entire grammar thing worked out. Of course, we don't see dogs doing that. Nobody has said they do.

Science is a good thing. It's the best we have when wondering about things. It's more positive when there is some kind of proof. It sure beats pure speculation as far as definite answers. But this is something that I don't think there is concrete proof for one way or the other. And I don't think people are ridiculous to ponder what dogs might or might not understand.

[flyndog]

We’re talking about different things. I thought we were debating the topic “do dogs know their names”. From there, the discussion morphed into do dogs understand names of objects, do they have self-awareness, to language acquisition and language structure.

My position is that dogs do understand words they have learned, or been taught (trained), to associate with objects . Studies with birds and omnivores suggest they do have a what’s called episodic (what/where/when) memory, a higher process thought to be uniquely human. From an ethological and evolutionary perspective, the ability to remember what/where/when is important for finding food. Animals that have the ability to integrate that information would have an advantage. Many birds and omnivore species seem to have that ability and it is hotly debated on many science lists. No research has been done with carnivore species. And that is why Kaminiski’s work with Rico and Betty is so interesting. Rico’s ability to integrate what and were is comparable to language-trained chimps and children in the same situations and is the first evidence that suggests dogs can integrate information about the identity and placement of objects.

[Doggie Joy]

Boy did this thread take off. Dogsareme, I agree that dogs learn their names even if you change them. I've changed the name of 3 of my dogs who I acquired from the pound or others. One was a puppy, one was just over a year old, and one was just shy of being 2 years old. She was the classic. She was pedigree and they called her Poochie. Poochie? I don't think so. We sat down and discussed it and came up with a much better name. She answered to it instantly. The puppy also responded very quickly. She had it down within a couple of days. It took the 1 year old a little longer, but she got it.

[qingcong]

Originally Posted by flyndog

We’re talking about different things. I thought we were debating the topic “do dogs know their names”. From there, the discussion morphed into do dogs understand names of objects, do they have self-awareness, to language acquisition and language structure.

Those are the prerequisites to "knowing" your name in the way humans understand names. As Carrie puts it, do they know that their name refers to themselves? That is the big question.

Sure, we won't ever know what dogs are thinking, but I think that we can use deductive reasoning to figure what they do know. In order for dogs to understand their names in the way we do, there are some concepts that their brains need to be capable of (this list is based on nothing more than my reasoning) -

1) Do they have a sense of self identity?
2) Do they understand that objects have names?
3) Do they equate words with objects or are words just cues to perform a behavior related to that object?

So to me, all of the seemingly unrelated talk really is related to the original question.

[Dogsareme]

Do they have a sense of self identity?

Dogs do not know their names pertain to themselves, but they connect that "Shadow" = Look at your owner something exciting may happen when they say that word. For all they know "shadow" means you are entering the room with a treat.

Have you evern noticed with mulitiple dogs you say one dogs name and they all respond even though you only wanted that one dog? You CAN individually teach the names to have your dog respond to that indiviual name but of course that takes a little more work and training on the owners part.

Do they understand that objects have names?

Object permanence is not a trait dogs have. They can learn the names of object but can they generalize it? Only if that is once again taught. However lets say they learned what a ball is, they learn that a ball is big or small and they still get that object when asked. Then lets say you came across a big ball monument and you told your dog "go get the ball" The dog is not going to see that monument or even recognize it as a ball. A human would. Dogs can assocaite objects but do not have object permancence.

Do they equate words with objects or are words just cues to perform a behavior related to that object?

That is exactly it! You can take your dog somewhere and if your dog knows what a ball is ask him to find you a ball when no ball is around. What does he bring you back? Usually another object that he normally plays with such as a toy or stuffy. It is a cue to a behavior.

[qingcong]

Originally Posted by Dogsareme

Dogs do not know their names pertain to themselves, but they connect that "Shadow" = Look at your owner something exciting may happen when they say that word. For all they know "shadow" means you are entering the room with a treat.

Have you evern noticed with mulitiple dogs you say one dogs name and they all respond even though you only wanted that one dog? You CAN individually teach the names to have your dog respond to that indiviual name but of course that takes a little more work and training on the owners part.

Object permanence is not a trait dogs have. They can learn the names of object but can they generalize it? Only if that is once again taught. However lets say they learned what a ball is, they learn that a ball is big or small and they still get that object when asked. Then lets say you came across a big ball monument and you told your dog "go get the ball" The dog is not going to see that monument or even recognize it as a ball. A human would. Dogs can assocaite objects but do not have object permancence.

That is exactly it! You can take your dog somewhere and if your dog knows what a ball is ask him to find you a ball when no ball is around. What does he bring you back? Usually another object that he normally plays with such as a toy or stuffy. It is a cue to a behavior.

I agree with everything you've said here, all of it is in line with current dog training knowledge.

[flyndog]

Several studies have shown that dogs can and do solve object permanence tests (Topal, Gagon, Kaminski, Miller, Hare). Object permanence is most likely a biological adaptation for finding food (see my earlier post) and a pretty simple cognitive skill. It’s exactly how dogs answer the question, “where’s Mommy (or other caregiver)” or “where’s your ball?”. One of the challenges with testing object permanence in dogs is that, like the mirror test for self-awareness, researchers are using visual tests for a species whose primary sensory input is not visual, but olfactory.

Which brings me to the point of self-awareness (if that's what is meant by the term "self-identity" in the above posts). Self-awareness is not a necessary condition for knowing the name of an object. Dogs who show submission or aggression are directing their behavior to the “other”. Dogs are certainly aware of what’s “theirs”. When grooming themselves, dogs have self-awareness. Dogs who learn to open a gate from watching another dog are aware of the “self” and “other”. Passing the mirror test is not proof of self-awareness. It is proof of a certain type of mental processing, or lack of it.

[Carrie]

Originally Posted by flyndog

Several studies have shown that dogs can and do solve object permanence tests (Topal, Gagon, Kaminski, Miller, Hare). Object permanence is most likely a biological adaptation for finding food (see my earlier post) and a pretty simple cognitive skill. It’s exactly how dogs answer the question, “where’s Mommy (or other caregiver)” or “where’s your ball?”. One of the challenges with testing object permanence in dogs is that, like the mirror test for self-awareness, researchers are using visual tests for a species whose primary sensory input is not visual, but olfactory.

Which brings me to the point of self-awareness (if that's what is meant by the term "self-identity" in the above posts). Self-awareness is not a necessary condition for knowing the name of an object. Dogs who show submission or aggression are directing their behavior to the “other”. Dogs are certainly aware of what’s “theirs”. When grooming themselves, dogs have self-awareness. Dogs who learn to open a gate from watching another dog are aware of the “self” and “other”. Passing the mirror test is not proof of self-awareness. It is proof of a certain type of mental processing, or lack of it.

I agree with this post. In contrast to the statement above....about calling one dog's name in a multiple dog household and having them all come is not what I've experienced. And I've had multiple dog households most of the time that I've owned dogs, which has been since 1959. LOL.

My multiple dogs definitely can single out their own name. I have all three sitting in a semi circle in front of me. I'm about to hand them a treat. I did this exercise many times to teach Toker not to get snarky with the dog sitting next to her when handing out treats, which she use to do. She would get a treat when it was HER turn. If I don't say the one's name, who is going to get the treat first, say, they all crowd their muzzles in together near my hand because they don't know who it's for. If I say, "Chulita," the other two know it's not their turn and keep their heads out of the way. Then I say, "Jose`" and they all know it's his turn and they need to wait politely and keep looking straight ahead. Yes, there was training there, but they're still responding to their own name. Their name as it pertains to themselves seems to have some meaning.

Same thing when I want one to come. For example, last night, Jose` and Toker had already just been outside to pee not too long before, but Chuli hadn't and I thought she ought to go out. I called her, "Chulita, time to go outside." She jumped off the couch and Jose` and Toker stayed put. (of course, that's no proof. Maybe they wanted to stay comfortable anyhow, but this type of thing happens above coincidence many times)

Another of many examples of where it appears they know their name applies to themselves is when it’s Dremel-the-nails time. I sit Indian style on the floor in the kitchen and they all crowd around. (Dremel time is very exciting and there are the best treats associated) Well, I can only do one dog at a time, so I say, “Chulita first” in a happy voice. She jumps in my lap and the others stay back or go lie down to wait because it takes quite a bit of time to do each dog. Then I make a fuss, put her off my lap and say, “Okay, Jose` is next” and Toker will stay on her rug over by the fire place and Jose` will come over on my lap. So, to me, it seems they are connecting their own individual name with themselves.

So, I am not so sure that they don't know that it means them, as in me, myself and I. And, I'm not so sure they don't have some kind of sense of self, regardless of what the scientists think from who knows what kind of tests. I've read a lot of that stuff too...about them not recognizing themselves in mirrors, about not thinking they have empathy or maybe some rudimentary form. I've really put quite a bit of research into this area.

If they didn't have any sense of self, how would they care about surviving....finding food to fill their oh so empty tummies? Why would they want the ball to fetch or want to go for a walk? If they weren't thinking about themselves, nothing would matter. Sure, it may not be a complex thought process going on and it may be a more basic sense of self. But I have serious doubts as to the idea that they have no sense of self. I don't know why they would be incapable of the concept that their name represents them. Nothing is proven one way or the other. So, I don't like to talk as though something is a fact.....in this area. It's simply interesting to ponder though.

As far as not recognizing a ball that is a monument instead of a toy ball, sure...they don't generalize as well. That shows up when we train them. They're not as intelligent as (most adult) humans either, but I don't think that proves that they don't know that the word, "ball" stands for most of those round things. They appear to be utilizing the process of elimination, which is pretty dang sophisticated, if you ask me.

Horses shy at things that are very close up that they might not if it were 8 feet away. It's how their vision works. Things up close look scary…magnified and blurry. They can't focus on it as well as if it is several feet back. In other words, their recognition of an object changes with different variables. Perhaps with dogs, there is some factor which causes them to recognize a toy ball, but not a ball as a monument or marble statue. Yes, humans do recognize that, but that may be sheer intelligence or some other un-named factor that lets us recognize a wider range of representations of an object. It doesn't mean though, that a dog doesn't know that a word represents an object...the object itself, not only what his behavior is in relation to the object.

So, there is nothing proven either way. But I start to think, not just regarding this, but from a lot of other things going on... that dogs may be somewhat more sophisticated in their cognitive abilities than formerly thought. We already found out things about all kinds of animals that people use to think some other way about. Take birds for example. (use to say "bird brain" to imply that someone was dumb. Now it turns out they're a VERY intelligent animal.)