The Consequences of Language: How Is Human Language Unique?Chapter 6 Page 1
Chapter 6. How Is Human Language Unique?
How different are the communicative capacities of the great apes from those of humans? This chapter explores the communicative capacity of the great apes as revealed through research with chimpanzees and gorillas. The chapter explores the signing capacity and tactic abilities of chimpanzee.1. The Goal of Animal Communication Studies
As we pointed out in Chapter 1, the exercise of defining terms is important because it helps us to more clearly understand what we are and are not talking about. In this chapter, we return to the question of what role language plays in defining our humanness. Part of this question involves answering the question of how different is human language from other semiological systems. One way of answering this question is to compare the human system with that of other species. Another is to attempt to teach human language to other species and see what happens.
The Problem.
Up until the onset of the chimpanzee language experiments in the 1960s, anthropologists and linguists commonly understood that the capacity to use signs constituted the fundamental difference between humans and other species. Leslie White, a leading figure in anthropology at the University of Michigan summed this as follows: “Only man has the ability to originate, determine and bestow meaning upon things and events in the external world” (1975). In retrospect this statement was made with out any empirical (observable) support. As such the statement fits the definition of a legitimation (chapter 11), in that it offers a justification for human uniqueness, but it does not fit the definition of an empirically grounded fact.
Herbert Terrace: Chimpanzee Researcher, PsychologistCan an ape produce a sentence? A chimp will not sign unless you encourage him to sign. Signs do not mean the same thing to humans and chimps.
John Lilly: Dolphin Researcher
Communication is the transfer of ideas from one brain to another.
Roger Fouts: Chimpanzee Researcher, Psychologist,
Language is the expression of thought in a social context.
Stuart Hermann: Linguist
Grammar [syntax] tells us how to put words together to make meaning. Word order is the essence of grammar.
Another difficulty that inhibited this research came from the lack of a clear characterization of language. For example in a 1983 Nova program entitled Signs of the Apes; Songs of the Whales, several researchers were asked to comment on the significance of recent research in chimpanzee and other animal communication. These responses represent two different characterizations of language. For Terrace and Hermann, language was seen as grammar (or structure), while Lilly and Fouts took the view of language as discourse (or communication). In chapter 2, we presented each perspective as an important dimension of language. Consequently, these comments are not in disagreement but represent different domains of language. This means that we can compare human language from the perspective of communication and from structure.
Language as Grammar or Structure
One of the ways of comparing communication among humans with that of other species is to compare and examine the properties of their grammars. In chapter 3, we introduced Saussure’s semiological framework of signs operating within a closed system and that the human semiological system was only one of many such systems. A semiological perspective argues that if other species communicate, they would have to use a semiological system. Thus from this perspective, we can ask, how does the semiological system of humans differ from those of other species?
With a Saussurian (semiological) framework would we can compare the communication systems of other species of other by examining their semiological (structural) properties. In this section we will examine the following properties:
Principle of the Sign: A sign is a combination of signifier and signified.
Arbitrariness: The association between signifier is arbitrary (non essential).
Learned versus Innate: associations are learned as opposed to innately fixed
Complexity: Signs may be simple or complex
Tactic Ability: The capacity to use atactic, paratactic and syntactic signs.
Comparing Language as Discourse
Questions about communication have to do with intent, interaction, interpretation and power. From this perspective we would ask to what extent the communication of other species differs from that of humans with respect to the following?
Intentionality: Signs are intentionally sent and not the consequence of an involuntary response.
Creativity: The ability to use language in new and different ways.[1]
Intersubjectivity: Communication enables members of the group to share common understandings.
Interpretation: The meaning of signs differs according to the context in which they appear.
Power: Communication is a mechanism to establish and assert power.
As we will see in chapter 10, the study of discourse, as it is defined here, is more recent, and as a result less is known about the differences and similarities of this dimension of language and other species.
Background
In addition to the research on the great apes, a good deal of research has investigated the communicative capacity of other animals: von Frish (1966) on bees; Lily (1978) on porpoises; Seyfarth (1980) on monkeys; and Nottebohm (1980) on birds. Porpoises were considered to be good candidates for this kind of research because of their sizable brains (larger than humans), social nature and frequent vocalizations. But the most remarkable research to date has been with the great apes and especially the chimpanzees. Here research has taught us to recognize that these creatures have far more mental capacity than we have previously given them credit for. Tanner notes that recent “Experiments with common chimpanzees in the laboratory and observations in the wild show that they make fine differentations, generalize, and cognitively "map" the objects in an area; they can recognize, interpret and respond to a wide range of signals; and they can "think." (Tanner 1990: 109-10).
One of the earliest of these experiments took place in the 1940s with the work of x and y Kellogg (Ref xx). Other important research included Premack and Premack (19xx), Gardner and Gardner ((19xx), Fouts (19xx), Gill (19xx) and Terrace (19xx). All of these investigations involved working with chimpanzees in laboratory settings, though some of these attempted to replicate a family like situation. Other research has focused on observation of chimpanzees and other species in the wild. Goodall (19xx), Fossy (19xx) and Seyfarth (1980). Each of these experiments has revealed something about the communicative abilities of other species. But rather than review the findings on a project-by-project basis, we return to the issues raised above and address them one by one.
Comparing Language as Grammar (structure)
The Properties of the Sign (Signifier-Signified), Arbitrariness, Learnability).
The psychologists David and xxxx Premack reintroduced the study of chimpanzee communicative capacity with their work with Sara. As described their article entitled “Teaching Sign Language to A Chimpanzee 19xx), their task was to teach Sara to recognize different colored plastic shapes as having meaning. For example, she learned to recognize a blue, plastic triangle as the signifier for ‘apple’. Sara had no difficulty with this task. Furthermore, when asked to describe the thing represented by the blue triangle, Sara responded that it was round and red, the properties of the signified (the apple) and not the signifier. These responses clearly show that Sara had no difficulty with the principle of the sign or the arbitrary association of the signifier with the signified. In addition, Sara showed that that these signs could be learned by a chimpanzee.
The experiments with Sara focused on the ability to recognize signs as opposed to producing them. Other experiments followed (Gardner and Gardner 19xx, and Terrace 19xx) focused on teaching chimpanzees to produce signs in addition to recognizing them. But before we review this research this question, we need to consider the distinction between simple and complex signs.
Complexity: Signs may be simple or complex
One of the most striking aspects of chimpanzee communication in the wild is that they take advantage of a wide variety of communicative channels. For example, some signs use a vocal channel (hooting, crying, and whimpering), some may be visual channel (stances, smiles, pouts), while others use a tactile channel (hugging, patting, grooming. This type of sign display is representative of a simple (lexical) sign system. In each case, we see that these messages are lexical signs, because each has a unique signified (meaning) and a unique signifier (a gesture, a vocalization, or a facial expression). However, these signs are termed simple because each signifier is unique and totally different from other signifiers in the system
We suspect that these signs are innate rather than learned, for similar signs have been reported for diverse groups of chimpanzees. This does not, however, rule out the possibility that some signs are learned. But the important point about chimpanzees in the wild is that they are capable of communicating with signs which includes the ability to associate a meaning (signifier) with a token (signified).
In contrast, humans use complex lexical signs. What makes a lexical sign complex is that it’s signifier itself consists of a string of (representational) signs. In human language the most common signs are termed phonemes (chapter 3).
Complex signs enable humans to use a primary communicative channel, that of vocalization, through which almost all information is conveyed, with other channels, like gestures, facial expressions supplying only a very small amount of additional information. This is not to say that this secondary information is unimportant, but only to say that the amount of non-vocal information is very small when compared to that which is vocally communicated.
As mentioned above, the first experiments were conducted in the 1940s by the Kelloggs who attempted to teach a chimpanzee, named xxxx, to articulate words like cup. These experiments showed that imitating the human vocal tract was difficult. For example, in an effort to articulate the /k/ sound in cup, the chimpanzee would take one hand and cover his nostrils. This had the effect of closing off the nasal passage, which humans do by moving the velum (see the articulatory diagram in chapter 2) to the pharynx. The next segment did not pose as serious a challenge. This is because the vowel // (as in the word cup), or its approximation (see chapter 2), is the consequence of a straight, seventeen millimeter tube. The final consonant in cup /p/, however, required the chimpanzee to place a second hand to close off the mouth at the lips, something that humans do easily with their lips.
This example dramatically illustrates the importance of the neurological and physiological adaptations that humans have made in their evolutionary history (see Chapter 3). While we take the articulation of a word like cup for granted, the chimp’s inability to articulate this word draws our attention to the differences between the vocal apparatus in humans and its counterpart in chimps.
The most prominent difference between humans and almost all other species is the pharynx. Recall from Chapter 5, that the presence of the pharynx, when coupled with the oral cavity enabled the articulation of the cardinal vowels: /i, a, and u/[2] and that while the lack of a pharynx does not prevent the production of vowel-like sounds, the range of these sounds is more limited than the human capacity and the nature of these sounds different. Thus while, a chimp can produce the vowel // in ‘cup,’ the chimp cannot articulate the vowels found in see, hot, and food. This is because thee pharynx is virtually non-existent in all species but the human, and furthermore, it is not present at birth, but develops between the first and second year of life. This fact helps to explain why human infants do not begin to produce adult-like sounds until their second life. In addition to the pharynx, we saw other evidence in chapter five that the vocal tract had adapted to language.
This evidence suggests first that the human vocal tract has been adapting[3] in the context of increasing vocal communication and second that even if the chimpanzee has an ability to use sighs, this ability may not emerge due to the limiting capabilities of its vocal tract. Thus, one finds clear evidence again that the vocal tract of humans has adapted for language. This also helps to explain why chimpanzees have such a difficult time in attempting to articulate human sounds. This observation led Professors Norman and Beatrix Gardner at the University of Nevada to explore the use of the gestural sign system used in American Sign Language (ASL) with a chimpanzee named Washoe.
ASL is a natural human language with a syntax, a lexicon and a representational system of gestures, as opposed to phonemic signs. The gestural system of ASL parallels the phonemic system. Both are sign systems at the representational level. Both are used as signifiers to spell out words at the lexical level. Thus ASL words are complex signs as are words represented with phonemes.
To almost everyone’s surprise and delight, Washoe began learning to recognize and to use about the lexical signs of ASL. This discovery meant that Washoe had entered into the world of meaning, previously thought to be exclusively human. Because their discovery challenged established tenets, the Gardners constructed elaborate tests, such as the clinical, double-blind test, to prove that Washoe had this ability. Washoe passed these tests easily.
The Washoe research also clearly showed that chimpanzees could learn signs, though again there were differences from humans. While the human acquisition of signs is rapid and occurs without reinforcement, rewards were an integral part of the learning process for the chimpanzee. And while humans acquire vocabulary at a rapid rate from the start and continue through their entire life, no chimpanzee’s vocabulary has exceeded two hundred and fifty items.
Tactic Ability:
The capacity of chimpanzees to use atactic sentences is remarkable, as is their ability in problem solving and tool use (once thought to be an exclusively human domain), has raised the question of how closely could chimpanzees, if given enough training, approximate the semiological system of humans.
3. Chimpanzee Tactic Ability
Washoe’s ability to communicate atactically, using the representational gestural signs of American Sign Language, is a remarkable feat in itself, but simply because chimps are capable of using this representational sign system says nothing of the chimpanzee’s tactic potential for these signs with respect to parataxis and syntax. Whether chimpanzees do so, can only be determined by observing the types of messages that chimpanzees use and comprehend.
PropertiesNA = Not Applicable
/ AtaxisS-->W / Parataxis
S-->W:W / Syntax
S-->N+V
Word Order Significant
Parts of Speech
Case Meaning
Fixed Case Meaning
No of words per sentence
Mean Length of Utterance
Utility of Embedding / NA
No
NA
NA
1
1
NA / No
No
Yes?
No
2
2.2
No / Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Infinite
3+
Yes
Using the table that summarizes the properties of the tactic stages in humans introduced in chapter 5, we can examine the properties of sentences produced by chimpanzees to determine how they compare with human tactic types.
The best data available for the analysis of the sentences produced by a chimpanzee were collected by Terrace (1979) who videotaped every learning session with Nim Chimsky and transcribed the signs produced by Nim. Somewhat surprisingly, the other investigations into the signing ability of chimpanzees and other great apes have not reported in any detail, the types of sentences produced.
Example(No)Example(No)more apple(12)apple more( 5)
more banana(62)banana more( 5)
give apple( 9)apple give( 3)
give gum( 4)gum give( 3)
brush me(35)me brush( 9)
brush Nim (13)Nim brush ( 4)
Word Order
Significant word order is a property of syntax; lack of it is a property of parataxis. The adjacent table shows several instances of two word sentences in which Nim has used either word order. Although Nim, has a preferred word order, as do humans during the paratactic stage, Terrace provides no evidence to show that the ordering marks a difference in meaning.
Parts of Speech
The lack of word order suggests the absence of parts of speech in Nim’s grammar. However, the real test for parts of speech is to determine whether a specific string of such word classes spells out a particular sign with a specific functional meaning. None of the examples from any of the tables in this section show any evidence that a particular sequence of words marks a specific meaning. In fact, there are numerous examples of messages containing the same words, but used in different contexts which have different case meanings. This too is a property of parataxis and not syntax.