Animal noises sound different in other languages

Animals vocalize more or less the same way, whether they're in France or America – so why do they “speak” so differently in human languages?

Staff

One of my favorite parts of studying French was learning that Francophone ducks say coin coin (“kwan kwan”), not quack; pigs make a guttural groin groin (“grwan grwan”) instead of oink; and cows produce a wonderfully scornful meuh. Ducks, cows, and pigs vocalize more or less the same way, whether in the south of France or in the middle of America – so why do animals “speak” so differently when we translate their sounds into human languages?

Our terms for animal noises are onomatopoeias, words formed to reflect the sound of the action or thing they represent. Bees buzz in English because the word sounds like their swarming; water splashes because the term echoes the noise of tossing a stone into a lake. My favorite onomatopoeic word is the Macedonian грчи (“grchi”), pronounced something like “hrrrrrchee.” Any guesses as to its meaning? I’ll tell you at the end. 

Sometimes our varied vocabulary for animal sounds simply reflects differences in what people are hearing them say. Dutch cows, for example, go boe, which rhymes with the English moo. English and Dutch speakers are attuned to a similar vowel sound in bovine vocalizations, but hear different consonants at the start. Having grown up with moo, I feel that this is a better imitation; having listened to many minutes of cow sounds on YouTube, though, I can attest that some cows do get closer to boe. I even found one that seemed to be saying hamba, as they do in Bengali.

Animals usually make a variety of sounds, and some linguistic differences in what they say can be attributed to different cultures settling on different noises as archetypal. The French groin groin, Hungarian röf röf, and Mandarin heng heng imitate the deep snuffling and grunting noise pigs make when looking for food. On the other hand, English, Spanish, and Croatian chose pigs’ high-pitched, excited, or angry squeals as their identifying vocalization, and thus pigs say oink, oinc, and squick, respectively, in these languages.

Inherent features of human languages also determine what sorts of things animals can say. Every language has a limited set of sounds (phonemes) it can use to construct its words. American swine would never say ggul-ggul, as Korean ones do, because English lacks the “gg” sound. Japanese words cannot begin with a “kw” sound, which rules out “quacking” for its ducks; instead they say ga-ga. Nor can “d” and “l” sounds appear together, so Japanese roosters would never crow cock-a-doodle-doo – it’s ko-ke-kok-ko-o. As language writer Samantha Enslen puts it, “our animal sounds are really ‘interpretations’ filtered through the limited number of phonemes our languages possess.”

As for grchi, it means “to snore.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.