Dog buttons: Thoughts on How Stella Learned to Talk
Last month I read How Stella Learned to Talk by Christina Hunger. Hunger is a speech pathologist credited with starting the “talking dog button” movement you’ve probably seen on social media. The book follows her personal experience implementing an AAC (Augmentative and Alternative Communication) device with her puppy from start to finish.
Since I’ve long been skeptical about the buttons that now feel ubiquitous in the dog Instagram community, I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this read. I still hold onto much of my initial skepticism—and was pleased to see Hunger herself embraced my questions more than some others I’ve seen implementing the devices—but I also feel like I have a better understanding of her intent and approach.
So in an attempt to finally answer the questions “how do you feel about talking dog buttons?” and “would you use them with Scout?” here’s a deep dive into my thoughts on How Stella Learned to Talk from a book review and overall concept perspective.
As always, I’m happy to chat further and would love to hear your own experiences!
TLDR summary
We need to be cautious about thinking that our dogs employ symbolic language the same way we do. Semantics and syntax can be messy enough just between people (who have exactly the same brain systems and have grown up speaking the same dialect).
I think there’s danger in over-anthropomorphizing our pets. We need to stay grounded in available data on the canine experience (lots more on that in this blog). I’m cautious with some of the ways people implement and share about their talking dog buttons.
That said: I absolutely believe there’s value in the idea behind AAC systems for dogs. I love seeing owners committed to communicating with their pets and better meeting everyone’s needs!
Christina Hunger struck me as an engaging author with fabulous intentions. (I like to think we’d get along quite well if we ever met.)
Who is the author of How Stella Learned to Talk?
Christina Hunger is a speech-language pathologist now widely known for being the first person to “teach a dog to talk” using an Augmentative and Alternative Communication device inspired by her work with children. She has a Master of Arts in speech-language pathology from Northern Illinois University.
Hunger is not a professional dog trainer but rather an invested owner finding connections, somewhat accidentally, between her canine companion and other parts of her life. (That’s something I relate to deeply!)
What I enjoyed most about How Stella Learned to Talk
A few notes about the book itself.
Hunger’s voice and writing style were wonderful
First things first: I read How Stella Learned to Talk quickly, in large part because of the author’s delightful communication style. (I should not be surprised given her career working with language day in and day out.) The book was accessible and engaging, marrying clear scientific points with rich narrative writing. Big fan.
The author clearly loves her dog and her career
I also found myself admiring Hunger as a human being (or at least the way she came across here). It’s obvious that she’s passionate about both her role as a dog owner and her career as a speech therapist. She struck me as thoughtful, open minded, and kind. I have nothing but respect for all those things.
A few nitpicky things rubbed me the wrong way in the book
Hunger and I do have different views about dog ownership a few areas. This is bound to happen. We’ll never agree with everything we read—even my most-recommended books usually contain a handful of passages I don’t fully stand behind.
None of these things prevented my from enjoying How Stella Learned to Talk! But I thought they were worth mentioning for anyone who might pick it up at our recommendation.
Support of backyard breeders
It sounds like Stella came from a backyard breeder who was selling mixed-breed puppies on Craigslist (without much of an owner vetting, health testing, or otherwise intentional breeding process).
One of my own childhood dogs was from a straight-up puppy mill—we didn’t know better at the time and felt pressured—so I mean no direct judgment to the Hunger family. As I’ve learned more about the dog world, though, supporting only ethical breeders and rescues has become incredibly important to me. More on “adopting or shopping” responsibly in this article.
Recall and trust in training before taking risks
One story recounts Stella’s owners letting her off leash before they felt confident in her training. While the ultimate outcome was fine, the situation did make me nervous as the owner of a fearful dog who does not appreciate being greeted without permission.
I’m generally uncomfortable with laissez-faire attitudes about dog training and our pets’ potential impacts on the world around us. I’d love to see us (dog people, collectively) normalize the process of teaching and proofing a solid recall before engaging in off-leash adventures.
Being respectful to people in shared public places
Tying into the above point: I’m passionate about respecting the fact that not everyone loves dogs. (I know, it’s hard to swallow as a self-proclaimed dog enthusiast—but it’s true, and non-dog people have every right to their own perceptions and experiences.)
There were just a handful of passages that described things like Stella pulling into other folks’ space in public spots like stores that made me bristle slightly. Again, not a big deal! But it’s worth reiterating that trying to ensure Scout doesn’t invade anyone’s bubble while out and about is one of my core dog ownership values.
The coolest things about talking dog buttons
Here’s what I love most about the “talking dog” movement overall.
People want to communicate with and better understand their dogs!
Not much makes me happier than fellow owners wanting to build fulfilling, trusting, mutually beneficial relationships with their pets. The best thing about the popularity of talking dog buttons is seeing just how many people are invested in better understanding the animals they live with—and therefore providing better care.
Attempting to use any form of two-way communication with our dogs indicates concern for our companions’ emotions and overall wellbeing. That intent is something to celebrate a million times over.
“The more we listen to them, the more they listen to us”
One thing Hunger specifically mentioned in How Stella Learned to Talk was that the more we listen to our dogs, the more they’ll listen to us. This concept hits home for me. Cooperation speaks to the collaborative nature of our longstanding bond with man’s best friend. While we are certainly different species with different perceptions of the world, we are also uniquely suited to live together after a long period of coevolution.
Back-and-forth communication is part of any healthy social relationship. I’d love to see more of that talked about in the dog training world, especially across training camp lines in the sand.
Dogs can associate verbal sounds with “pictures”
One specific purpose for talking dog buttons: It absolutely is possible to help our dogs associate a certain verbal sound with a “picture” of what comes next, and I think AAC devices can give our dogs the opportunity to request things more specifically.
We humans already do this all the time in dog training. When I ask Scout if she’s “ready?” she knows that verbal sound (and other subtle cues I might give with my body when I say it) is tied to high energy play. When I say “middle” she knows that noise is associated with sitting between my legs and getting rewarded. And so on and so on.
While I don’t believe dogs naturally understand human verbal language in the way some people try to claim, I also don’t think it’s at all productive to shame people who use buttons with their dogs or make fun of the very real moments of communication that can happen between pets & people with an AAC device.
I’m confident that if I gave Scout an easier way to ask me if I was “ready?” for a game than play bowing and throwing a toy at me, she’d use it. (Emphasis on “easier” there—more on that in the next section.)
Observational and social learning are incredible
I’ve become a bit of a nerd about social learning latey. My understanding is that most owners implementing talking buttons with their dogs teach the process via observation. They model the button use themselves rather than luring their dog, shaping with markers & tangible rewards, or so on.
While I’m absolutely not hating on the use of food in training or the importance of understanding operant conditioning learning theory, I’d also love to see the greater dog training community embrace social learning more! The Genius of Dogs and Dog is Love were great reads touching on these concepts.
My remaining skepticism about some ways talking dog buttons are used
Here’s what I’m not so sold on in parts of the “talking dog” movement.
Over-anthropomorphizing can pose dangers
I believe in critical anthropomorphism. This means I’m not against ascribing “human” traits to animals—humans are animals and we share many emotional processes with our fellow social mammals!—but I believe we need to be thoughtful about our comparisons, maintain a species-appropriate lens, and stay grounded in data whenever available.
How does anthropomorphism relate to dog AAC buttons? I think there’s danger in assuming our dogs understand more than they actually might.
Far too often I’ve seen owners say “no” or “stop that” while their dog doesn’t realize what’s being communicated… and then get angry because they think their pet “knows better” or is “supposed” to understand. Creating a wide perception that dogs understand human language—and can talk back!—without clearly discussing the teaching process and limitations makes me nervous.
We shouldn’t extrapolate large assumptions from single anecdotes
I have a mixed relationship with anecdotes and data. On the one hand, single events are often what inspire researchers to devise larger experiments. (My favorite author, Frans de Waal, talks about this at length in his work.) And personal experiences are valid!
On the other hand, it’s risky to assume one single moment—like a specific button press—is truly indicative of a larger conclusion without lots of supporting context and repetitions. I’ve seen some owners who use buttons with their dogs fall prey to this, using one short (unreplicated) clip as hard-and-fast evidence of a story that may or may not be true.
The talking dog movement is relatively young, so the anecdote thing is of course not completely avoidable. And I understand that more intentional research is currently being conducted! But I’m automatically skeptical of anything that primarily relies on only a small handful of experiences to make its point.
It’s hard to be sure what exactly canines are understanding
Our dogs pay particular attention to our body language and surrounding environment
Canines don’t experience the world the same way we do. Humans are obsessed with verbal language—we pay close attention to what other people say from the time we’re very young—but it seems our dogs focus more on our body movements. This is why training hand signals can be so useful (and why if I’m ever worried Scout won’t understand what I’m asking, I pair a known verbal cue with a clear gesture to set her up for success).
I think it’s important to consider our pets’ perceptions when thinking about how to model words for them to learn and implement with AAC devices.
Questions I have about AAC learning
How clearly can we model just the word itself?
What cues do our pets most prioritize in a given moment? How much does the surrounding environment matter? What confounding variables are at play? (I loved how Hunger acknowledged these things throughout How Stella Learned to Talk.)
Can we “override” the verbal sound with a different gesture? (I’ve had fun experimenting with Scout’s commands in this regard. If I say “sit” while giving the hand signal for “down”, for example, she’ll listen to the hand signal over the verbal.)
Do we need to proof these words the same way we do with commands in training? (Like how we’ve worked up to Scout being able to go into middle position when I keep my body completely still as opposed to only when I took a step back & widened my legs for her, to perform commands in novel environments & while we’re facing different directions, and so on.)
The fact that I can’t confirm exactly what Scout is understanding in a given moment makes me particularly skeptical about trying to associate button sounds with abstract pictures. Initiating play, asking her to recall near us, all of those things are relatively easy to replicate. But what about time concepts (like later) or intangible sentiments (like love)?
Thoughts on the “love you” button
I thought a lot about the “love you” button in particular while reading How Stella Learned to Talk. In short:
I think it’s possible to associate a verbal sound with a consistent display of affection.
And I do believe our dogs love us in their canine way. (I enjoyed Dog is Love by Clive Wynne for its deep exploration of the dog-human bond!)
But in the context of an AAC device, it’s hard for me to believe that we could teach our dogs to understand exactly what we mean when we say those words—and to mean the same thing when they “say” it back*.
My questions were emphasized by the fact that it seems like many dogs use the “love you” button as a sort of “please” attached to other requests. Could it be that we humans enjoy hearing those words from our dogs, so we’re more likely to respond to them… so our pets learn pressing that button increases their chance of getting the play or walk or whatever else they’re asking for?
I’m not sure. This sort of anthropomorphism is far more innocuous than the kind mentioned at the top of this section—no one is going to be mad at the idea that their dog is expressing love for them, so the stakes are pretty low—but it’s still worth thinking about.
* We can also make the (very valid) argument that no two humans mean exactly the same thing when they use a word. I would say we people are better able to align our definitions and trust that we have shared experiences and background context, though.
Do buttons create demanding, pushy dogs?
I’ve heard some “opponents” (for lack of a better word) to the talking dog button movement worry that AAC devices will create demanding pets who are always telling their humans to do things. I think there’s a lot of nuance here.
Healthy relationships shouldn’t be one sided
Regardless of communication form (body language, buttons, etc) and regardless of species (dog, human, etc) no relationship is healthy if it’s completely one sided.
Yes, it would be a problem if we were constantly catering to the demands of our dogs (just as it would be if we did that with our children). But the idea that dogs should only ever always want to please us is pretty outdated. It’s okay to do things for them. It’s okay to have compromise!
It’s fully possible to give our dogs the ability to ask us for things (whether through buttons or more classic approaches like ringing a bell to go outside or bringing us a toy to play) without automatically becoming their servants. We can sometimes say no thanks. (This is what we’ve long done with Scout, especially through windows of opportunity.)
Does refusing a request ruin the button association?
In the sense of buttons specifically, it seems possible that saying no would diminish the association between the button push / verbal sound and the following “picture”—but the jury is still out. (One of my favorite Instagram accounts, @lanna.and.vex, discusses this on a button story highlight.)
Hunger talks about this possibility in How Stella Learned to Talk and doesn’t personally see it as an issue because she believes in her dog’s ability to understand things like “later” when a request is denied.
I personally use a different cue to let Scout know we aren’t going to do something she requested as opposed to using a negative or otherwise altered version of the cue she asked for. For example: If she brings us her toy and it’s not a good time for a game, I say “enough” (which is our “high arousal is over, time to be chill” word) rather than saying “no play right now” or “play later”.
We can often read body language and gestures instead
Remember in the last section when I talked about giving Scout an easier way to initiate play? I’ve been thinking about what button words might be most useful lately—and when I imagine offering my dog an opportunity to walk to a button board and press “play” with her paw or snout, it’s hard to imagine her doing that over her existing (very effective) method of bringing me a toy or dropping into a deep play bow.
While I’m not against AAC devices for dogs (I hope I’ve made that much clear!) I also believe our pets already communicate many of their requests to us in ways that feel completely natural to them. If we take the time to listen—if we pay close attention to learn their body language cues—we can often live harmoniously without jumping through too many extra hoops on both the dog and human end. (Again, that’s how we coevolved and coexisted for thousands of years!)
I think the decision of whether or not a specific button will increase quality of life enough to be worthwhile is up to individual dog-owner teams. If something works for you, run with it! For Scout personally, I could see “potty” vs “outside to sunbathe” having an impact. But it’s hard to imagine things like “play” changing much about our existing communication.
Ultimate takeaways from How Stella Learned to Talk
I loved Hunger’s storytelling, have tons of respect for her as a human, and thought How Stella Learned to Talk was an enjoyable read.
From a content standpoint, I’d like to see more nuance and complexity around claims about what button use means. It’s incredibly difficult to confirm what abstract concepts our pets do and don’t understand! That said, it’s also reductionist (and just plain unfair) to deny our dogs any ability to think abstractly, make associations, and communicate with intention.
Like everything, there’s a balance to strike.
I don’t pretend to know precisely what the “right” balance is here—but for me, it currently feels somewhere in the middle where I acknowledge the merits buttons can have in allowing our dogs to make specific requests but raise an eyebrow at implications that our companions are saying complete sentences the way we would, perfectly understanding our syntax and semantics, or discussing their dreams.
At the end of the day I wholeheartedly recommend this title for a thoughtful, interesting read. But I don’t put my “stamp” on all its claims without some notable reservations.
Related reading
Our own blogs
Imagining My Dog’s Umwelt (how she experiences the world)