Prairie Dog Language?

by Ronald P. Millett and John P. Pratt

Reprinted from Meridian Magazine (19 May 2005).

©2005 by John P. Pratt. All rights Reserved.

Index, Home

The ability to formulate and use language has long been considered to be a key differentiating characteristic that distinguishes man from animals. Although that argument has been used by creationists to counter evolutionary theories, the entire conjecture may be without scriptural foundation. That is, the scriptures do not tell us that animals don't communicate, and there are indications that they might have sufficient intelligence to do so (Gen. 3:1, 7:9, Num. 22:28). Do animals really communicate to each other with the variety of sounds they can produce?

Gunnison's Prairie Dog on guard.

1. Is Language Unique to Man?

Black-tailed Prairie Dog stretches to see predator.

2. The Prairie Dog's Warning Barks

Prairie Dog Sentinel.

Figure 1. Sonogram of prairie dog bark for "dog," divided into 45 time segments. The two points for each segment indicate the two most dominant frequencies.

Figure 1 shows the sonogram for the warning bark for a dog predator approaching the colony as reported in the journal Behavioural Processes in 2004. [8] The two dominant frequencies are plotted and the short barks of about one tenth second duration are divided into 45 time segments. Frequency corresponds to the "pitch" of the sound, that is, high frequency means high pitch. Each of those 45 parts is analyzed to create acoustic unit symbols based on the two frequencies, derived from statistical studies of prairie dog calls over a period of over 10 years. In the journal article describing the computational process of recognition of basic classes of predators, 85 acoustic symbols were identified. This string of 45 symbols is then matched against standardized dictionary values for each prairie dog word. Even among different prairie dogs from a wide area and over a period of ten years, new calls were able to be correctly analyzed up to 100% of the time for many of the predators. [9] Those are amazing results for the low quality audio recordings, which often were taped over 100 yards away.

2.1 Nouns

Figure 2. Sonogram of one prairie dog bark for "coyote." Note the very steady low frequency combined with the quick large variations in the high frequency.

The coyote, principal prairie dog predator.

After recognizing different bark names for predators such as red-tailed hawks, coyotes, dogs, skunks and badgers, other words were also found for non-predators such as deer, elk, antelope and cows. Clearly the prairie dog vocabulary includes a variety of nouns as names of various types of animals.

2.2 Adjectives

Prairie dogs fear the red-tailed hawk.

The research has shown at least 20 different basic prairie dog words describing predators, with many more variations to account for modifiers, totaling about 100 words. [10] That does not mean their vocabulary is limited to that number of words, but rather it indicates the current state of our knowledge. It takes many experiments to verify each new word. The test environment of predators and the resulting sentry bark responses allow the researchers to actually understand the topic of conversation, a subject not easily controlled in scientific experiments. At this time we have no idea what prairie dogs might talk about over breakfast.

2.3 Coining New Words

Prairie dogs barked a word for the European Ferret.

Later, to see just how far this unique coining ability extended, totally new test objects were shown to the colonies. The researchers made plywood cutouts with silhouettes of a coyote, a skunk and even a black oval. [11] As they pulled these silhouettes through the prairie dog town with a rope, once again without hesitation the prairie dogs came up with new words for each, and again these same words were used by all prairie dogs tested. The use of non-living objects as these seems to weaken any explanation that the prairie dogs were discerning a universal spiritual name emitted by the living predator itself. How could all prairie dogs instantly know the word for "black oval"?

Prairie dogs have a word for badger.

The amazing aspect of the prairie dogs' coining of new words is that they always came up with the same new word. This ability to coin identical new words between separated groups does not occur in human languages. A new word for a new unfamiliar object is not the same from one group of people to the next. But the prairie dog bark for "black oval" is the same from one prairie dog to the next, even with one isolated from the other in remote colonies.



"'There are no black ovals running around out there and yet they all had the same word for black oval,' Slobodchikoff said. He guesses the prairie dogs are genetically programmed with some vocabulary and the ability to describe things." [13]

3. Artificial Intelligence

3.1 The SHRDLU Program

Person: PICK UP A BIG RED BLOCK.

Computer: OK.



Person: GRASP THE PYRAMID.



Computer: I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHICH PYRAMID YOU MEAN.



Person (changing their mind): FIND A BLOCK WHICH IS TALLER THAN THE ONE YOU ARE HOLDING AND PUT IT INTO THE BOX.



Computer: BY "IT", I ASSUME YOU MEAN THE BLOCK WHICH IS TALLER THAN THE ONE I AM HOLDING.



Computer: OK.



Person: WHAT DOES THE BOX CONTAIN?



Computer: THE BLUE PYRAMID AND THE BLUE BLOCK. Figure 3. SHRDLU program developed in 1970 by Terry Winograd interactions showing interactive language analysis, semantic understanding and language synthesis for its small basic shape world.

Figure 4. Graphical representation of the SHRDLU world.

If we are amazed at the complexity of chromosomes being able to correctly repair copying errors in themselves, then what about a starter basic language ability that is fantastically more difficult to program? How would one go about "evolving" a language ability written directly in the DNA code of every cell by the creature itself?

3.2 Incredibly more complex

For example, in one Star Trek show, the script contains this interaction with the Enterprise's computer:

Kirk: Computer.



Computer: Ready.



Kirk: This is the captain. Record security research, to be classified under my voice print or Mr. Scott's.



Computer: Recorded.



Kirk: Produce all data relevant to the recent ion storm. Correlate following hypothesis: Could a storm of such magnitude cause a power surge in the transporter circuits creating a momentary interdimensional contact with a parallel universe?



Computer: Affirmative.



Kirk: At such a moment, could persons in each universe, in the act of beaming, transpose with their counterparts in the other universe?



Computer: Affirmative.



Kirk: Could conditions necessary to such an event be created artificially using the ship's power?



Computer: Affirmative. [17]

In our minds we almost effortlessly understand the questions in this exchange and we may have some idea of how a scientific team might go about answering those questions. But for a computer to really understand it in a general sense and in such a general context? That leaps a gulf so wide that it would almost certainly take centuries to achieve.

Do prairie dogs think?

4. Believe in God

To us authors, our best posture to explain these results is to simply believe the Book of Mormon admonition:

Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend. (Mosiah 4:9)

5. Conclusion

Notes