Dogs Know When Speech Matters
Reflections on the Quiet Conversation Between Voice, Movement, and the Working Dog
Introductory Note:
For years I’ve said to my students that the central task most dogs take on—without needing to be taught—is the study of their person. Not just responding to cues, but watching, sensing, and following the flow of a shared life. In the way we move, the way we speak (or don’t), dogs pick up a continuous stream of communication.
This conversation is rarely made of direct stares or sharp sounds. Like any natural exchange between companions, it unfolds quietly, in motion, within the landscape and rhythm of shared work. In our shepherd school, dogs often show a clear preference for this kind of relational exchange. When handlers slip back into instructing, dogs may simply walk away—there are no consequences for saying “no,” and that feedback helps handlers return to the quiet, mutual space of communication.
Recently, I read a study on how dogs process human speech that confirmed something many traditional handlers recognise intuitively: dogs don’t need to be drawn in with exaggerated tone or direct address. They are already listening—if we are willing to listen back.
Commentary
The recent study by Root-Gutteridge et al. (2025) offers valuable insight into domestic dogs’ ability to recognise familiar phrases embedded within neutral-toned human speech, and highlights how dog-directed speech (DDS)—the exaggerated, high-pitched tone often used in pet communication —can enhance dogs’ attention to speech content.
While the findings are compelling, they invite further reflection when considered alongside the lived experiences of those who work with traditional, transhumance-style herding dogs. These dogs, unlike many modern “working dogs” trained through operant conditioning in sport, service, or detection roles, operate within a framework of co-regulation and long-term social integration with their handlers. Their work is collaborative, continuous, and often unfolds within fluid, unscripted environments.
In my own practice with German shepherds bred and trained for traditional herding and patrol-style boundary work, I have consistently found that DDS is neither necessary nor helpful. When I’ve occasionally adopted the high-pitched tone commonly recommended for pet owners, my dogs appear momentarily confused or disengaged. While I cannot claim to know their internal state, I observe that this style of speech is incongruent with the working relationship we maintain. Within our shared tasks, we communicate in a calm, conversational register—akin to the way one might speak with a human co-worker. This is not only sufficient, it is expected. Our communication is contextual, embodied, and precise.
The study does not argue that DDS is required for dogs to understand speech, but its findings may be interpreted that way by those seeking to generalise results to all dogs. DDS may be effective with pet dogs who are conditioned to attend to exaggerated pitch and tone, but this does not necessarily extend to dogs working in traditional or functional contexts. Assuming that heightened prosody enhances communication across all dog-human relationships risks overlooking the diversity of training, expectation, and social function that shapes how dogs engage with human speech.
An example from the working trials world illustrates this divergence. One of my dogs was known to perform a send away exercise based not on a cue from me, but on hearing the judge’s verbal instructions—spoken to me, not to the dog. Without physical prompting, the dog would anticipate and execute the task. This suggests a capacity to parse neutral human speech and recognise familiar verbal content amidst a stream of unrelated information. It’s a strong field-based example of what the Root-Gutteridge study explored in the lab.
What differs is the context: these dogs are not trained to respond to sharp cues or exaggerated tones. They are partners in complex routines where meaning arises from embeddedness in a shared frame of reference, not from salience engineered by pitch.
I would encourage future studies to include dogs trained in traditional or relational working contexts, particularly those where operant cueing is not the norm. Without this, findings on speech recognition and prosody risk being limited in scope, and may reinforce assumptions more reflective of pet culture than the full spectrum of human-canine communication.
Postscript: On Being Heard When We Don’t Mean to Be
It’s easy to forget that in a shared environment, dogs are not passive bystanders to our human interactions. They are listening—constantly. Not just to words, but to tone, movement, breath, and rhythm. When the way we speak and move becomes inconsistent with the way we usually are, especially in a familiar space, it can cause real distress.
Recently, two clients—both known to my dogs and previously given guidance about recognising dogs as listeners—chose to express their dissatisfaction with me, in my absence, but within earshot of three of my dogs. The details were reported to me later by a third party. The dogs had been out for a run and returned shortly afterwards. What followed was striking. One of them, Lexi—a sensitive and experienced individual—approached the two people involved, scrutinised them closely, and displayed anxious, unusually intense body language, including quiet vocalising.
This was not her usual way of greeting familiar people.
At the time, I didn’t know what she had heard. But with context, her response made sense. Among shepherds working in traditional or transhumance styles, it’s common to speak very quietly to dogs across distance. Not to test control, but to draw the dog’s attention inward, so they listen carefully. Quietness not only encourages attentiveness—it avoids disturbing the sheep, who are listening too. In those moments, it’s not volume that carries meaning, but intention, rhythm, and
familiarity.
Dogs don’t need to hear us loudly to hear us clearly. As the Root-Gutteridge et al. (2025) study also showed, their ability to detect and interpret meaningful human speech is precise—even when embedded in neutral, unremarkable tone. My dogs didn’t need to be shouted at to feel the emotional rupture in that space. They were simply present. And listening.
Working this way calls for self-regulation. It means attending to what we say—and how we are— because dogs don’t require direct address to know when something important is being said. They live within the atmosphere of our speech, not just its sound.
Reference
Root-Gutteridge, H., Calcutt, A., Meints, K., & Reby, D. (2025). Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) recognise meaningful content in monotonous streams of read speech. Animal Cognition. Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) recognise meaningful content in monotonous streams of read speech – PubMed DOI: 10.1007/s10071-025-01948-z