
If you did not catch my first two posts about Inside of a Dog, you may want to check those out before reading this one. They covered:
Inside of a Dog – What the book is about, why I am reading it, and what I am doing with what I read here on the blog.
Inside of a Dog: Report #1 – Thinking and Sniffing Like a Dog.
This next report will cover the next three sections in Horowitz’ book which cover dog speech (or lack thereof), about dogs’ eyes and how they use what they see.

Dog Talk
Horowitz quickly points out that although dogs lack the capacity for speech in the sense that humans speak, that fact should not be confused with the reality that dogs DO communicate – with each other, with us, and with other animals. Dogs are far from uncommunicative, as Horowitz asserts:
“Two human beings stroll through a park chatting…They do this primarily by making small, strange contortions of the shape of the cavities of their mouths, the placement of their tongues, by pushing air through the vocal tract and squeezing or widening their lips. Theirs is not the only communication going on. Over the course of a walk, the dogs by their sides may scold one another, confirm friendships, court each other, declare dominance, rebuff advances, claim ownership of a stick, or assert allegiance to their person. Dogs … have evolved innumerable, non-language-driven methods to communicate with one another.”
Wherein we communicate with those contortions, tongue movements, lip compressions, and air expulsions that Horowitz describes, dogs have an entire complex system of behaviors that communicates a message. Sometimes this communication may include noise (growl, bark, squeal, etc.) but more often it is simply movements and positioning of the body along with facial expressions.
Although sounds are only a very small part of dog communication, Horowitz still draws attention to the incredible diversity in size and shape of canine ears and lobes. She points out the well-known fact that dogs’ ears can hear things ours cannot. She informs us that:
“Our auditory range is from 20 hertz to 20 kilohertz… We spend most of our time straining to understand sounds between 100 hertz and 1 kilohertz… Dogs hear most of what we hear and then some. They can detect sounds up to 45 kilohertz, much higher than the cells of our ears bother to bend to…. Even a typical room is pulsing with high frequencies, detectable by dogs constantly.”
Horowitz goes on to point out that our digital alarm clocks and compact fluorescent lights are two examples of household items that are silent to us (well, until that alarm sounds), but constantly make noise that dogs can hear.
Dogs’ sensitivity to sounds allows them to understand the prosody of language, the stress and tones we use when we shout, ask a question, or get excited. Horowitz concludes that this does not mean that they understand our language, however, our prosody allows them to infer our message. She points out:
“Dogs… respond with alacrity to baby talk- partially because it distinguishes speech that is directed at them from the rest of the continuous yammering above their heads. Moreover, they will come more easily to high-pitched and repeated call requests than those at a lower pitch…. High pitched sounds are naturally interesting to dogs… If your dog fails to your reasonable suggestion that he come right now, resist the urge to lower and sharpen your tone. It indicated your frame of mind- and the punishment that might ensue for his prior uncooperativeness.”
Horowitz goes on to explore the meaning of whimpers, growls, squeaks, and chuckles as well as discussing the moans and grunts, such as the “contentment grunts” we have all heard our companions make. Obviously all of these different sounds have different meanings , as they should, and also differ from the attention-getting barking. Often loud and perceived as annoying, the bark is regarded by researchers as having the primary purpose to get attention. Accurately so, according to Horowitz a normal conversation between two people is around 60 decibels but dog’s barks range from 70-130 decibels. Reference: 130 decibels is like thunderclaps and airplanes taking off.
Barks include “woofs”, “rufs”, “arfs”, “bow-wows”, as well as the French “ouah-ouah”, the Norwegian “voff-voff”, and the Italian “bau-bau.” Although all barks are attention-getting, as I mentioned, they are also sub-categorized by Horowitz as being stranger barks, isolation barks, and play barks – which are all self explanatory.
On to the next communicative tool dogs use – the TAIL. Horowitz points out that deciphering the language of the tail is made difficult by the sheer fact that so many different types of tails exist. However, much can still be inferred from the motionless but erect tail, the wildly thrashing tail, and the slow, languid tail. Likewise, scientists have found importance in the fact that dogs wag asymmetrically. Dogs tend to wag to the right more when they see their beloved and recognized person. When they encounter an unknown someone or dog, they tend to wag to the left more tentatively.
Horowitz also shares that research has concluded that:
“Comparing the Cavalier King Charles spaniel to the French bulldog to the Siberian huskey, there was a clear relationship between the breed appearance and the number of signals [that breed] used. Those animals that had been the most changed physically in domestication from wolves- the King Charles spaniels, at the extreme – sent the fewest signals… The huskies, which have the most wolf-like features and are genetically closer to [the wolf], do the most wolf-like signals.”
Horowitz ultimately concludes her section on dogs’ communication with her assertion that dogs communicate for a purpose and with intention, as well as just to communicate for communication’s sake.
You Lookin’ At Me?
Have you heard the supposed fact that dogs are color-blind? Turns out that is not true. We have three types of photoreceptors which are sensitive to red, blue, or green Dogs only have the blue and green type and fewer of those. This means dogs see blue and greens best and yellow, red, and orange not so well. As best that can be guessed, dogs see reds, oranges, and yellows as different levels of brightness; they see different amount of light that these colors reflect towards them. Horowitz gives the example that perhaps red might be a faint green color, yellow a slightly stronger green.
That said, dogs eyes gather more light than ours do. Dogs have almost no iris and large pupils. Futhermore, they have very little visible sclera (white). Due to a part of the dog’s eye called the tapetum lucidum, light hits the dog’s retina twice. This feature allows dogs to have better night and low-light vision we do and also accounts for their “glowing orbs” in photographs taken with flash.
And that said, dogs also have a better panoramic view than we do. We see 180 degrees; dogs see 250-270 degrees thanks to their eyes sitting more laterally on their heads.
Despite these differences it boils down to this: dogs can see what we can, sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less. They see a wide visual field well, but things up-close not as well. Dogs can focus in on our face, but they are better at reading full facial expressions as opposed to just reading your eyes. Dogs’ sight compliments their other senses. They hear something, turn their eyes in the direction it came from, and then get close to inspect it with their nose.
Also, in regards to dogs’ sight we must think in terms of the dogs umwelt. As Horowitz explains:
“Though our visual world overlaps, dogs attach different meanings to the objects seen. A Seeing Eye Dog must be taught the umwelt of the human: the objects that are important to the blind person, not those of interest to the dog….The guidedog must learn the significance of a speeding car, a mailbox, other people approaching, a doorknob.”
Ordinarily these things, cars, mailboxes, doorknobs, are unnecessary to dogs. I know Mocha is rather oblivious to cars, moving or parked. The only car she notices is mine when I direct her towards it and ask her to jump in the back. Beyond that, if we look at it from Horowitz’ perspective, cars are just large obstacles to navigate around; they only enter the dogs umwelt if there is a good scent on a tire (and then it is only the tire that is of interest) or if they are being told to get in one (and then attention is only given to clearance required to jump in).
Horowitz also makes the argument that dogs “see” more than us. She says that being such visual creatures we miss many things that dogs process thanks to their other senses that they rely on so much. Horowitz says this is demonstrated by the familiar walk to the park. You and your dog may walk the exact route every time, but the dog never stops sniffing, listening, smelling, seeing and even tasting things along the way.
After learning how dogs see, researchers and Horowitz turn their attention to what dogs see and how they understand what they see. This study includes looking at mutual gaze, gaze following, attention-getting, and manipulating attention. Mutual gaze is exactly what it sounds like – you gaze at someone and they gaze back; eye contact is established and held. Horowitz explores the meaning of the mutual gaze and how that meaning changes among different species, yet points out that “most dog owners will report that their dogs gaze at them directly in the eyes.” She follows this with a footnote:
“One could make the argument that this behavior was reinforced because of the survival value of looking at humans. As with infants, an adult face will hold much information, not the least of which could be where the next meal is coming from. The early-twentieth-century ethologist Niko Tinbergen similarly found that baby gulls have a strong attraction to the red-dotted beaks of adult gulls (and to any stick with a red dot placed on it by an ethologist, too).”
Among wolves mutual gaze invites aggression, however, dogs obviously gaze at us so they must have learned this threat does not exist between them and their human. I would point out however, that I can tell a difference between when Mocha looks into my eyes to gain information and when I hold her chin and force her to gaze into my eyes. The latter is difficult to get her to hold, perhaps because she is aware she is not doing to gain information and therefor it feels like an act of dominance. Horowitz says:
” The primal pull of gaze still affects dogs’ behavior. If you stare unblinkingly at your dog, he may look away. Approached by a dog who appears overly aggressive or overly interested, a dog can diffuse some of that excitement by glancing to the side. Your chastisement or accusation of your dog accompanied by a glare may also provoke a demure averral of the dog’s gaze….The refusal ro look at us in the eyes contributes to a look of guilt- especially when we are already certain they have done something to inspire it…
But the fact that dogs will look us in the eyes allows us to treat them as a little more human… We want dogs to look at us when we talk to them… There is more direct eye contact among humans speaking intimately or honestly, and we tend to extend that conversational dynamic to our dogs.”
Gaze following is simple – if you are looking at something, your dog may follow your line of sight to see what you are looking at. It seems dogs have not only learned to glean information from our pointing but by following our gaze as well.
Dogs use attention-getting similarly to children as a way to capture your attention. They do this by nudging you, stepping into your line of vision, etc. They use attention-getting with other dogs as well.
Horowitz describes manipulating attention as, “dogs use the attention of others as information, both to get something they want and, more remarkably to determine when they can get away with something.” Dogs are cognizant of when we can “see” what they are doing and when we cannot; thus the dog who would never come near your plate of food might be inclined to steal a bite when you are out of the room. More interestingly, in experiments where people were blindfolded, there were similar results leading to the conclusion that dogs understand on some level that it is our eyes that see. Experiments also show that you cannot simply trick your dog into thinking you are watching him by rigging a speaker or video with your voice or image. In this experiment using a life-sized video, the dog would use the image’s pointing to assist him in finding a hidden treat, but that same dog did not follow other verbal commands.

I feel like all of this studying of dogs brings us no closer to truly understanding them. Some of our common-sense inclinations about dogs are confirmed, some are still left cloudy, and only a few new things are gleaned. And, when it is all said and done, this information does not change what wonderful companions dogs make.
Next up… Inside of the dog mind, how they learn, how they understand concepts such as passage of time, their age, the past and future, right and wrong, and much more…