# What does a name mean to the dog?



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

This may sound like a silly question, but what exactly is the dog's name supposed to mean to the dog? 

Scientific studies suggest that only the great apes and dolphins have a sense of self, which I think would be the first prerequisite to understanding the concept of having a name. From what I understand, dogs only assign one meaning to a word. As an example, ask a dog to sit while he is standing, and he will do it. Ask him to sit while he is laying down and he will just stare at you blankly. 

When we humans say this word everywhere at everything the dog does, what does the dog think this word is supposed to mean? What SHOULD the name mean to the dog?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

The behavior I seek when I call their name is "look at me". Doesnt really matter what they are doing, when I call their name, I'm trying to get eye contact from my dog. Another cue tends to follow to show what behavior I want him to perform next.


----------



## lizziedog1 (Oct 21, 2009)

> what does the dog think this word is supposed to mean?


To my dogs it means it is time for dinner or time to go for a walk!


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

qingcong said:


> This may sound like a silly question, but what exactly is the dog's name supposed to mean to the dog?
> 
> Scientific studies suggest that only the great apes and dolphins have a sense of self, which I think would be the first prerequisite to understanding the concept of having a name. From what I understand, dogs only assign one meaning to a word. *As an example, ask a dog to sit while he is standing, and he will do it. Ask him to sit while he is laying down and he will just stare at you blankly. *
> 
> When we humans say this word everywhere at everything the dog does, what does the dog think this word is supposed to mean? What SHOULD the name mean to the dog?


I disagree with the bolded. All my dogs are taught sit = butt on the ground. They will go from standing to sitting and from down to sitting with a single cue 'sit'.

Anyways I agree with RBark. It to me is a 'hey you!' Although it is often I suppose simply a positive sound for them. I say their names a lot when I'm just talking to them and often saying their name just gets their tail a going pretty hard.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> I disagree with the bolded. All my dogs are taught sit = butt on the ground. They will go from standing to sitting and from down to sitting with a single cue 'sit'.


Right, but you probably had to teach that. Most dogs don't necessarily understand that sit = butt on the ground, most understand sit as the movement from standing to butt on the ground. In Patricia McConnell's book "The Other End of the Leash", she specifically mentions this example to explain that dogs have different interpretations of words than we do.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

qingcong said:


> This may sound like a silly question, but what exactly is the dog's name supposed to mean to the dog?
> 
> Scientific studies suggest that only the great apes and dolphins have a sense of self, which I think would be the first prerequisite to understanding the concept of having a name. From what I understand, dogs only assign one meaning to a word. * As an example, ask a dog to sit while he is standing, and he will do it. Ask him to sit while he is laying down and he will just stare at you blankly. *
> When we humans say this word everywhere at everything the dog does, what does the dog think this word is supposed to mean? What SHOULD the name mean to the dog?


(The bolded) I disagree with that. I play the "Sitz" "Platz" game with Hawk, in which I just say Sitz and Platz over and over about 6 times and he reacts very fast to the commands without any physical cues.

As far as the name goes. It lets my dogs know which dog I am talking too. If I tell Hawkeye to go into the car and not Kechara then she will wait till her name is said, same with when we go thru doorways. I will call "Kechara" when I want her to go thru and Hawkeye will impatiently wait for me to call his name so he can go too.



qingcong said:


> Right, but you probably had to teach that. Most dogs don't necessarily understand that* sit = butt on the ground*, most understand sit as the movement from standing to butt on the ground. In Patricia McConnell's book "The Other End of the Leash", she specifically mentions this example to explain that dogs have different interpretations of words than we do.


Dogs also don't know what sit means untill you train it. I guess the bolded comes from training it right.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Keechak said:


> (The bolded) I disagree with that. I play the "Sitz" "Platz" game with Hawk, in which I just say Sitz and Platz over and over about 6 times and he reacts very fast to the commands without any physical cues.
> 
> As far as the name goes. It lets my dogs know which dog I am talking too. If I tell Hawkeye to go into the car and not Kechara then she will wait till her name is said, same with when we go thru doorways. I will call "Kechara" when I want her to go thru and Hawkeye will impatiently wait for me to call his name so he can go too.
> 
> ...



Yes you are right, you have to teach them sit exactly as you mean it. Most of the time sit is taught from the standing position though, and owners are baffled as to why their dog won't rise to a sit from the down position. The point I'm making is, we are often not aware that our dogs may have different meanings than we do.

In your case, say you had Hawk and Kechara in front of you. If you said, "Hawk, sit.", would only Hawk sit or would both of them sit?


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

qingcong said:


> In your case, say you had Hawk and Kechara in front of you. If you said, "Hawk, sit.", would only Hawk sit or would both of them sit?


In that case no, because they don't understand grammer, to them that is two sperate commands. 

Their names only come into play when I am asking attention from a certain dog or when they are asking permission for something I will tell them which dog the permission is granted for by saying that dogs name.

For instance I place two bowls of food on the ground and they both look at me "asking" if they can have it I will say "Kechara" and she will run to a bowl and eat but Hawk will continue to look at me and not move.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Ollie, Kobe, and Priscilla all responded to their name with the command. I assume it's because of eye contact most of the time, as well as body language. But either way, they learned to associate their name to themselves. So yeah, I could say Priscilla, sit, and she would be the only one to sit.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

What if you looked at Ollie and said, "Priscilla, sit." Who would sit? Or would they just be confused?

When you train your dogs, do you always say their name first?


----------



## FaithFurMom09 (Oct 24, 2009)

Im no expert but i would think its similar to a newborn. They learn their name and that they are that name. A baby learns to look at you when you say their name and a dog is the same. They learn their name and that they are that name. 

as far as training, i say Faiths name first, during and after when we learn something new.. but generally if i just want a basic command, its at the beginning. 
"Faith, sit"
or for example we are working on her sitting at the top/bottom of the stairs right now--
"Faith, stay." "Good girl Faith" "Faith stay"... then i get to the landing and say "come Faith, Faith come" This works for us though, i dont know if its right.


----------



## MakeShift Heart (Sep 12, 2009)

I'm not sure why you think dogs are incapable of doing "Sit" from the down position. Belle does it all the time..

also, belle has even caught on that when I say her full name I mean business and when I say just her first name I'm playing.

When I'm being firm with her I call, "Bella Lynn!" when I just want to play around with her I say, "Belle!"

She does respond to both names as well.

also, belle has even caught on that when I say her full name I mean business and when I say just her first name I'm playing.

When I'm being firm with her I call, "Bella Lynn!" when I just want to play around with her I say, "Belle!"

She does respond to both names as well.


----------



## Cheetah (May 25, 2006)

My two defnitely know that when I say their name, it at least means I am talking to them. They stop whatever they're doing and look at me. Also, I have done some training with their boundaries. I can have them both standing at the door, and if I say "Shippo, go," Shippo will walk through the door and Eevee will wait. And the other way around of course. So they do seem to know that their names mean them.

And mine are also trained to sit from a stand and a down. And to down from a stand and a sit. And to stand from a sit and a down lol. Training is a beautiful thing.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

MakeShift Heart said:


> I'm not sure why you think dogs are incapable of doing "Sit" from the down position. Belle does it all the time..
> 
> also, belle has even caught on that when I say her full name I mean business and when I say just her first name I'm playing.
> 
> ...


I never said dogs are incapable of sitting from the down position, I'm just saying most of the time we teach them to sit from the standing position, so to most dogs, sit = move butt from air to ground whereas our definition = butt on ground. If you trained your dog to sit from the down position or if your dog understands that sit = butt on ground no matter what position he was in before, that's great. I'm just trying to point out an example of a simple mis-communication between dog and human.

When you say, BELLE LYNN in a firm tone, do you think she is responding to the fact that you're saying her full name, or that you are using a firm tone of voice? What would happen if you said Belle Lynn in a playful manner? How do you know that your dog understands BELLE LYNN as her name and not as a simple punishment word such as NO? 




Cheetah said:


> My two defnitely know that when I say their name, it at least means I am talking to them. They stop whatever they're doing and look at me. Also, I have done some training with their boundaries. I can have them both standing at the door, and if I say "Shippo, go," Shippo will walk through the door and Eevee will wait. And the other way around of course. So they do seem to know that their names mean them.
> 
> And mine are also trained to sit from a stand and a down. And to down from a stand and a sit. And to stand from a sit and a down lol. Training is a beautiful thing.


Okay, so obviously you do a good job teaching your dogs commands. How do you teach them that their name means "this is who I am?"


----------



## MakeShift Heart (Sep 12, 2009)

qingcong said:


> When you say, BELLE LYNN in a firm tone, do you think she is responding to the fact that you're saying her full name, or that you are using a firm tone of voice? What would happen if you said Belle Lynn in a playful manner? How do you know that your dog understands BELLE LYNN as her name and not as a simple punishment word such as NO?


because no matter what tone I have used when I say "bella lynn" she always responds to me. Same with "Belle".


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

She will respond, but I don't think that means the dog is identifying herself as "Bella Lynn" or "Belle". As I said in the original post, only the most intelligent animals (apes and dolphins) have a sense of self. To identify yourself as Bella Lynn means that you need to have a sense of self to attach Bella Lynn to yourself. In otherwords, Bella Lynn might simply be a verb to her which means "look at owner" or "owner is mad, so look sheepish at owner." 

I'm not saying dogs can't understand their names in the way humans do, but there is no real proof that they can either, is there? When Cheetah says that she calls her dogs one at a time through the door, perhaps the dog understands "Shippo" as "go through door to owner." When Eevee doesn't respond to "Shippo", it doesn't necessarily mean Eevee understands that Shippo is the other dog. It was probably a combination of the owner's body language and Eevee simply not knowing what Shippo means in relation to her. 

This is getting a little too complicated.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

qingcong said:


> As an example, ask a dog to sit while he is standing, and he will do it. Ask him to sit while he is laying down and he will just stare at you blankly.


Actually both my girls will sit quite well from laying down or standing.

As for the name, we'll never know. They each know I want their attention when I say their name though.



qingcong said:


> I'm not saying dogs can't understand their names in the way humans do, but there is no real proof that they can either, is there?


First you would have to really understand how we understand it. I don't know that we do.

And how would you ever be able to tell if a dog understands self?



> This is getting a little too complicated.


Unavoidable really.

I'm not convinced I understand my "name" more then they do. 

If you started today to call me "squeegie" all the time instead of John, soon I would turn to look when I heard someone say squeegie just like I turn to look now when anyone says John. Not a lot of difference there in a lot of ways.

If me and you were standing in front of two chairs and a person said "sit" without a name we might both sit. With name only one of us would. Just like my dogs.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

TxRider said:


> Actually both my girls will sit quite well from laying down or standing.
> 
> As for the name, we'll never know. They each know I want their attention when I say their name though.
> 
> ...



There is a test scientist do to determine if an animal grasps the concept of self. They will put a mark on the animal's head and then place a mirror in front of it. The animal will inspect the mark, signaling that they understand they are looking at themselves in the mirror. Animals that don't understand will attack or ignore it the image in the mirror.

Adult elephants, apes, and dolphins pass the test. Human infants typically don't pass until they are about 1 year old. If a dog has the mental capacity of a 2-3 year old human, does that mean they grasp the concept of self? I don't know.

But you do understand your name more than your dog. Your name has a lot of significance, it's who you are. When you greet someone, you identify yourself as John. Other people know you as John. Does a dog identify himself as Spike? One thing is for certain, and it's that the name does not have the same significance to dogs as it does to humans.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

It means whatever you train it to mean, imo.

Just like with any other word you teach a dog.

Sound you makes gets associated with something else if repeated often enough. Doesn't always have to be overtly rewarded. Thought Wally "downstairs" and "bed time" just by saying it everytime he went downstairs or into his crate.

As far as the mark on the head - if I put something "odd" on Wally's head and put him in front of a mirror, he's too busy looking around (or sniffing the mirror frame because it's new to him). I guess his sense of self isn't very strong


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

qingcong said:


> There is a test scientist do to determine if an animal grasps the concept of self. They will put a mark on the animal's head and then place a mirror in front of it. The animal will inspect the mark, signaling that they understand they are looking at themselves in the mirror. Animals that don't understand will attack or ignore it the image in the mirror.
> 
> Adult elephants, apes, and dolphins pass the test. Human infants typically don't pass until they are about 1 year old. If a dog has the mental capacity of a 2-3 year old human, does that mean they grasp the concept of self? I don't know.


How would a dog inspect the mark? They have little ability like an arm with a hand or a trunk. How do they know a dolphin is inspecting a mark and knows it is on their head when they cannot see their own head?

What would trying to go around behind a mirror to see if they can get to the thing in it signify?

Both my dogs I don't think ever saw a mirror before I got them. I tend to watch animals reaction to things like that.

Hope saw herself the first time in a large mirror and barked at herself once, looked for a minute, and hasn't shown any interest since. It was the first time I heard her bark I had to wonder what she made of it. Did she figure out it was herself? Who knows.

Kaya sees her reflection in my glass/brass fireplace doors. In the month I have had her I have seen her stop and stare at herself in it for a couple of minutes at a time several times, no bark but definite interest. What is she seeing and thinking? Who knows.


----------



## MakeShift Heart (Sep 12, 2009)

No matter what statistics or tests say I will continue to believe that Belle knows her name as "Belle" or "bella lynn."

Period.


----------



## Allie3985 (Jul 19, 2008)

It is amazing how obtuse people can be. That is a great question and I think that the most all encompassing answer is that "it means what we train it to mean." More specifically, if we are generalizing (such as the example with the average Fido not able to sit from a down) I would say that most dogs learn that their name means "pay attention because more information is soon to follow." I like to play "name proofing" games in which I make sure I specifically teach the dog what I expect when I say her name. 

I would like to project my humanity onto my dogs, however, it is unlikely that the dog associates his or her name with any sense of self. Possible, but unlikely. Try saying "hey you" every time before you give your dog a command, and that could essentially be its new name.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

If everyone called me Anteater, I'd probably start responding to it too


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Allie3985 said:


> Try saying "hey you" every time before you give your dog a command, and that could essentially be its new name.


That goes for most people I know too..


----------



## canteloupe (Apr 30, 2009)

The mirror test is only one of many, many tests that have been designed to evaluate whether different animals have a "sense of self" -- and, actually, even the concept of a sense of self is disputed. There are flaws with looking at this test alone to ascertain sense of self. For instance, for species that rely on scent above vision, any image in a mirror is going to mean less. They won't "see" the mirror image as an animal, let alone as them, without the accompanying scents. That's just one example.

Anyway, I think that most dogs understand their names to mean "Pay Attention Now," or something like that. As much as we might like to believe they actually understand it to signify them (in the sense that we understand our names), I don't think there's any rationale to support that.


----------



## Allie3985 (Jul 19, 2008)

TxRider said:


> That goes for most people I know too..


Lol. Its like that joke where the kid thinks his name is Jesus Christ.


----------



## Cheetah (May 25, 2006)

qingcong said:


> Okay, so obviously you do a good job teaching your dogs commands. How do you teach them that their name means "this is who I am?"


Well I can teach them to know that when I say their name, it means I'm talking to them specifically. Not that their name means "this is who I am" lol. I don't know anything about the whole "sense of self" thing.

But simple, using a clicker, my dogs' names were the first thing I taught them. Just lots of "Eevee!" *click*treat*

I didn't mean for my last post to come off as "miss know-it-all" lol sorry about that.


----------



## Foyerhawk (May 7, 2009)

My dogs know it means "hey you!" and they learn it fast. No one walks out the back door, for example, until I say that dog's name, and I have five. 

Here's an interesting factor, though- they also learn which name refers to which other dog.

I can say one of my dogs names and the others will often look at THAT dog- most likely to see if s/he is getting treats doled out or is going to get an invite to do something fun.


----------



## canteloupe (Apr 30, 2009)

Cheetah said:


> But simple, using a clicker, my dogs' names were the first thing I taught them. Just lots of "Eevee!" *click*treat*


But... You can't know that this taught them their names. It just teaches them that after you make a certain sound, good things will follow. So they learn to pay attention and get excited when they hear that sound.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

So here is a 19 month old dog. Watch him.






He has a concept of a name meaning a thing. Likely also of a name meaning a place. Or that a name means a specific person. 

My last dog knew these, I could tell to go to place, get a thing, and give it to a person and she would.

If a dog can know a name for thing, a name for a place, and a name for a person, and a name for another dog, I don't see it as a much of a stretch for a dog to understand a name for itself.

But without telepathy we'll likely never really know.


----------



## Cheetah (May 25, 2006)

TxRider said:


> If a dog can know a name for thing, a name for a place, and a name for a person, and a name for another dog, I don't see it as a much of a stretch for a dog to understand a name for itself.
> 
> But without telepathy we'll likely never really know.


I agree 100%.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

TxRider said:


> He has a concept of a name meaning a thing. Likely also of a name meaning a place. Or that a name means a specific person.
> 
> My last dog knew these, I could tell to go to place, get a thing, and give it to a person and she would.
> 
> ...


Of course a dog can know that. 

If I saw ball often enough while showing Wally an object - he'll start to associate that sound "ball" with the object I show him. I could call it a bird, and if I said "Get the bird!" he probably would get the ball once I establish in his mind that object is called a bird. 

It's how he learned what "cat" means. Everytime he looks at a cat, I say "cat!" and point at it. 

A name is like any other word. You associate it with something else consistently enough, the dog picks up the pattern and puts 2 and 2 together.

It's why a lot of times they say to preface cues with the dog's name. Dogs have some sense that they are a "thing" as well and that "thing" has a name also. 

Whether or not it's a "sense of self" - who knows, but I think it's just another association. If I said Wally's name, he'd come. If I said "TxRider" he'd probably not even wake up. He knows "Wally" means that the "thing" I'm referring to is him. While "TxRider" associates with nothing to him so he ignores it.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

TxRider said:


> If a dog can know a name for thing, a name for a place, and a name for a person, and a name for another dog, I don't see it as a much of a stretch for a dog to understand a name for itself.
> 
> But without telepathy we'll likely never really know.



It doesn't necessarily mean the dog knows that the name for the round thing is ball. It means he knows that "ball" = get the round thing and bring back to the human. In other words, I think that dogs think of words purely as verbs, not nouns.



Cheetah said:


> I didn't mean for my last post to come off as "miss know-it-all" lol sorry about that.


No I didn't take it that way. If my reply came off sounding agitated, it wasn't my intention. The interweb has this way of concealing tone of voice somehow.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

qingcong said:


> It doesn't necessarily mean the dog knows that the name for the round thing is ball. It means he knows that "ball" = get the round thing and bring back to the human. In other words, I think that dogs think of words purely as verbs, not nouns.


So how does that explain the dogs understanding when it accomplishes....

Get the ball and bring to me, get the ball and put it my lap, get the ball and put it on the table, and get the ball and give it Frank.

Or go in the bedroom, get my shoe, and put it in the car. My last dog would do this for any place and thing she knew the name of.

Or my last dog also knew stick and pine cone, and if I said go get me a stick, she would go select a stick laying around, break it into a manageable size, strip it of any little branches and bring it to me. That seemed like a pretty abstract concept for a dog to me.

Or if I told her to go get me a pine cone, she would go pick one out of dozens laying in the yard. Not one she had used before, though when I then threw it, she always brought back the same one.

Or if I told her "find the frisbee" and she had trouble, I could say "it's in the bedroom" and she would go there to look for it.

My current dog has only learned ball so far, but to her it means any of three balls, a yellow tennis ball, a bigger green kong ball, or a torn up half of an old tennis ball. She will get one of the three if I tell her go get the ball, whichever she chooses.

I think dogs get nouns and verbs, and can chain them in a limited fashion such as 2-3 in a chain.

They have to have some concept of thing I would think, not just an action. 

Such as a prey item they recognize, and know the characteristics of well enough like it's speed, and ease of killing. They remember it as a thing I would think, with definite qualities, a noun as it were.

They know if they are faster then another animal, or slower as well, or stronger or weaker, and will judge this based on things other than just size. Is that some sense of self?


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

qingcong said:


> It doesn't necessarily mean the dog knows that the name for the round thing is ball. It means he knows that "ball" = get the round thing and bring back to the human. In other words, I think that dogs think of words purely as verbs, not nouns.


I disagree when it concerns objects or locations.

If I show a dog a ball and say ball. How does he associate the behavior of retrieve?

I'm just showing him a ball and saying "ball". Where is he getting the "go get it" part? 

If I lined up a bunch of objects, only one of which is a ball, and I said "go get the ball" and he does it with consistency and with any objects in any order (i.e he's not just learning the position of the correct object in a certain context), then he understand what the "ball" is separate from the behavior of retrieving.

He's picking out his target, discriminating one object from another, associating the sound "ball" to the object his mind has associated with that sound. Like TxRider said, if a dog can know the difference between a cat and a tree (even before learning what "cat" and "tree" are called in human language), he knows the difference between objects in and of themselves, not just related to behaviors (i.e. objects = verbs).

Likewise with locations. I tell Wally "on your spot" and he goes to the place he's learned that's associated with that sound. "On your spot" is associated to a behavior chain: Walk to -> "my spot" -> lie down. If he had no concept of "his spot" then he'd just flop down in any random place. Not his bed/location I associated as "your spot" in the given context (in this case rooms of the house, which is another indication he understand location if only by the environment/scents in that area). 

Same with "Bed time". He's associated that with "Walk to -> Crate -> Lie down"

If he didn't understand the difference in location from Crate from, say, the throw rug, he could lie on the rug. Or just somewhere on the floor. He understands the location "crate" vs anywhere else in the room. Sure, I had to teach him that location, but the fact he learned it means he also knows the difference from the location I associated that cue with against any other possible location in the room.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

TxRider said:


> So how does that explain the dogs understanding when it accomplishes....
> 
> Get the ball and bring to me, get the ball and put it my lap, get the ball and put it on the table, and get the ball and give it Frank.
> 
> ...



Your old dog and the dog in that clip are pretty above average dogs in terms of intelligence. My dog, well, I think his brain just dies sometimes. Maybe that's why I underestimate dog intelligence sometimes.

Still, in the examples you list above and in the clip, there is no concrete evidence that the dog is labeling the word to the object, in other words, naming the object. Sure, dogs have a concept of things, but do they name the thing with words? I don't think so, I think they understand the word or set of words as a command (verb) with regard to the thing.

How does the dog know to retrieve the ball? I think it's probably your body language and the dog's natural instinct to retrieve.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

qingcong said:


> Your old dog and the dog in that clip are pretty above average dogs in terms of intelligence. My dog, well, I think his brain just dies sometimes. Maybe that's why I underestimate dog intelligence sometimes.
> 
> Still, in the examples you list above and in the clip, there is no concrete evidence that the dog is labeling the word to the object, in other words, naming the object. Sure, dogs have a concept of things, but do they name the thing with words? I don't think so, I think they understand the word or set of words as a command (verb) with regard to the thing.
> 
> How does the dog know to retrieve the ball? I think it's probably your body language and the dog's natural instinct to retrieve.


Likewise I see no evidence they are not labeling the word to an object.

I can't think of a test that would definitively tell if they are or not.

Calling one dogs name, and having the other dogs look at the dog who was called instead of the caller would seem to be close, they certainly aren't being asked for an action like retrieve.

I know they have to have a concept of an object, and associate the characteristics of that object with the object. Size, weight, color, smell, action, threat, taste, etc. of said object.

They know their master from other humans, their packmates from other dogs, and even the family cat from other cats. That shows a knowledge of distinct objects, with different properties, treated differently.

I assume they are able to associate that object with with a sound if repeated enough. 

Similar to how a dog after chasing enough say, geese, would hear a goose honk in the distance, and associate that sound with the goose which he knows can honk, fly, run, bite and tastes good or is fun to chase, or not by hearing it's honk by sound alone.

He may go try to find and eat the goose he heard, he may not if he's not hungry, or the rabbit he sees is closer or he knows is easier to catch.

It doesn't mean I am right in my assumptions though. It does however functionally work.

As for above intelligence dogs, I'm not sure about that either. I just repeat a name for everything I can religiously, and the dogs just seem to pick up on it eventually.

It seemed to me that it the verbs were easier to learn, especially after learning several.

That nouns are harder, but once the dog learns about 6-7 of them it gets much easier for them to learn more.

It took a long long time to teach my last dog a decent amount of names of things, but at the end she would learn from just showing her and 3-4 repetitions of the name.

For example I could take a new object, hold it in front of her and say "widget!" several times, and then drop it and say "get the widget", and she would pick it up, I would say "put it on the table", and she would go put it on the coffee table. 

then there is the famous Rico, who also could learn by exclusion.

It's a behavior called fast mapping... Here's an interesting read that discusses it and tests it in a border collie.

http://www.uwsp.edu/PSYCH/s/275/Learning/kaminskiEtAl-04-dogLang.pdf


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

The best term I can come up with is label. I doubt dogs have a sense of self, but they do have a sense of "this is me," vs. "this is not me." Their name isn't a part of their identity like a human's name is a part of their identity, but it can be an identifier for them (especially in relation to other dogs in the household). It's a matter of experience, almost. Contrast Keechak's dogs with Foyerhawk's. Keechak's only have experience with their name in relation to permission, whereas Foyerhawk's have experience with their name in a broader context. The name is not a command, it is an identifier.

In general, the more experience a dog has in knowing how human vocalizations relate to objects, the quicker he will attach human vocalizations to other objects. Once Gatsby learned the name of his rope toy, he caught on quicker to things like "ball," "dinosuar," and "hedgehog."

The same can be said of any experiences. The more a dog is exposed to similar situations, the more adept he will be in other similar situations. For example, I've done a lot of object-interaction with Gatsby. If I put a new thing down and get out the clicker, he'll go over and sniff/hit/bite it pretty quick, because he's had similar things put before him before, and those sorts of actions paid off.

Short answer: It all comes down to how you train it


----------



## Corinthian (Sep 21, 2009)

qingcong said:


> From what I understand, dogs only assign one meaning to a word. As an example, ask a dog to sit while he is standing, and he will do it. Ask him to sit while he is laying down and he will just stare at you blankly.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AliB4es-YT0


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Well, you could still use that as an example of assigning one meaning to a word. In that case, sit is the POSITION, not the movement. I agree that's a better way to train and believe dogs have a sense of context, but to be honest we don't know. I don't think there's been a study on it. You could look at the RIco study as showing dogs have a sense of context (There's a new word, and I'm in a situation where I'm supposed to get a thing, I bet it's the new thing), but the study wasn't designed to test that so we just don't know.

I bet you could try it though. One way to go about it is "Out." When you have a thing in your mouth, spit it out, but when you don't, move away from me/out of the room (I use this example because I am horribly guilty of using the same word for both things). I think most dogs would catch on after a while, though it's a shoddy way to train and the dog is probably picking up on unintentional body language cues rather that the pure verbal.


----------



## canteloupe (Apr 30, 2009)

I think they can understand sounds (words) to signify things (nouns) and actions (verbs). The smarter the dog, the more fully they might understand the connection.

But I still don't think they believe their names to mean _them_. Understanding that their own name signifies them, as an object, is totally different than understanding the sound "ball" to signify the object ball.

They learn sounds through their interactions. They learn "ball" by associating the sound with interacting with the object. There is no equivalent for this with their own names.

When they learn to make associations with the sound of their name, the associations they're learning are "pay attention to me now" or "look!" or "treat is coming" -- etc.

What would cause them to then make the cognitive leap to understanding that to us, they themselves are nouns, with names, the way balls are nouns with names?

There's just no basis for thinking they would see it that way.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

canteloupe said:


> I think they can understand sounds (words) to signify things (nouns) and actions (verbs). The smarter the dog, the more fully they might understand the connection.
> 
> But I still don't think they believe their names to mean _them_. Understanding that their own name signifies them, as an object, is totally different than understanding the sound "ball" to signify the object ball.
> 
> ...


Sure there is. If they have the capacity to understand a word means a thing inanimate or animate that in and of itself is a basis at some level.

Though it is not all that may be required to make that leap, and I cannot think of a real test that would prove it.

I personally doubt they do, but I will not dismiss it as there is no basis to that either.


----------



## canteloupe (Apr 30, 2009)

TxRider said:


> I personally doubt they do, but I will not dismiss it as there is no basis to that either.


In saying that there is no basis, I didn't mean that it is impossible. I meant that there is nothing to substantiate it.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

canteloupe said:


> What would cause them to then make the cognitive leap to understanding that to us, they themselves are nouns, with names, the way balls are nouns with names?


Because every time I use his name, I'm looking at him. I'm acting/interact towards him. My body language is oriented to him. The same way he would know that another dog is barking at him and not just the air right in front of him.

Just like everytime I say "ball" I'm holding it, pointing to it, rewarding him for pawing it, etc. Or every time I point to that fuzzy creature, I say "cat" so he learns that thing is what I mean when I say "cat".

I don't think it's all that much of a leap.


----------



## canteloupe (Apr 30, 2009)

KBLover said:


> Because every time I use his name, I'm looking at him. I'm acting/interact towards him. My body language is oriented to him. The same way he would know that another dog is barking at him and not just the air right in front of him.


But by that logic, he could think that the sound you make when you say his name actually signifies _you_.

I just mean, that doesn't really change anything that I said. I mean, a dog can know that you are interacting towards him, and that the sound you're making is meant to get his attention, without necessarily knowing that the sound is actually meant to represent _him_, as a being.


----------



## jesirose (Mar 27, 2008)

My dogs will listen to commands if prefaced by their name. I will work with them together and for example say: "Sadie, sit. Hadley, down. Girls, wait. OKAY!" and they do exactly what is asked of them. 

It took lots of practice and mistakes  AND LOTS OF TREATS.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

KBLover said:


> Because every time I use his name, I'm looking at him. I'm acting/interact towards him. My body language is oriented to him. The same way he would know that another dog is barking at him and not just the air right in front of him.
> 
> Just like everytime I say "ball" I'm holding it, pointing to it, rewarding him for pawing it, etc. Or every time I point to that fuzzy creature, I say "cat" so he learns that thing is what I mean when I say "cat".
> 
> I don't think it's all that much of a leap.


So everytime a dog barks at another dog, the dog on the receiving end will end up thinking his name is "ruff ruff ruff?" When a mother wolf calls her lost pup with that high pitch squeal, is it because the pup knows its name is the high pitch squealing sound? Does the mother wolf name its pup the high pitch squeal?

It's not much of a leap to YOU because humans are a language oriented species. When you point at an object and repeat the word, does the dog realize that the name for that object is "ball?" Maybe, maybe not. I lean towards maybe not because I don't think the first thought process that goes through the dog is, "Okay, this person is telling me that this object is called ball." Having a name for an object is not important to a dog like it is to humans. They want to know what to do with the object to please you and get a reward. Sure they have some concept or association of ball and the round thing, but whether or not they realize that the round thing is called ball is questionable.

Beyond that, realizing that they have is name is a quantum leap beyond understanding that certain objects have a name. As I mentioned before, only the most intelligent animals (apes, dolphins, elephants) have seem to have a sense of self. In order to associate a name with yourself, I would think that you need to have a sense of self. No proof exists that dogs have this capacity. As Canteloupe says, the sense of self test is flawed, but it's all we have to go by right now.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

qingcong said:


> As I mentioned before, only the most intelligent animals (apes, dolphins, elephants) have seem to have a sense of self. In order to associate a name with yourself, I would think that you need to have a sense of self. No proof exists that dogs have this capacity. As Canteloupe says, the sense of self test is flawed, but it's all we have to go by right now.


Yet it wasn't very long ago at all most did not believe apes, dolphins and elephants had a sense of self either. No proof existed that they had that capacity.

I see nothing that rules out a sense of self, just nothing that definitively proves it either.

A dog certainly has some sense of itself, of it's own capabilities comparatively to other beings. A wolf for instance could not hunt and survive without it.


----------



## canteloupe (Apr 30, 2009)

Personally, I don't think the sense of self arguments are really that relevant.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

I bring up the sense of self argument because to me, I see that as the fundamental building block for how deeply something can understand the concept of having a name for themself. If you don't have a concept of, "this is me" then how can you have a concept of "my name is Spot"? 

Certainly, dogs and wolves have a concept of themselves in relation to something else. So I guess that is an example of a basic sense of self and sense of other.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Well shucks, I was having fun with this discussion. I didn't think it was over yet.


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

An Aussie owner I know does something strange with his dogs that makes me think the dogs know their own names and other dogs' names. When he says Tas sit, only his male dog Tas will sit. Or Supa sit the girl will sit. He can do things like Supa stay, Tas fetch. and girl stays boy fetches. The same thing the other way around.

Another thing his dogs can do is Supa steal Tas' ball and Supa will take the ball from Tas. Works the other way too...how does one teach this?

They can do any of their command followed by their own name without the other dog doing it as well.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Those are well trained dogs, but none of that suggests the dogs understand names in the same way people do. It suggests that the dog understands what to do when the human says that set of words. There is probably a fuzzy association between the object and the word that the human uses, but I do not think it's clear to dogs that things have names. 

If you think about it, why would a dog ever need to name something? Why in the world would any animal feel the need think of their world in terms of names? It's just not something that is important in the dog world, and since it's impossible to teach a dog the concept what a name is, I really do not think dogs understand they have a name, much less understand that other dogs have names as well. They understand words as commands, that is for sure, but to say that they understand names is a real stretch.

I had this epiphany a while ago when I was trying to teach my dog "bed." I wanted to teach my dog that bed = soft white fluffy thing, so every time he got on the bed, I would say "bed" and point to the bed. My thought was that I would teach him that the soft fluffy thing was called "bed" and then he'd know to go to his soft fluffy thing whenever I said the command. After months he still did not understand, he'd just stand there and look at me whenever I said "bed" or "go to bed". Why did he not understand? I firmly believe he did not understand because dogs simply do not think of thinks in terms of names. After this epiphany, I based my training on the idea that dogs understand words as commands. I'd say "bed" and then use the leash to guide him to the bed. It took a day for him to understand this. By teaching him that bed = go to soft fluffy thing and lay down, he got it. Maybe my dog is just dumber than other dogs (trust me, he's not terribly bright sometimes), but this is evidence to me that at least my dog doesn't label a name to things.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

qingcong said:


> Those are well trained dogs, but none of that suggests the dogs understand names in the same way people do. It suggests that the dog understands what to do when the human says that set of words. There is probably a fuzzy association between the object and the word that the human uses, but I do not think it's clear to dogs that things have names.


Yes it could easily be that the each dog is trained to a different command that includes his name. Taz sit could just have no meaning to Spot, as Spot sit has no meaning to Taz.

However if spot looks as Taz when you say Taz, that is likely something different, still isn't definite though, as Spot may have just learned that other dog does something interesting when he hears "Taz"



> If you think about it, why would a dog ever need to name something? Why in the world would any animal feel the need think of their world in terms of names? It's just not something that is important in the dog world, and since it's impossible to teach a dog the concept what a name is, I really do not think dogs understand they have a name, much less understand that other dogs have names as well. They understand words as commands, that is for sure, but to say that they understand names is a real stretch.


A dog doesn't need to think of things in terms of names, but neither does a chimp, the only reason we need to is in order to communicate that word/name association to other people.



> I had this epiphany a while ago when I was trying to teach my dog "bed." I wanted to teach my dog that bed = soft white fluffy thing, so every time he got on the bed, I would say "bed" and point to the bed. My thought was that I would teach him that the soft fluffy thing was called "bed" and then he'd know to go to his soft fluffy thing whenever I said the command. After months he still did not understand, he'd just stand there and look at me whenever I said "bed" or "go to bed". Why did he not understand? I firmly believe he did not understand because dogs simply do not think of thinks in terms of names. After this epiphany, I based my training on the idea that dogs understand words as commands. I'd say "bed" and then use the leash to guide him to the bed. It took a day for him to understand this. By teaching him that bed = go to soft fluffy thing and lay down, he got it. Maybe my dog is just dumber than other dogs (trust me, he's not terribly bright sometimes), but this is evidence to me that at least my dog doesn't label a name to things.


I had the opposite experience, that the dog knows an object, and an action.

That since it has a concept of an object, and a concept of an action, it is not a stretch at all that it can associate a word with either.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

TxRider said:


> I had the opposite experience, that the dog knows an object, and an action.
> 
> That since it has a concept of an object, and a concept of an action, it is not a stretch at all that it can associate a word with either.



It IS a stretch though, because giving a name to an object just isn't in their DNA. There is some sort of association going on there between the words and the object, but to think that they are giving objects names is a huge stretch.


----------



## SunnyPaw (Feb 24, 2009)

This is a VERY interesting thread. I do not believe that our dog Sarah actually made names in her head for things, but I do believe that she fully understood her name to mean her, herself, not an action. We always felt that her vocabulary was large, and that she was a very smart girl. She knew words for actions, and she knew words for things and people. She definitely knew the names of the other dogs in the family, as well as the cat (her brother). When the cat went missing one day, and I told her to "find Basil", she started quivering and trotting and sniffing all over the place (this was not her norm - she was definitely a lap dog in every sense of the word). I had never used the word "find" attributed to anything before, but I know for certain that SHE KNEW what I meant. (We did eventually find Basil, and he was fine, FYI). I do believe that our tone of voice is interpreted by our pups as well.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

qingcong said:


> It IS a stretch though, because giving a name to an object just isn't in their DNA. There is some sort of association going on there between the words and the object, but to think that they are giving objects names is a huge stretch.


I do not know if it is in their DNA, they share the majority of DNA with us and all other mammals. We all come from a more recent ancestor, we have much more in common with a dog than say a snake.

All mammals share the same basic brain structure, us, dogs, chimps, dolphins, elephants, just large differences in size and proportion of the structures.

I think they associate a word with thing. It's pretty provable.

That they think of themselves as a thing and associate their own name in that same way, they they associate their name to whatever sense of self they have, I'm thinking probably not.


----------



## jesirose (Mar 27, 2008)

qingcong said:


> Those are well trained dogs, but none of that suggests the dogs understand names in the same way people do. It suggests that the dog understands what to do when the human says that set of words. There is probably a fuzzy association between the object and the word that the human uses, but I do not think it's clear to dogs that things have names.
> 
> If you think about it, why would a dog ever need to name something? Why in the world would any animal feel the need think of their world in terms of names? It's just not something that is important in the dog world, and since it's impossible to teach a dog the concept what a name is, I really do not think dogs understand they have a name, much less understand that other dogs have names as well. They understand words as commands, that is for sure, but to say that they understand names is a real stretch.
> 
> I had this epiphany a while ago when I was trying to teach my dog "bed." I wanted to teach my dog that bed = soft white fluffy thing, so every time he got on the bed, I would say "bed" and point to the bed. My thought was that I would teach him that the soft fluffy thing was called "bed" and then he'd know to go to his soft fluffy thing whenever I said the command. After months he still did not understand, he'd just stand there and look at me whenever I said "bed" or "go to bed". Why did he not understand? I firmly believe he did not understand because dogs simply do not think of thinks in terms of names. After this epiphany, I based my training on the idea that dogs understand words as commands. I'd say "bed" and then use the leash to guide him to the bed. It took a day for him to understand this. By teaching him that bed = go to soft fluffy thing and lay down, he got it. Maybe my dog is just dumber than other dogs (trust me, he's not terribly bright sometimes), but this is evidence to me that at least my dog doesn't label a name to things.



Rather than bed, I used "park it". Sadie knows when she hears park it, to find some sort of mat or bed. She once found a yoga mat and used it.

She understands that concept. Park it = go to a MAT. Not just go anywhere and lie down, but a specific type of place.


----------



## MakeShift Heart (Sep 12, 2009)

Just something I'd like to add in relevance to this topic.

There were two dogs staying at the boarding kennel I used to work at. Their names were Diamond and Duncan. Dog 1 is Diamond Dog 2 is Duncan.

I thought Dog 1 was Duncan and that Dog 2 was Diamond. So when I would open the kennel door Dog 1 would run to the door and Dog 2 would run outside where he was supposed to be. 

I would then call to Dog 1 saying, "Diamond come here!" and Dog 2 would end up running back inside to me. I would then think Dog 2 is Duncan and end up saying "Duncan outside!" only then would they both go outside.

Another thing I'd like to point out is every so often I would not know a dog's name. So I would instead have to call for breed. So I'd have to say, "Boxer! Outside!" and the boxer would know I was talking to him and run outside while the chocolate lab would stare at me blankly until I said, "Labrador! Outside!" He then would go outside.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

MakeShift Heart said:


> Another thing I'd like to point out is every so often I would not know a dog's name. So I would instead have to call for breed. So I'd have to say, "Boxer! Outside!" and the boxer would know I was talking to him and run outside while the chocolate lab would stare at me blankly until I said, "Labrador! Outside!" He then would go outside.


Very interesting, and it goes to show that dogs understand our body language very well. All too often, I feel we misinterpret that and think that the dogs are understanding our words.


----------



## MakeShift Heart (Sep 12, 2009)

qingcong said:


> Very interesting, and it goes to show that dogs understand our body language very well. All too often, I feel we misinterpret that and think that the dogs are understanding our words.


Considering I made no body language when calling to the dogs I'm not sure how this fits into what I just posted? 

Oh and here's another good thing to point out.

Why would they come running when they hear their name but it's actually coming from a different voice on the TV/Computer?

Perfect example: My old toy poodle was named Sandy and when we would watch Flipper everytime he heard "Sandy" He would come running to say why he's being called. When he would discover we're just watching TV he would just go back to his bed and go to sleep.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Are you sure you made no body language movements? Dogs are sensitive to millimeters of change. If it wasn't the body language they got, then are you suggesting they actually understand that they are a boxer and labrador?

A dog responding to their name from the TV or whatever does not surprise me. Certainly their name means something to them, like "go to whoever call it" or whatever.


----------



## MakeShift Heart (Sep 12, 2009)

qingcong said:


> Are you sure you made no body language movements? Dogs are sensitive to millimeters of change. If it wasn't the body language they got, then are you suggesting they actually understand that they are a boxer and labrador?


Yes exactly. Also I'm pretty sure it's hard for them to see any movement coming from me when they are busy running the opposite direction from where I am standing, which is exactly what they were doing.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Okay, that's a little ridiculous there. How in the world does a dog know the name of their breed? Unless they have been taught the word "boxer" or "labrador" before in some fashion, that's just way too far fetched. There is probably a more reasonable explanation for why they responded correctly.

Would a mixed breed have an identity crisis?


----------



## MakeShift Heart (Sep 12, 2009)

qingcong said:


> Okay, that's a little ridiculous there. How in the world does a dog know the name of their breed? Unless they have been taught the word "boxer" or "labrador" before in some fashion, that's just way too far fetched. There is probably a more reasonable explanation for why they responded correctly.


I do know what the explanation is.

All dogs are with their owners when someone comes up and says, "Oh what a sweet dog what kind is he?"

The dog hears their master respond, "He is a boxer."

They then register that they are what they are.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

qingcong said:


> Very interesting, and it goes to show that dogs understand our body language very well. All too often, I feel we misinterpret that and think that the dogs are understanding our words.


Yes my 2 rescues do this a lot. I have to be very conscious about it.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

MakeShift Heart said:


> I do know what the explanation is.
> 
> All dogs are with their owners when someone comes up and says, "Oh what a sweet dog what kind is he?"
> 
> ...


Just out of curiosity, how old are you? You don't have to give me an exact age, a general description is fine - teenager, young adult, middle aged, senior, etc.


----------



## MakeShift Heart (Sep 12, 2009)

qingcong said:


> Just out of curiosity, how old are you? You don't have to give me an exact age, a general description is fine - teenager, young adult, middle aged, senior, etc.


I am turning 22 in 4 days. Why do you ask?

On a quick note I hope you are not reading my tone as "know it all" or "snobby" or any form of negative. I'm merely just stating my experience with this and repeating what I was told as to why certain things happened.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

MakeShift Heart said:


> I am turning 22 in 4 days. Why do you ask?
> 
> On a quick note I hope you are not reading my tone as "know it all" or "snobby" or any form of negative. I'm merely just stating my experience with this and repeating what I was told as to why certain things happened.


Nah, I'm not getting any negative vibes. In fact I feel like I was being more negative, and I'm about to get even more negative because you're about 22 and can handle it.

Do you really believe that dogs can understand the following conversation?
_
All dogs are with their owners when someone comes up and says, "Oh what a sweet dog what kind is he?"

The dog hears their master respond, "He is a boxer."_

In order to understand that exchange, you're suggesting the dog has a command of English grammar; that the dog understands sentence structure, subject/verb placement, the difference between a question and a statement, the concept of a breed. There's no question dogs have a significant vocabulary, but they simply *do not* understand grammar. And quite often, their interpretation of a word is much different than ours.


----------



## MakeShift Heart (Sep 12, 2009)

well then you explain why when I call "boxer" the boxer returns and the labrador continues to stare at the door he ran to.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Have you ever not know a person's name, but you need to talk to them and you're in a crowd? If you just call, "Hey, miss!" that could refer to probably about half the crowd. But usually (at least in my experience) the person you intend will turn around. Maybe it's kind of like that? 

(Another fun thing to try in crowds, yell out, "Everybody clap your hands!" 9 times out of 10, at least SOMEONE will clapclapclapclap clapclapclap)


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

I don't know, without being there it's hard to say. I'm sure there were a lot more things at play in the situation than just the words being said. If you were in that situation and 6/10 times the dogs responded correctly, I'd say that there's something to it. Otherwise, it was probably a coincidence.


----------



## MakeShift Heart (Sep 12, 2009)

qingcong said:


> I don't know, without being there it's hard to say. I'm sure there were a lot more things at play in the situation than just the words being said. If you were in that situation and 6/10 times the dogs responded correctly, I'd say that there's something to it. Otherwise, it was probably a coincidence.


A good majority of the time every dog I've intended to return to me has. The only ones who didn't were the hyper puppies, probably because they hadn't heard it enough times yet.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

RaeganW said:


> Have you ever not know a person's name, but you need to talk to them and you're in a crowd? If you just call, "Hey, miss!" that could refer to probably about half the crowd. But usually (at least in my experience) the person you intend will turn around. Maybe it's kind of like that?


Yes people turn around looking eye contact or something to indicate who you were addressing. If your looking at someone, everyone else will go back about their business, the one you made eye contact with will see what you want.


----------

