Analyzing Interspecific Communication in Light of the Ethnography of Communication: A Case Study on Human-Goat Communication During Feeding in the Discursive Context of the Petting Farm

(1)

Analyzing Interspecific Communication in Light

of the Ethnography of Communication

A Case Study on Human-Goat Communication During Feeding in

the Discursive Context of the Petting Farm

Fien De Malsche

Student number: 12290017

Supervisor: drs. Manon van der Laaken

A dissertation submitted to the University of Amsterdam in partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Language and Society

(2)

(3)

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank you to Drs. Manon van der Laaken, my dissertation supervisor, for taking on and believing in this project, even though it is so far beyond where your personal interests lie.

Thank you to Prof. Dr. Leonie Cornips, my internship supervisor, for the many talks, your invaluable advice, and your general positive mindset that has helped me throughout this project.

Thank you to the Meertens Institute and all of its interns, especially Jessie, for providing me with a safe space to write and work in the company of brilliant (future) academics.

Thank you to my friends and family, especially Kaat and Wouter, for listening to me talk about goats endlessly and always asking the right questions.

Thank you to Anne, Kim, Zach, and Jenna, for making this past year in Amsterdam a truly unforgettable one that I would not have survived without your love, friendship, and ceaseless support throughout the highs and the lows of our shared (academic) journey.

And finally, thank you to the participants of this study, both the goats and the humans, as without your participation, this study would not exist.

(4)

iii

ABSTRACT

Throughout research history, animals have not been considered part of what is studied in the general field of linguistics, even though many animal languages exist (Meijer, 2016). In the past decade, posthumanist researchers have increasingly become aware of the importance of including animals in fields of research outside of biology and ethology, especially in the humanities (Pennycook, 2018). Therefore, this study contributes to the posthumanist linguistic research movement by describing and analyzing interspecific communication between humans and non-humans from a discourse analytic perspective, namely the ethnography of communication and its SPEAKING-model (Hymes, 1972). The focus lies on communication between humans and goats in the discursive context of the petting farm, more specifically during feeding as the defined communicative event and general unit of analysis. In its conclusion, this study finds that the eight separate aspects of the SPEAKING-model (Hymes, 1972) influence human-animal interactions in the same ways they influence human interactions, with the exception of key. As such, the ethnography of communication is suitable to analyze communication beyond solely human boundaries, highlighting the need for further posthumanist linguistic research.

Key words: interspecific communication, Capra hircus, posthumanist linguistics, ethnography of communication, SPEAKING-model

(5)

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Farm layout (first draft)………. 32

Figure 2. Grain machine by the adult goat stable………. 37

Figure 3. Adult goats eating hay………. 37

Figure 4. Baby goats nibbling on my scarf at the interactive playground……….….. 38

Figure 5. Adult goat nibbling on my notebook………..… 38

Figure 6. Baby goat nibbling on and untying my shoelaces……….. 38

Figure 7. Adult goats eating……….. 38

Figure 8. Adult goats eating (2)……….. 39

Figure 9. Adult goat drinking from a milk bottle……….. 39

Figure 10. Adult goats eating while being milked……….…….. 39

Figure 11. Adult goats’ feeders are filled by a machine……… 39

Figure 12. Baby goat nibbles on Participant E’s hair………. 39

Figure 13. Participant E hand-feeds baby goats hay……….. 40

Figure 14. Signage concerning the goats’ food……….. 40

Figure 15. Signage concerning moving the goats……… 40

Figure 16. Signage concerning the food for the goats……….… 41

Figure 17. Signage concerning the farm’s mission statement……….. 41

Figure 18. Signage concerning lifting up the goats……… 41

Figure 19. Signage concerning taking food out of the feeders……….... 41

Figure 20. Farm layout……….... 44

(6)

v

1 INTRODUCTION

Throughout research history, the general field of linguistics has predominantly been focused on human language, whereas animal communication has mostly been considered part of fields such as biology or ethology. As a result of this, animals have most often been excluded from linguistic analysis, even though research has shown that they are, in fact, capable of linguistic communication (Meijer, 2016). Although some studies have started including animals within the realm of linguistics (Milstein, 2013; Pennycook, 2018), insight into how non-human languages and communication can be included in traditional linguistic theory is scarce.

This project is an addition to a new field of research that attempts to fill this gap, namely posthumanist linguistics (Pennycook, 2018). Within this field, the goal is to step away from an anthropocentric mindset in our general world view, including our conceptualization of communication. As part of this effort, this study focuses on interspecific communication between humans and animals in light of Dell Hymes’s (1964; 1872) holistic approach to communication as part of the ethnography of communication. Through a case study on goat-human communication, it attempts to answer two the fundamental questions, namely the broader question of whether or not traditional discourse analytic linguistic theory can be used to analyze non-human communication, and a more applied focus on whether or not the eight aspects of the SPEAKING-model influence non-human interactions in ways that can be compared to non-human interactions.

This research functions as a descriptive first insight into how the two seemingly opposing worlds of ethology and linguistics can be combined. To investigate this, I conduct a case study on human-goat communication within the discursive context of the petting farm, more specifically during feeding time. This was chosen because the context of the petting farm allows for much interaction between humans and goats, especially during feeding, and because goats are a relatively understudied domesticated animal species.

I first introduce some terminology that is crucial to understanding the broader topic of this study. This includes the field of ethology, the concept of interspecific communication, the species of Capra hircus, and the workings of a petting farm. Subsequently, I elaborate on why it is important that posthumanist linguistics as a new field of study is given more attention within the broader field of linguistics. After that, I explain the theoretical framework in three parts. First, I elaborate on previous research done on human-animal communication in general, then on human-goat communication specifically, and finally I explain the ethnography of communication and its SPEAKING-model (Hymes, 1972). This is followed by an overview and explanation of the

(11)

2

methodological data gathering and analysis process adopted for this study. Subsequently, I present the results of the data collection process and discuss them in light of the chosen theory the next section. In the last section, I finally summarize the findings and suggest further research in the field.

(12)

3

2 TERMINOLOGY

2.1 ETHOLOGY AND LINGUISTICS

Given the nature of this project, one of the first questions to ask is whether or not the topic of human-animal communication can still be considered linguistic in its traditional sense. That question in itself then raises deeper questions about the goal of linguistics as a discipline and its broader definition, which is ambiguous at best. Popular dictionaries have varying definitions, with general sources such as Merriam-Webster Dictionary defining it as the study of human speech specifically (“Linguistics”, n.d.), but Cambridge Dictionary and Oxford Dictionary defining it more generally as the study of language (“Linguistics”, n.d.). Within the field, there is no consensus either; some researchers believe human speech is the only type of communication worth studying, whereas others believe all types of communication can fall under the umbrella and more interdisciplinary field of linguistics (Meijer, 2016).

With this ambiguous definition of linguistics in mind, this project’s approach towards linguistics leans closer towards the interdisciplinary idea that linguistics can and should study all possible forms of communication, not only human speech. Given the different natures of non-human and human animal speech, this study strongly intertwines with ethology. This discipline is defined by Lorenz (1981) as “[…] the discipline which applies to the behavior of animals and humans all those questions asked and those methodologies used as a matter of course in all the other branches of biology since Charles Darwin’s time” (p. 1). In other words, the aim of ethology is to compare different species to one another, both human and non-human, on the basis of the Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory. By doing so, it aims to discover how species think, how they behave, and why they behave in certain ways. Human ethology studies specifically human behavior, but ethology in general looks at both human and human animal behavior, part of which is how human and non-human animals communicate. This communication can occur within the same species, but can also occur across the divide between human and non-human animals. This type of interspecific communication, which will be defined further in section 2.2, is what is studied in this research project.

Since ethology focuses on human and non-human animal behavior, the starting point of most research is animal cognition, as understanding an animal’s behavioral patterns can only be achieved in light of the species’ cognitive capabilities. Once you map out their cognitive capabilities, you can start to understand their behavior, part of which is the way they communicate with humans. For this

(13)

4

reason, ethology and linguistics strongly intertwine in this research project, and the cognitive capabilities of the studied goats will be outlined in section 2.3 and further explained in relation to humans in section 4.2 as a starting point in understanding how goats attempt to communicate with humans and vice-versa.

2.2 INTERSPECIFIC COMMUNICATION

Communication can either occur within one species, for example between two or more humans, or on an interspecific level, for example between a human and a dog. Through extensive research, it has become clear that many animal species have their own meaningful languages; bats can sing in ways that are structurally as complex as human language, dolphins call each other by name, dogs greet each other, wolves metacommunicate about their play, and squids can communicate through ink patterns (Meijer, 2016). Although philosophers in the past have often had anthropocentric mindsets about human language, as will be discussed in section 3, many recent scientists and philosophers alike have come to rethink this mindset and could not continue within the mindset that humans are the only living species who can communicate efficiently and meaningfully. The abovementioned examples of previous research prove this new mindset right.

In addition to this, more recent research has also discovered meaningful communication on an interspecific level; parrots can talk to humans in human language about mathematical problems, gorillas have learnt sign language to various degrees, dogs can comprehend human grammar to certain extents, and dogs and humans create the so-called love hormone oxytocin when they make eye contact with one another (Meijer, 2016). However, more research is needed in the future to fully comprehend the nature of relationships and different forms of communication between all types of different species.

On a purely linguistic note, both parts of the compound term that is interspecific communication need clarification on the level of word choice for this project. First, the term ‘interspecific’ can refer to all species, but in the context of this research mainly refers to humans and goats. That leads to the next issue in terminology. Although it is theoretically correct to refer to goats as animals and to people as humans, it goes without questioning that both species are, in fact, animals. Therefore, the terminology ‘human animals’ and ‘non-human animals’ is biologically most accurate in describing the difference between people and goats. However, that terminology is long and possibly confusing in terms of the reader experience. For this reason, I will use the terms ‘humans’, ‘people’, and ‘human animals’, and ‘non-human animals’ and ‘animals’ interchangeably. This in no

(14)

5

way implies that I consider human animals inherently different, inferior, or superior than non-human animals; this choice is merely made in consideration of the reader (and writer’s) ease.

The second note on word choice within this project concerns the difference between language and communication. Both terms have multiple definitions, and it is beyond the scope of this project to look into what the differences between the two concepts are. However, in comparison to animals, it has often been agreed upon in the past that the difference between both concepts was that humans were capable of language, whereas animals were only capable of communication in general. This is because communication is considered a broader concept, in which a communicator encodes a signal, which is then received and decoded by the receiver (Reboul, 2015). Language, on the other hand, includes syntax, semantics, and other structural necessities to define it as such (Reboul, 2015). For the aims of this project, I therefore categorize interspecific interaction as communication, rather than language. This is not because I do not believe intraspecific animal or interspecific human-animal languages are possible, but because the concept of communication allows for broader application, and I believe that referring to it as ‘language’ in such an early stage of research could be considered too strong of a statement. In conclusion, both the word choices concerning the different species being studied and the naming of their interactions are as broad as possible, so as to remain as objective as possible and not make too ambitious statements in this early stage of the research.

2.3 CAPRA HIRCUS

As the general aim of this project is to examine communication between goats and humans, it is important to address what type of goat will be studied and what is known about their cognitive and behavioral capabilities. In the case of the petting farm, the goats are usually ‘Capra hircus’, better known as domesticated goats. In this section, I elaborate on the specifics of this type of goat and their domestication process. In section 4.2, I will elaborate further on the implications of their cognitive abilities for human-goat communication.

Much research has been done on ‘Capra hircus’, from now on referred to as domesticated goats or simply goats. One of the most relevant aspects discovered about their cognitive capabilities for this research project is that goats have long-term memory, which allows them to discriminate between visual stimuli for several weeks after they have been shown to them (Nawroth, 2017). They are also capable of remembering vocalizations for several months, as was shown in research on mother and baby goats and their respective calls for one another after birth (Briefer, Padilla de la Torre, & McElligott, 2012). This aspect of their cognition is specifically relevant, as it implies goats

(15)

6

might react differently to the staff of the farm than to the visitors, as they remember the staff and can differentiate between them and unknown visitors.

In terms of domestication, it is estimated that goats were domesticated approximately 10,000 years ago (Zeder & Hesse, 2000). They are mainly considered valuable for their production of milk, their meat, and their hair products (Nawroth, 2017). Because of this process of human-enforced captivity that occurs over multiple millennia, domesticated species change in comparison to their wild counterparts, both genetically and behaviorally. Although their genetic changes are not particularly relevant to this project, the behavior of domesticated goats is different from their wild counterparts, in that they have developed lower thresholds of response (Price, 1984) and that they respond to (human) stimuli more often than wild goats. In the petting farm context, this means that goats are not only used to humans being present, but that they are have also behaviorally developed themselves over the past 10,000 years to respond to them and the stimuli they provide.

2.4 PETTING FARMS

As a final aspect of terminology, the discursive context of the petting farm should be defined to understand its unique character. First, a petting zoo is a space that provides “an opportunity for the public to interact directly with animals” (Anderson, Benne, Bloomsmith, & Maple, 2002). As such, the largest difference with traditional Western zoos is that in petting zoos and petting farms, visitors are allowed to touch the animals, whereas this is not the case in traditional zoos. In petting farms, then, the animals are also used for farming purposes in addition to the educational or entertainment purposes of the petting zoo. In the case of goats, this refers to milking the goats and selling their meat. The environment studied for the purposes of this research can best be defined as a petting farm, as the visitors can interact with the animals, as well as buy their farming products on location.

Research has shown that positive childhood experiences can lead to a more positive attitude towards animals later on in life, so parents find it important that their children come into contact with them from an early age (Kidd, Kidd, & Zasloff, 1995). For most children in urban environments, the only chance to introduce them to animals is through a (petting) zoo or farm. Because these places allow for the unique experience of being able to touch and pet the animals, children generally favor them over traditional zoos as well, as they prefer the direct contact with the animals over the possibility to only see them (Kidd et al., 1995). This coincides with the goal of these spaces, which is to allow visitors to develop positive attitudes towards individual contact with animals (Anderson et al., 2002).

(16)

7

Most often, petting zoos and farms provide access to animals such as goats, sheep, lambs, rabbits, kittens, and puppies (Stirling et al., 2007). Goats specifically are one of the most popular animals in petting farms worldwide and are even considered the most popular petting zoo animal in the United States (Seifert, 1996). Goats are also used for laboratory tests and are even kept as pets because they are considered so amiable (Anderson et al., 2002). In light of this, human-goat communication is interesting to analyze in the petting farm context, as they are generally open to human contact and react to it well.

However, Anderson et al. (2002) indicate that, if goats are not given the possibility to take a break from the hectic human environment of the petting farm, they can present undesirable behavior. Due to the inherently interactive nature of the petting farm, visitors expect one-on-one contact with the animals present. Unfortunately, the animals do not always want to make contact, and can react negatively to an initiation of contact by running away from, bumping into, or even charging at visitors (Anderson et al., 2002). This is considered undesirable, not because the goats are never supposed to act this way, but because it does not align with the goal and definition of the petting farm, namely to be in direct contact with the animals. This issue can be solved through spatial design by including a retreat space for the animals, as the animals show less undesirable behavior in petting farms where there is a retreat space available (Anderson et al., 2002). In light of this, the setup of the petting farm is also relevant to this project, as the presence or absence of a retreat area can influence the behavior of the animals.

(17)

8

3 BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE

Parts of this section were taken from Fien De Malsche’s MA Term Paper as submitted to the University of Amsterdam on 29/01/2019.

In the hegemonic anthropocentric conception of communication, it is assumed that humans are the only animals capable of communication. Within this anthropocentric and humanist mindset, (Western) philosophers and scholars alike have even claimed that it is communication itself that distinguishes non-human animals from humans, as our ability for communication and reflection is assumed to be unlike anything the animal kingdom is capable of (Pennycook, 2018). Aristotle believed it was linguistic competence that allowed humans to distinguish good from bad, and Descartes was convinced animals were unable to think because of the fact that they were unable to speak. Kant shared these views, claiming that animals had no rhetoric capabilities and therefore could not be part of a moral society (Meijer, 2016). Finally, Heidegger believed language was so important to existence that those who were incapable of language do not die, they simply disappear (Meijer, 2016). Although all these philosophers had differing conceptions about animals, they all boiled down to the common conception that humans are superior to animals because of their linguistic ability to speak and communicate in the most complex ways known to man (Meijer, 2016).

In all prevalent theories on discourse analysis, the one common but covert assumption is that communication is essentially conducted between humans (Pennycook, 2018). Theories might diverge on what communication entails or how many humans are needed to establish ‘real’ communication, but this one covert assumption can be detected throughout most communicative theories (Pennycook, 2018). However, there is no reason to assume this, other than the anthropocentric mindset that humans are inherently superior to animals.

A look at human-animal communication requires a mindset that steps outside of this hegemonic humanist idea, as this mindset implies that animals are capable of communication as well, possibly even in ways that are as complex as human communication. Pennycook (2018) labels this mindset as posthumanism and explores what it means to be human, how deeply mankind’s anthropocentric ideologies run, and how linguists can attempt to deconstruct them. In his definition, posthumanism means the following:

[Posthumanism] draws on multiple strands of thought and points in multiple directions, from a questioning of the centrality and exceptionalism of humans as actors on this planet, or the relationship to other inhabitants of the earth, to a re-evaluation of the role of objects and space in relation to human

(18)

9

thought and action, or the extension of human thinking and capacity through various forms of human enhancement (Pennycook, 2018, p. 5).

In posthumanist linguistics, the goal is to step away from this common conception as a way to reinterpret past works on discourse and reshape the way linguists and humans in general think about communication and interaction, not only with each other, but with all living things. Although extensive research has shown that animals are capable of communication, it is often still assumed that these types of communication are not as complex as human communication (Meijer, 2016; Pennycook, 2018).

A similar position that focuses more on human-animal communication specifically is put forward by De Waal & Ferrari (2010). In their article on human versus animal cognition, they propose a bottom-up perspective, instead of the highly anthropocentric top-down approach that has been prevalent throughout most previous studies on animal cognition, and therefore also on animal communication. De Waal & Ferrari (2010) explain that the main questions being asked within the field of cognition are questions such as which species can do X and which cannot. However, in their opinion, the question should be reformulated into what X really means, how it functions, and how X has evolved. Instead of pitting different species against each other with the human species as the ultimate pinnacle of intelligence, they propose a bottom-up approach in which different skills are interpreted in different ways for different species, instead of presupposing that if one species is not capable of skill X, they are worth less than a species that is capable of skill X. Applying this to animal communication, the question should not only be which animal species are capable of communication in its traditional sense, but could be tackled from a wider angle, including how communication is to be defined in the first place.

This position is echoed by Meijer (2016), who explains that humans have tried to examine whether or not animals were capable of language by trying to teach them human language. A popular example of this is Koko the Gorilla, who was taught Gorilla Sign Language on the basis of American Sign Language for years, and who was eventually capable of forming sentences between three to six words (Meijer, 2016). However, the linguistic capabilities of animals should not solely be measured by human standards. Meijer (2016) argues that, although these experiments are interesting and worth studying for a number of purposes, they cannot make general claims about an animal’s intellect, because every species should be considered separately, rather than in comparison to humans. For example, in the case of Koko the Gorilla, her intellect was measured in human IQ between 70 and 95, putting her on the same level as a young human child in development (Patterson & Cohn, 1990). However, these numbers only describe her in comparison to a human, without

(19)

10

considering the gorilla-specific environmental, genetic, and social factors that could tell us more about her intelligence within her own species. Although it is worth studying animals in comparison to humans, communication within their own environments and with their own languages has arguably been overlooked in past research efforts.

For these reasons, this study takes into account the species-specific communicative characteristics of both humans and goats, but does not aim to make claims about their general communicative capabilities; it merely focuses on whether or not the observed communication can be analyzed through the theoretical framework of discourse analysis, and more specifically the ethnography of communication. This is done through a case study that was conducted at a goat farm in the Netherlands, and the collected data is analyzed through the chosen theoretical framework of the SPEAKING-model to show how not only human communication, but also interspecific communication can be included within traditional linguistic theory.

(20)

11

4 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

4.1 HUMAN-ANIMAL COMMUNICATION

Although the common conception of communication is that it is usually conducted between humans, almost all pet owners, farmers, or other humans who often come into contact with animals will claim that they know their animals. In the book Dierentalen, Meijer (2016) provides an overview of how animals are capable of communication amongst each other, and she adds that she herself became interested in this subject from her own experience. She explains it the following way:

De oorsprong van dit boek ligt in mijn jeugd, waarin behalve mensen ook katten, cavia’s en paarden een grote rol speelden. Met name de pony Joy, met wie ik tussen mijn elfde en zestiende mijn leven deelde, heeft me doen inzien dat een uitgebreide gedeelde taal tussen een mens en een ander dier mogelijk is (Meijer, 2016, p. 7).1

This example reveals a strong paradox between the anthropocentric view on communication and the widespread belief that humans and animals can know and love each other. Meijer (2016) believes that loving relationships between animals and humans are established through communication with one another, and that this type of communication therefore requires more research attention.

Meijer (2016) lists various efforts that have been made within the field of interspecific communication, specifically between humans and animals. As mentioned in section 2.2, she explains that parrots can discuss math in human language, dogs can understand human grammar, horses can read human body language, and both humans and dogs produce oxytocin, a bonding hormone, when they make eye contact with one another. In these cases, it is clear that some animal species understand humans to different extents and try to communicate with them in a bidirectional manner.

From the human perspective, on the other hand, attempts to communicate with animals occur all the time and everywhere. In many of those cases, the contact remains unidirectional, either because the animal cannot understand the human, or because it does not want to reply to the communicative attempts. This shows one of the main issues in analyzing interspecific

1_{My translation: “The origin of this book lies in my own youth, in which not only humans, but also cats, guinea}

pigs and horses played a large role. Especially the pony Joy, with whom I shared my life between the ages of eleven and sixteen, made me realize that an extensive shared language between a human and another animal is possible.”

(21)

12

communication research data; if the animal does not cooperate or does not respond, does that mean they do not want to, or does it mean they do not understand you or what is expected of them? Although an answer to that question lies beyond the scope of this project, it is important to note here that both options are possible, and that an animal ignoring a human can carry meaning beyond them not understanding the human.

One example of analyzing multidirectional human-animal communication in a context that is similar to the petting farm can be found in a study conducted by Milstein (2013). For this project, she focused on the communication between gorillas and humans in the discursive context of the traditional Western zoo. Although gorillas do not occur in petting farms or petting zoos, the physical setup of a zoo is similar to that of a petting zoos and farms, in the sense that the animals are kept captive for human entertainment purposes. The main difference between petting farms or zoos and traditional zoos in general, however, is that the animals cannot be touched in the latter, which results in different types of communication.2

In her study, Milstein (2013) examined a gorilla named Akenji who was being held captive. In one of the studied events, Akenji strongly reacted to the presence of a group of school children that were on a guided tour at the zoo. The gorilla started banging on the glass exhibit walls when she saw the children, to which the tour guide reacted that this was normal and that Akenji was happy. However, she also told the children that they cannot bang back. Milstein (2013) addresses this interaction from a critical discourse analytic point of view, pointing out the power play and struggles that are presented in this interaction, both from Akenji’s side as from the tour guide’s perspective. She explains that the children implicitly seem to interpret the banging as a sign from Akenji that she wants to escape, to which the tour guide, an authoritative figure, explicitly responds that this is not the case. By doing so, the tour guide uses her authority in the zoo context to not only interpret, but also speak for Akenji. This can be because she knows what is best for Akenji, but in light of general human-animal power relationships within a traditional zoo, it could also be because the tour guide does not want the children to think that Akenji is unhappy, even though her banging could be a sign that she is. Through this case study, she then analyzes the general power relations between humans and animals in the zoo context, underlining the authoritative power of humans and zoo staff over the relatively powerless animals.

2_{Ideally, I would look at previous studies in the petting farm context specifically, but unfortunately, no research}

has been conducted on petting farms with a discourse analytic approach. Therefore, this study by Milstein (2013) is chosen as it is the most similar one available in light of the aims of this study.

(22)

13

Although this study does not aim to examine human-animal interaction from a similar point of view as this project, it does highlight two relevant factors. First, this study shows that discourse analytic theory can be applied to human-animal communication, and that it can result in insightful knowledge about the working and discursive strategies of institutions such as the traditional Western zoo. Second, it shows that human-animal communication is what makes these types of environments so unique and popular, which is paradoxical to how little knowledge there is within this field.

This paradox echoes the one presented by Meijer (2016) as discussed in section 3. Zoos, petting zoos, and petting farms are becoming increasingly popular, especially in Western urban areas where children do not often come into contact with animals, and it is this direct contact that makes these institutions so popular. However, little research has been done on how this interaction occurs, and especially on how it can be analyzed from a discourse analytic perspective. For this reason, this project follows the example set by Milstein (2013) with the aim to shine a light on this popular but understudied area of linguistic interaction, specifically within the field of sociolinguistics and discourse analysis.

4.2 HUMAN-GOAT COMMUNICATION

To better understand human-animal communication from a linguistic perspective, studies in ethology are a relevant starting point. In the case of goats, much less research has been conducted than on other domesticated animals, such as dogs. However, there are two main studies that should be discussed to begin to understand how goats and humans can communicate with each other; the first is about gaze direction, and the second is more specifically about human-directed gaze.

In the first study, Kaminski, Riedel, Call, & Tomasello (2005) focus on the gaze direction of goats. When looking at gaze following of non-conspecific humans, domesticated dogs are the species that had mostly been studied in the past, especially in comparison to their non-domesticated equivalents, namely wolves. These experiments concluded that domestication had caused dogs to become more sensitive for human communicative modes such as gaze, in contrast to their wild counterparts. Taking this earlier research into account, Kaminsky et al.’s (2005) study focuses on goats, as they are domesticated as well, and similar results to the ones in regard to the dogs could strengthen the hypothesis of the effect of human domestication on these types of animals’ gaze

(23)

14

recognition. To do so, the study investigates whether or not goats follow the conspecific gaze of other goats, and then compares those results to whether or not they follow the non-conspecific gaze of humans.

The first experiment, namely the one on conspecific gaze, was successful. It became clear from the results that goats were indeed capable of following the gaze of other goats, similar to the results they had found in the previous research. It was hypothesized, however, that it was actually the head movement that caused the following of the gaze and not the movement of the eyes specifically, as goats do not have white sclera, which makes it harder to know what they are looking at based on their eyes alone. The second experiment, on the other hand, gathered fewer positive results, as it became clear that goats, in contrast to dogs, do not follow the non-conspecific gazes of humans. This led the researchers to believe there might be a difference in effects of domestication between animals who were domesticated as pets and those who serve farming purposes. What they did find in relation to humans, however, was that goats followed other visual cues, such as tapping and pointing. In other words, goats can read some physical human communicative modes, but not their gaze.

In the second study, Nawroth, Brett, and McElligott (2016) also studied gaze, but focused on whether or not goats direct their gaze at humans differently based on the posture and direction of the human. Their aim was to find out how domesticated but non-companion species behave in comparison to species such as dogs, who were domesticated as companion animals. In their results, they found that goats react differently to humans who are faced towards them than to humans who are faced away from them, gazing earlier and for a longer period when the human is faced towards them. In conclusion, although goats do not follow the human gaze, they do recognize it and change their own gaze behavior to it. This is referred to by Nawroth et al. (2016) as audience-dependent human-directed gazing behavior.

Both of these studies discuss earlier research in ethology on human-goat relationships and examined those specifically through the observation of experimental tasks. Although these studies are not directly related to linguistics, there is no linguistic research on human-goat communication specifically yet, and these studies help in understanding how goats perceive humans. From the human perspective, we know what goats are, what humans are communicatively capable of, and how we can interpret human attempts to communicate with goats. However, we do not know these same things from the perspective of the goat. Understanding that goats recognize and react to human actions such as tapping and pointing and that they recognize and react to the direction of posture of humans provides a better insight into human-goat communication from the goat perspective. This

(24)

15

knowledge, in addition to the goat-specific knowledge on their cognition and behavior as provided in section 2.3, is necessary for the interpretation of the human-goat interaction data that was gathered for this study.

4.3 ETHNOGRAPHY OF COMMUNICATION

In its broadest sense, the ethnography of communication came into existence due to the belief that existing linguistic theories did not tackle communication in its broadest sense adequately enough. In his 1964 essay, Hymes explains that approaches such as ethnolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and sociolinguistics separate the results that their respective research yields into the fields of linguistics, psychology, sociology, and ethnology, and then seek to correlate those results (Hymes, 1964, p. 2). This observation leads him to believe that a new approach is necessary, and that it should combine all of these results through new types of data collection, with the goal of analyzing communication in its broadest sense without separating it into compartmentalized fields of study. A second characteristic of this new approach entails that “such an approach cannot take linguistic form, a given code, or speech itself, as a frame of reference” (Hymes, 1964, p. 3). Instead, he believes that culture and community should be included within the analysis of communication, with the aim of investigating “communicative habits as a whole” (Hymes, 1964, p. 3). In this sense, language is still included in linguistic analysis, but is only considered part of a bigger set of resources that a community can use to communicate.

Putting theory into practice, Hymes also introduced a new theoretical model to form the basis of analyzing communication within the ethnography of communication. Using the communicative event as the unit of analysis, he defines eight aspects that influence and make up a speaker’s utterances or actions within any communicative event. He calls this theory the SPEAKING-model (1972):

1. Setting and scene 2. Participants 3. Ends 4. Act sequence 5. Key 6. Instrumentalization 7. Norms of interaction

(25)

16

8. Genre

In previous linguistic theory, Hymes had found that a total of 16 components were shown to influence a communicative event, but that no theory had ever combined these 16 components into one coherent analytic model (Hymes, 1972). Therefore, he introduced the mnemonically convenient SPEAKING-model, and explains its name in the following way:

Psycholinguistic work has indicated that human memory works best with classifications of the magnitude of seven, plus or minus two (Miller, 1956). To make the set of components mnemonically convenient, at least in English, the letters of the term SPEAKING can be used (Hymes, 1972, p. 59).

In other words, the model consists of eight categories that are easy to remember and entail the 16 different components that had shown to influence a speaker’s utterances in past research.

Hymes’s (1972) SPEAKING-model and the general framework of the ethnography of communication are chosen as the theoretical framework for this study for three reasons. First, the general angle for this study is to analyze human-animal communication from a discourse analytic perspective. This was chosen because research on this topic within this general field is severely lacking, even though case studies such as Milstein (2013) have shown that it is possible and can lead to better insight into interspecific interactions and relationships. Second, the ethnography of communication was chosen as a discourse analytic perspective specifically, as its main premise calls for a more holistic approach to communication that recognizes traditionally linguistic forms as a resource to communicate, but not the primary mode of communication (Hymes, 1964). This more holistic approach not only allows for non-human communication to be included within linguistic theory, but even encourages it, as it includes communicative modes such as gaze, gesture, and movement. As a result, this study contributes to the aim of conceptualizing communication in a broader sense. Finally, the SPEAKING-model was chosen as it consists of eight well-defined and clear-cut categories, making it especially applicable for exploring this new field of research in a structured way.

In the following subsections, I discuss the eight components of Hymes’s (1972) SPEAKING-model. To do so, I explain their original definitions in a way that is similar to De Malsche (2018). Additionally, I include my own interpretations of the categories in order to explain how I intend to apply them to interspecific human-goat communication in the discussion section.

(26)

17 4.3.1 SETTING AND SCENE

In Hymes’s (1972) definition, the setting of a communicative event refers to the physical circumstances in which is takes place, namely time and space. For example, the setting of a communicative event could be a conversation that takes place at the library on the 21st_{of June 2019.}

The scene, on the other hand, refers to a less concrete psychological setting that can be described as the mood, vibe, or atmosphere that is present within the setting and therefore also influences communication within it. Hymes (1972) believed that the scene and the setting of a communicative event are strongly intertwined and codependent, and because of this, they were combined in the first category of the model.

Looking at this aspect from the perspective of communication between goats and humans at the goat farm, the setting refers to the goat farm itself, and more specifically the days that I was present there to collect my data. As for the scene, it could range from good to bad and from happy to sad, on the basis of many different factors. For example, one of the factors that could be most influential is the weather, as the presence of rain can easily derail the entertainment value and happy atmosphere of a visit to the farm for the visitor. A sunny or warm day, on the other hand, will most likely affect the scene in a more positive way.

4.3.2 PARTICIPANTS

In contrast to many other linguistic theories, Hymes (1972) does not separate the different kinds of individuals taking part on a communicative event on the basis of speakers, hearers, or addressees. This is because he does not believe that the dyadic speaker-hearer model is designed to consider all real-life situations where these categories might not be as clear-cut, such as when someone non-intentionally overhears a conversation they are not supposed to overhear. Instead, his model combines all different individuals within the category of participants of a communicative event.

In the case of human-goat communication at the goat farm, the participants who have to be present and included within the study are humans and goats. Aside from these participants, other animals such as cows and chickens are present as well, but their presence at the farm is not included within the scope of this study.

4.3.3 ENDS

When discussing the category of ends, Hymes (1972) proposes two types of purposes of a communicative event: its goals and its outcomes. The goal of a communicative event is the favorable and intended outcome of that event. This can be defined by the community in which the event takes

(27)

18

place, or by individual participants within that community. The outcomes, on the other hand, are the real-life outcomes of the event. For example, the goal of a conversation between a salesman and a customer from the perspective of the salesman can be to sell his product to the customer. This goal can then turn into an outcome if they actually succeed in selling. As Hymes (1972) believed that these two concepts are strongly intertwined and codependent, the SPEAKING-model combines them under its third category of ends.

At the goat farm, the ends of the communicative event of feeding depend on the perspective of the participant that is being analyzed. For the goat, for example, it can be predicted that the goal of being fed is to eat. This goal can then turn into an outcome if they succeed in eating from a human participant’s hand. From a visitor’s perspective, however, the goal might be to establish a relationship or connection with the goat. They can then use the food as a vessel to reach the intended outcome, without putting a strong focus on the action of feeding itself.

4.3.4 ACT SEQUENCE

Hymes (1972) defines the act sequence of a communicative event as the order in which things are presented or done within that event. In other words, each communicative event can be divided up into different steps or moves, and these moves then occur in a certain order. For example, within the communicative event of writing an application letter, three things are always present; an opening or freeing, a polite ending, and signing off (Henry & Roseberry, 2001). Not only are these steps taken, but they also occur in a specific order; you would not start with a polite ending and end with a greeting, as that would come across as incompetent and could cause you not to be shortlisted for the job you are applying for. Therefore, the act sequence of the communicative event has a strong influence on whether or not its goals can become outcomes.

In the case of feeding at the goat farm, contact between the different participants is established by one participant who approaches another. After that, an interaction takes place, and then eventually ends. As a result, the act sequence of the communicative event of feeding at the goat farm will consist of at least three steps, starting with an approach and ending with an exit.

4.3.5 KEY

In Hymes’s (1972) definition, the key of a communicative event is “the tone, manner, or spirit in which an act is done” (p. 62). This aspect usually focuses on traditional human language analysis, as the tone of an act is most often analyzed through the pitch or tone of a linguistic utterance. Due to

(28)

19

differences in key, a communicative event that consists of the same moves, words, or acts can be interpreted in different ways.

For the purposes of this research, the traditional approach of analyzing key through the tone or pitch of human language utterances is difficult, as human-goat communication only allows for language utterances from the human perspective, therefore excluding the goat participants. However, if it were to be approached as the general spirit or manner in which the event takes place, its definition for the purposes of this study overlaps with the concept of scene, as elaborated on in section 4.3.1. Therefore, the aspect of key will not be discussed further for the purposes of this study and all findings in relation to atmosphere, spirit, mood, or vibe of the communicative events will be discussed under the category of setting and scene.

4.3.6 INSTRUMENTALITIES

Hymes (1972) defines the instrumentalities of a communicative event as “the choice of channel or medium through which the message is conveyed” (De Malsche, 2018). This includes the dichotomy between spoken and written language, as well as different dialects, codes, registers, and all other possible channels or mediums through which communication can occur.

For the purposes of this study, gesture and gaze are the primary modes, rather than human language. Although the human participants can use language, both the humans and the goats can make use of gesture and gaze, which is why the focus will rely on those channels rather than on human language.

4.3.7 NORMS OF INTERACTION

Hymes (1972) defines the norms of interaction as “the specific behaviors and proprieties that attach to speaking” (p. 63). For example, a norm of the communicative event of a conversation between two friends is that they should not interrupt the other when they are speaking. However, different communicative events can have different norms of interaction. In the case of a debate, for example, one party can interrupt the other without it conflicting with the norms of that interaction. For this reason, the norms of interaction can provide insight into the norms that a specific community adheres to, as they implicitly represent the community’s values.

In the case of the goat farm, the norms are not attached to speaking, but to behavior and communication in general. For example, a norm that is commonly enforced in any type of zoo context is that visitors cannot feed the animals their own food, but only food that they buy at the zoo itself. This rule then provides insight into what the community values, in this case presumably the general

(29)

20

health of the animals at the zoo. Additionally, it is possible that the zoo values the profit they can make from selling animal food, as they are most often profit organizations.

4.3.8 GENRE

The eighth and final aspect of the SPEAKING-model is defined as narrative categories. Hymes (1972) explains that these categories can range from poems and myths to letters and editorials (p. 63). At the goat farm, however, the focus does not lie solely on human language, so the examples of narrative categories that he proposes cannot be applied to this context. The general framework of a genre as a narrative category, however, can be applied to the context of a goat farm as a whole. For example, the act of feeding at the goat farm can be analyzed as a narrative category. In this case, the narrative genre is interpreted more as an interactive genre and is defined on the basis of certain present aspects that the different participants all know and recognize as such.

(30)

21

5 METHODOLOGY

5.1 QUALITATIVE LINGUISTIC ETHNOGRAPHY

As a starting point of the methodology for this project, a qualitative ethnographic approach was chosen. In its essence, ethnography can be defined in the following way:

Originating in cultural anthropology, ethnographic research aims at describing and analyzing the practices and beliefs of cultures. ‘Culture’ is not limited to ethnic groups but can be related to any bounded units such as organizations, programmes, and even distinct communities (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 130).

The ethnographer looks into these practices and beliefs by immersing themselves into the studied culture and describing the daily life and happenings of the target culture as elaborately and accurately as possible (Dörnyei, 2007). These descriptions should also go into what the meanings of these happenings are according to the participants and what beliefs they adhere to the activities taking place in the culture (Dörnyei, 2007). For this project, the petting farm context and its participants can be considered a culture as well and can therefore be studied by analyzing their practices and beliefs. Tying in with the theoretical framework of the ethnography of communication, their practices can be considered the communicative events taking place at the petting farm, whereas their beliefs are translated into the aims and norms of the events.

As discussed in section 2, within the field of human-animal communication there is little to no research from a discourse analytic perspective. Ethnographic research was chosen as the starting point, as it allows for a broad first look at the unstudied culture and is ideal to generate first hypotheses about uncharted territory (Dörnyei, 2007). When they enter the culture, the ethnographer has little to no preexisting notions of what to expect or what they are looking for and tries to make sense of all the impulses they see, hear, and feel throughout the data collection process. Copland & Angela (2015) explain this as going into the field with a wide-angled view and trying to take notes about as much as possible. After these initial impressions, the ethnographer then develops more insight into the participants’ beliefs, values, and actions, and develops more focus in regard to what they consider relevant data along the way. In a field where there is no preexisting data, such as the field of human-goat communication specifically in the discursive context of the petting farm, the researcher cannot predict what they will see, hear, and feel once they are in field, making this type of research difficult to plan out front. Therefore, ethnography is especially applicable to this new field

(31)

22

of research, as the ethnographer develops the focus of their research only after some initial fieldwork has been done (Dörnyei, 2007).

In its essence, ethnographic research is qualitative. The researcher’s tools are a blank page and a pen, and they simply write down what they see, hear, smell, feel, and sense as field notes (Copland & Creese, 2015). Although these field notes can be supported with other types of data collection, such as interviews, audiovisual data, or questionnaires, the starting point is always qualitative and based on the researcher’s own impressions. For this reason, ethnography is often criticized for being biased, as the researcher’s personal impressions form the basis of the entire research project, and no researcher can ever be fully impartial or objective. As Copland & Creese (2015) explain, “we never start from a completely clean slate and will always bring ourselves into what we observe” (p. 38). However, this does not mean that ethnographic research is inherently worth less than number- or big data-driven research. Although an ethnographer cannot present a purely objective overview of a studied culture, neither can other researchers, as the goal of objectivity in relation to culture will arguably always remain unattainable (Copland & Creese, 2015). For this project specifically, this goal is especially unachievable, as I conducted the fieldwork as a participant observer, putting me in the center of the culture I am aiming to study and therefore completely doing away with any possibility of objectivity. Therefore, the goal should not be objectivity, but considering our partialities and subjectivities, being aware of them, and including them as a part of the interpretive process of our research (Copland & Creese, 2015, p. 38). In being transparent in and reflective of the interpretive process, a researcher can use their own partiality and subjectivity as a strength, rather than a weakness (Copland & Creese, 2015).

The process of ethnographic research usually consists of four stages (Dörnyei, 2007). The first is that of entering a strange environment. This is a delicate stage during which the researcher is overwhelmed by a number of first impressions. In terms of data collection, this stage therefore mainly consists of mapping the terrain and keeping a diary with field notes of these impressions. In the second stage, the researcher has become more familiar with the culture and its routines and goes back to those initial impressions to start developing a focus. In the third stage, the researcher starts feeling at home in the culture, and the data collection is characterized by progressive focusing. Finally, the researcher withdraws from the culture and some final data is collected to fill gaps and validate previous findings.

This process and its four stages are usually characterized by three main features. First, the ethnographer should focus on participant meaning (Dörnyei, 2007). This entails that, rather than

(32)

23

interpreting behavior for the participants, their own interpretation of their own behavior is considered crucial to understanding the culture. To do so, the ethnographer takes the position of a participant observer. This entails that they learn to become a full member of the group or culture as profoundly as possible in order to understand it. The second characteristic is that ethnographic research should consist of prolonged engagement in the cultural setting (Dörnyei, 2007). Finally, ethnographic research is characterized by its emergent nature, as its exact focus evolves and emerges throughout the data collecting process (Dörnyei, 2007). For this project, the first characteristic unfortunately could not be achieved fully. Although I was a participant observer as a visitor, many of the other participants are goats, and it was therefore physically impossible for me to be a participant observer in that group of participants. Additionally, the second characteristic of long-term engagement was not achieved either, due to the limited scope and timeframe of this project. However, as a visiting participant observer, prolonged presence at the farm was not necessary to understand it from their perspective, as visitors usually only visit it for a short time themselves. Finally, the emergent nature of the project was achieved through the data collection process, which will be elaborated on in section 5.2.

In conclusion, an ethnographic approach was chosen for this project as there is no preexisting research, and the approach allows for a first overview of an otherwise unknown new field of research. Although the approach has received criticism throughout the years for being too biased, these criticisms can be refuted if the researcher is transparent in their reflective and interpretive process and aware of their own partialities, which every researcher in every field is inherently prone to. For this reason, I will elaborate and reflect on my choices in the following sections, so as to make them as transparent for the reader as possible.

5.2 MULTIMODAL DATA COLLECTION

For the data collection of this project, a multimodal approach was chosen. This entails that rather than opting for one type of data, multiple sources are used to construct the full set of data (Dörnyei, 2007). First, field notes represent the core of ethnographic research and these were made throughout the data collection process. Second, interactional (audio)visual data were collected as well, in the form of videos and photographs. This was done in light of Copland & Creese’s (2015) argument that “linguistic ethnography’s strength derives from its support of combining different data collection and analyses processes rather than separating them out” (p. 52). Although field notes are essential to (linguistic) ethnography, additional data help to fill gaps and illustrate certain aspects that are made in the field notes. In other words, one is not more important than the other, but these different types

(33)

24

of data are used to strengthen one another and to validate each other’s points. No one type of data is considered the main starting point of analysis, but they are intertwined in the interpretive process.

The farm where the data for this study was collected was chosen for its large number of goats. The number of goats in petting zoos and farms highly differs, as petting zoos usually only have one to five goats, whereas goat farms usually have more than 100. I decided to contact the latter, as I believe a larger number of goats present at the farm allows me to make broader conclusions about human-goat communication in general. As the farm wishes to remain anonymous for this project, further details about its location or other identifiable information have been left out of the dataset and this dissertation.

Initially, I requested permission from the farm to do participant observation as part of the staff team and understand the goat farm better from an inside perspective. In this request, I asked for permission to conduct interviews with the farm staff and to record audiovisual data of them and the visitors present at the farm. Unfortunately, the farm replied that they did not have the time to cooperate actively in the research project and declined my request. I then restructured the planned data collection process and asked for permission to make field notes and record audiovisual data with participants that I had obtained informed consent from as a visiting participant observer. Instead of an inside analysis, this type of data collection would allow me to look at the farm from an outsider visitor’s perspective. The farm agreed with this second request, as it did not require active collaboration from the farm and they found the research topic interesting. As a result, the university’s Ethics Committee also granted me ethical permission to proceed with the project.

For this study, a data set consisting of a total of 6000 words in field notes, 42 photographs, and 29 videos was collected over a total of six visits to the goat farm. These visits each consisted of multiple hours, leading up to a total of fourteen observation hours. All the visits took place during the period between 20 March 2019 and 3 April 2019. Three visits were conducted alone and three were with participants, the selection of which I will elaborate on in section 5.2.2. These participants signed informed consent forms after reading an information letter about my research, which can be found in Appendix section 1, and thus gave me written consent to record them in interaction with the goats. In section 5.2.1, I elaborate on the data collection process of the field notes, whereas section 5.2.2 focuses on the interactional (audio)visual data collection. Finally, section 5.3 discusses how the final dataset was selected and processed.

(34)

25 5.2.1 FIELD NOTES

During all six visits, both by myself and with other visitors, I made field notes detailing what I heard, what I saw, what I smelt and what I felt at that moment. To do so, I had two different notebooks with me; one that functioned as a private diary, and one in which I wrote down a public set of field notes. The main difference between both is that I could write in the private diary at any time to reflect on what I had seen and how it made me feel, even when I was not in the field. For the public field notes, on the other hand, I restricted myself to only writing in them when I was at the farm, so as to be able to differentiate between afterthoughts and observations to a certain extent in the analysis of the data. Additionally, the private diary is not part of the final dataset but was used as a tool to remind myself of certain emotions I felt at specific times and introspective reflections I had about the data collection process and the data itself. In Copland & Creese’s (2015) definition, this original set of field notes can be defined as observational notes rather than field notes, as they are rough and unprocessed.

The field note collection process can be summarized in the four-stage ethnographic research process described by Dörnyei (2007), as discussed in section 5.1. On the first day of observation, I entered the strange environment by myself with little to no preexisting knowledge; I had never been to a goat farm and had only consulted limited information on their website beforehand as I did not want to spoil my initial impressions. This leap into the unknown resulted in chaotic notes with little to no coherent structure, as I was simply writing down everything I could without reflecting on what could be relevant for my specific research purposes. I purposely chose to go by myself on the first day, as I was certain those first impressions would already be overwhelming enough without having to focus on and record data with another human participant.

After the first day, I read through my field notes and started the process of reflecting on what I had seen and felt in the private diary. Following that, I went into the second stage, namely that of familiarity and routine. After the first impressions, I went back to the farm by myself for a second time to dive deeper into answering questions that could possibly be significant for my further research. Questions such as “When are the goats fed?”, “What do the goats eat?”, “Who feeds the goats?” and “When are they milked?” are just a few examples of routine aspects I was focusing on. After this second visit, I started feeling more at home in the farm environment, so I decided to bring along my first participants for audiovisual data recording, which I will elaborate on in section 5.2.2. When visiting with participants, I always started with showing them around the premises, so as to break the ice and introduce them to the environment I was now already quite familiar with. During these visits, I decided to make field notes as well, but those notes were much less elaborate than the

Analyzing Interspecific Communication in Light of the Ethnography of Communication: A Case Study on Human-Goat Communication During Feeding in the Discursive Context of the Petting Farm