Animal Cognition

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 499–509 | Cite as

Effect of interaction type on the characteristics of pet-directed speech in female dog owners

  • Sarah Jeannin
  • Caroline Gilbert
  • Gérard Leboucher
Original Paper


Recent studies focusing on the interspecific communicative interactions between humans and dogs show that owners use a special speech register when addressing their dog. This register, called pet-directed speech (PDS), has prosodic and syntactic features similar to that of infant-directed speech (IDS). While IDS prosody is known to vary according to the context of the communication with babies, we still know little about the way owners adjust acoustic and verbal PDS features according to the type of interaction with their dog. The aim of the study was therefore to explore whether the characteristics of women’s speech depend on the nature of interaction with their dog. We recorded 34 adult women interacting with their dog in four conditions: before a brief separation, after reuniting, during play and while giving commands. Our results show that before separation women used a low pitch, few modulations, high intensity variations and very few affective sentences. In contrast, the reunion interactions were characterized by a very high pitch, few imperatives and a high frequency of affectionate nicknames. During play, women used mainly questions and attention-getting devices. Finally when commanding, women mainly used imperatives as well as attention-getting devices. Thus, like mothers using IDS, female owners adapt the verbal as well as the non-verbal characteristics of their PDS to the nature of the interaction with their dog, suggesting that the intended function of these vocal utterances remains to provide dogs with information about their intentions and emotions.


Pet-directed speech Human–dog relationship Vocalizations Interaction context 



The authors are indebted to David Reby for his invaluable contribution to this article. We would like to thank Dr. S. Perrot (IRCA-ENVA) for providing access to the IRCA room and its facilities at the ENVA. Thanks to Marine Parker, Raphaëlle Bourrec, Raphaëlle Tigeot and Justine Guillaumont for their participation in these experiments, as well as for the pilot experiment. Thanks to Mathieu Amy for help in statistical analyses. Thanks to the CHUVA (ENVA) for help with the recruitment of owners. Thanks to owners who accepted to take part to this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. All applicable international, national and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed and “all procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution at which the study was conducted”. The study received the approval of the ethical committee of ENVA (COMERC), no. 2015-03-11.


  1. Ainsworth MDS, Wittig BA (1969) Attachment and exploratory behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. In: Foss BM (ed) Determinants of infant behavior, vol 4. Methuen, London, pp 111–136Google Scholar
  2. Albert A, Bulcroft K (1988) Pets, families, and the life course. J Marriage Fam 50:543–552. doi: 10.2307/352019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archer J (1997) Why do people love their pets? Evol Hum Behav 18:237–259. doi: 10.1016/S0162-3095(99)80001-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Archer J, Monton S (2011) Preferences for infant facial features in pet dogs and cats. Ethology 117:217–226. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01863.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Askew HR (1996) Treatment of behavior problems in dogs and cats: a guide for the small animal veterinarian. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Berryman JC, Howells K, Lloyd-Evans M (1984) Pet owner attitudes to pets and people: a psychological study. Vet Rec 117:659–661. doi: 10.1136/vr.117.25-26.659 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolinger DL (1964) Around the age of language: Intonation. In: Bolinger D (ed) Intonation. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, pp 19–29Google Scholar
  8. Bowlby J (1969) Attachement et perte, vol 1: L’attachement. PUF, ParisGoogle Scholar
  9. Burnham D et al (1998) Are you my little pussy-cat? Acoustic, phonetic and affective qualities of infant-and pet-directed speech. In: Fifth international conference on spoken language processing (ICSLP)Google Scholar
  10. Burnham D, Kitamura C, Vollmer-Conna U (2002) What’s new, pussycat? On talking to babies and animals. Science 296:1435. doi: 10.1126/science.1069587 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Del Monte Foods, Business Wire (2011) New study reveals that the American family has gone to the dogs. The Milo’s Kitchen™Pet Parent Survey, conducted by Kelton Research. Accessed 2 May 2011
  12. Dunst C, Gorman E, Hamby D (2012) Preference for infant-directed speech in preverbal young children. Cent Early Lit Learn Rev 5:1–13Google Scholar
  13. Fernald A (1989) Intonation and communicative intent in mothers’ speech to infants: is the melody the message? Child Dev 60:1497–1510. doi: 10.2307/1130938 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fernald A (1992) Meaningful melodies in mothers’ speech to infants. In: Papoušek H, Papoušek M (eds) Nonverbal vocal communication: comparative and developmental approaches. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 262–282Google Scholar
  15. Fernald A, Simon T (1984) Expanded intonation contours in mothers’ speech to newborns. Dev Psychol 20:104–113. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.20.1.104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fogle B (1992) The dog’s mind: understanding your dog’s behavior. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Gibson JM, Scavelli SA, Udell CJ, Udell MAR (2014) Domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are sensitive to the “human” qualities of vocal commands. Anim Behav Cogn 1:281–295. doi: 10.12966/abc.08.05.2014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Golinkoff RM, Can DD, Soderstrom M, Hirsh-Pasek K (2015) (Baby) talk to me: the social context of infant-directed speech and its effects on early language acquisition. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 24:339–344. doi: 10.1177/0963721415595345 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harrington J, Palethorpe S, Watson CI (2007) Age-related changes in fundamental frequency and formants: a longitudinal study of four speakers. In: Interspeech 2007: 8th annual conference of the international speech communication association, vol 2, pp 1081–1084Google Scholar
  20. Hirsh-Pasek K, Treiman R (1982) Doggerel: Motherese in a new context. J Child Lang 9:229–237. doi: 10.1017/S0305000900003731 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Horowitz A, Hecht J (2016) Examining dog-human play: the characteristics, affect, and vocalizations of a unique interspecific interaction. Anim Cogn 19:779–788. doi: 10.1007/s10071-016-0976-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kidd AH, Kidd RM (1989) Factors in adults’ attitudes toward pets. Psychol Rep 65:903–910. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1990.66.3.775 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kim H, Diehl MM, Panneton R, Moon C (2006) Hyperarticulation in mothers’ speech to babies and puppies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the XVth biennial international conference on infant studies, Westin Miyako, Kyoto, Japan.
  24. Liu HM, Kuhl PK, Tsao FM (2003) An association between mothers’ speech clarity and infants’ speech discrimination skills. Dev Sci 6:F1–F10. doi: 10.1111/1467-7687.00275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marinelli L, Adamelli S, Normando S, Bono G (2007) Quality of life of the pet dog: Influence of owner and dog’s characteristics. Appl Anim Behav Sci 108:143–156. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.11.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Markwell PJ, Thorne CJ (1987) Early behavioural development of dogs. J Small Anim Pract 28:984–991. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-5827.1987.tb01322.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maxwell SE, Delaney HD (2004) Designing experiments and analyzing data: a model comparison perspective, 2nd edn. Psychology Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Mitchell RW (2001) Americans’ talk to dogs: similarities and differences with talk to infants. Res Lang Soc Interact 34:183–210. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI34-2_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mitchell RW (2004) Controlling the dog, pretending to have a conversation, or just being friendly? Influences of sex and familiarity on Americans’ talk to dogs during play. Interact Stud 5:99–129. doi: 10.1075/is.5.1.06mit CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mitchell RW, Edmonson E (1999) Functions of repetitive talk to dogs during play: control, conversation, or planning? Soc Anim 7:55–81. doi: 10.1163/156853099X00167 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morton ES (1977) On the occurrence and significance of motivation-structural rules in some bird and mammal sounds. Am Nat 111:855–869. doi: 10.1086/283219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nagasawa M, Kikusui T, Onaka T, Ohta M (2009) Dog’s gaze at its owner increases owner’s urinary oxytocin during social interaction. Horm Behav 55:434–441. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2008.12.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Nagasawa M, Mitsui S, En S, Ohtani N, Ohta M, Sakuma Y et al (2015) Oxytocin-gaze positive loop and the coevolution of human–dog bonds. Science 348:333–336. doi: 10.1126/science.1261022 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Newport E, Gleitman H, Gleitman L (1977) Mother, I’d rather do it myself: some effects and non-effects of maternal speech style. In: Snow CE, Ferguson CA (eds) Talking to children. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 109–149Google Scholar
  35. Odendaal JSJ, Meintjes RA (2003) Neurophysiological correlates of affiliative behaviour between humans and dogs. Vet J Lond Engl 165:296–301. doi: 10.1016/S1090-0233(02)00237-X Google Scholar
  36. Ohala JJ (1984) An ethological perspective on common cross-language utilization of F0 of voice. Phonetica 41:1–16. doi: 10.1159/000261706 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Palestrini C, Previde EP, Spiezio C, Verga M (2005) Heart rate and behavioural responses of dogs in the Ainsworth’s Strange Situation: a pilot study. Appl Anim Behav Sci 94:75–88. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.02.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Papoušek M, Bornstein MH, Nuzzo C, Papoušek H, Symmes D (1990) Infant responses to prototypical melodic contours in parental speech. Inf Behav Dev 13:539–545. doi: 10.1016/0163-6383(90)90022-Z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Papoušek M, Papoušek H, Symmes D (1991) The meanings of melodies in motherese in tone and stress languages. Infant Behav Dev 14:415–440. doi: 10.1016/0163-6383(91)90031-M CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pongrácz P, Miklósi A, Csányi V (2001) Owner’s beliefs on the ability of their pet dogs to understand human verbal communication: a case of social understanding. Curr Psychol Cogn 20:87–107Google Scholar
  41. Poresky RH, Daniels AM (1998) Demographics of pet presence and attachment. Anthrozoös 11:236–241. doi: 10.2752/089279398787000508 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Prato-Previde E, Custance DM, Spiezio C, Sabatini F (2003) Is the dog-human relationship an attachment bond? An observational study using Ainsworth’s strange situation. Behaviour 140:225–254. doi: 10.1163/156853903321671514 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Prato-Previde E, Fallani G, Valsecchi P (2006) Gender differences in owners interacting with pet dogs: an observational study. Ethology 112:64–73. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2006.01123.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rehn T, Handlin L, Uvnäs-Moberg K, Keeling LJ (2013) Dogs’ endocrine and behavioural responses at reunion are affected by how the human initiates contact. Physiol Behav 124:45–53. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2013.10.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rogers J, Hart LA, Boltz RP (1993) The role of pet dogs in casual conversations of elderly adults. J Soc Psychol 133:265–277. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1993.9712145 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Saint-Georges C, Chetouani M, Cassel R, Apicella F, Mahdhaoui A, Muratori F et al (2013) Motherese in interaction: at the cross-road of emotion and cognition? (A systematic review). PLoS ONE 8:e78103. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078103 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Siegel S, Castellan NJ (1988) Book review: nonparametric statistics for the behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry: the principals and practice of statistics in biological research, 3rd edn. WH Freman and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Sokol RI, Webster KL, Thompson NS, Stevens DA (2005) Whining as mother-directed speech. Infant Child Dev 14:478–490. doi: 10.1002/icd.420 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Song JY, Demuth K, Morgan JL (2010) Effects of the acoustic properties of infant-directed speech on infant word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 128:352–363. doi: 10.1121/1.3419786 Google Scholar
  51. Syrdal A, Kim YJ (2008) Dialog speech acts and prosody: considerations for TTS. In: Proceedings of speech prosody. Campinas, Brazil, pp 661–665Google Scholar
  52. Taylor P (2006) Gauging family intimacy: Pew Research Centers Social Demographic Trends Project RSS. Pew Research Center
  53. Thalmann O, Shapiro B, Cui P, Schuenemann VJ, Sawyer SK, Greenfield DL et al (2013) Complete mitochondrial genomes of ancient canids suggest a European origin of domestic dogs. Science 342:871–874. doi: 10.1126/science.1243650 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Topál J, Miklósi Á, Csányi V, Dóka A (1998) Attachment behavior in dogs (Canis familiaris): a new application of Ainsworth’s (1969) Strange Situation Test. J Comp Psychol 112:219. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.112.3.219 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Topál J, Kis A, Oláh K (2014) Dogs’ sensitivity to human ostensive cues: a unique adaptation. In: The social dog. Elsevier, London, pp 319–346 Google Scholar
  56. Trainor LJ, Clark ED, Huntley A, Adams BA (1997) The acoustic basis of preferences for infant-directed singing. Infant Behav Dev 20:383–396. doi: 10.1016/S0163-6383(97)90009-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Trainor LJ, Austin CM, Desjardins RN (2000) Is infant-directed speech prosody a result of the vocal expression of emotion? Psychol Sci 11:188–195. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00240 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Xu N, Burnham D, Kitamura C, Vollmer-Conna U (2013) Vowel hyperarticulation in parrot-, dog-and infant-directed speech. Anthrozoos 26:373–380. doi: 10.2752/175303713X13697429463592 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah Jeannin
    • 1
  • Caroline Gilbert
    • 2
  • Gérard Leboucher
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire Ethologie, Cognition, Développement (LECD-EA3456)Univ Paris Nanterre (UPL)NanterreFrance
  2. 2.UMR 7179, CNRS/MNHNEcole Nationale Vétérinaire d’Alfort (ENVA)Maisons-AlfortFrance

Personalised recommendations