Verbal Communication and Apes

Author : Mary Anne Winslow
What's true is that language is simply the manner through which we communicate.
Communication is possible for humans through any number of forms.
These include, but are not limited to, speech and sign language.
Communication via language is necessary for a transfer of knowledge to
take place. In order for this to occur it is necessary that more than
one person comprehend the language in question, be it English, Xhousa
or American Sign Language (ASL). If others can not comprehend what is
being communicated to them it is because they do not understand the
language, or dialect, being used.For a language to be understood it is necessary for the speakers to
have an understanding of the rules or grammar of the language in
question. The sounds that are used to communicate make up the
phonology. These sounds are attributed meaning. The forms and meanings
of sounds are usually arbitrary, except in the case of onomatopoeia.
Knowledge of the sound (or sign) system is not the only thing
necessary for the understanding and usage of a language. The manner in
which the words are structured is the morphology. Words are than used
to make up phrases; the way in which this is done is governed by
syntax. In addition a deep knowledge of the meaning and sounds of
words, known as semantics, is necessary for the understanding of a
language, as is knowledge of the words themselves, the lexicon.Although there is at any given time a finite number of words in any
given language there is an infinite number of combinations, or
phrases that can be produced. To produce new phrases, however,
requires that the speaker has a knowledge, subconscious (in the case
of a native speaker) or taught (in the case of a foreign speaker) of
the rules of grammar, as stated above. Humans are capable of learning
these rules with some ease, especially at a young age, and thus do not
have to memorize phrases, but can use the rules of grammar and their
knowledge of the lexicon to produce a phrase for any situation which
their vocabulary covers. This is the creative aspect of language, as
such humans are not limited to responding to external stimulus, such
as a dog barking loudly and menacingly when there is an intrusion on
their territory. A human, capable of language, could greet the
intruder, warn the intruder off politely, threaten the intruders'
life, or even ask what the weather forecast is for the following day.
The aspects of language that I have described above are in no way
limited to a few languages, in fact they make up what is known as the
general grammar and are universal for all languages, be it English,
ASL or Xhousa.As Fromkin and Rodman put it in their book, An Introduction to
Language, "A language, then, consists of all the sounds, words, and
possible sentences. When you know a language, you know the sounds, the
words, and the rules for their combination."Can then animals have language. Animals do communicate in order to
survive, there are mating dances, warning cries and other ways in
which animals communicate with each other. Do they, however, have
language? For us to answer this question we must divide language into
a number of aspects and see whether animals perform in a manner
comparable to humans. Humans principally communicate to each other
through the use of speech.This vocal-auditory system is not at all
uncommon in the animal kingdom as a form of communication; a simple
example is bird-song. Bird-song is used by the bird to demarcate its
territory and advertise for a mate. Is this language? The use of
sounds to communicate is not the only way in which to communicate,
humans use sign language and bees "dance". As such this is not an
important as aspect of language when it comes to deciding whether
animals can talk. Arbitrariness is an important aspect of language for
humans but which is not unique to them. For the vervet monkey,
different calls relating to different predators, but these calls bear
no connection to the predator. This leads on to semantically, each
predator of the vervet monkey has a different call assigned to it. In
other, within the vocabulary of the vervet monkey the "word" for eagle
is different from the word for "lion".There is however a limit to
this vocabulary. While there are hundreds of thousands of words in the
English language, the vervet monkey has only about thirty. The next
aspect is known as tradition. Is the language taught or is it learnt
from others. A human child kept in isolation will not pick up English,
or any other language for that manner. This may be because the child
does not need to communicate with anyone simply because there is no
one to communicate with. Birds on the other hand will develop
bird-song in isolation. The bird-song will be abnormal, but it will
recognizable. It appears that the communication systems of many
animals are genetically in-built, in that they do not have to be in
the presence of others for it to be triggered or learnt. Humans are
known for beginning conversations about various topics, be it the
weather to asking for directions. On the other hand, other animals
only communicate when there is a reason, i.e. their communication is
dependant on stimulus, e.g. a danger call by the vervet monkey. This
is aspect is not however, unique to humans.Humans also usually take
tuns speaking or signing, as do birds. Humans also use double
articulation, and once again so do birds. What do appear to be
unique to humans is structure, and a dependence on that structure for
the communication to be understood. Humans are also creative in there
speech, we can come with an infinite number of phrases to discuss any
topic, object or situation we can imagine. Animals cannot or do not.
Bees only communicate about the horizontal distance of a food source,
vervet monkeys limit there communication to little more than signals
of danger, and birds, which are capable of producing an almost
unlimited number of utterances… don't.It seems then that animals are
not capable of attaining all of the aspects of language that humans
can even though some, such as birds to create a number. In the case of
birds they don not seem to have any need or desire to communicate in a
"human" fashion. As Jean Aitchison puts it in her book, The Articulate
Mammal, "Above all, no animal can communicate creatively with another
animal." Of course it is always difficult to be sure, one way or the
other, because we are studying forms of communication which are
different and foreign to us. It would be easier to learn a foreign
language from a native speaker of that language who does not speak
English.This difficulty, however, has not deterred people from trying. In
fact, for over half-a-century humans have been trying to teach apes,
are closest genetic "relatives" to speak our languages. Attempts to
teach apes to physically speak failed because of the physical
impossibility of the action. Basically, human speech is produced by
manipulation of the larynx to produce sound waves. The chimps'
comparable physical feature is in a position that precludes the
production of the sounds we humans produce. Before this fact was
recognized an infant chimpanzee was exposed to language in tandem with
a child of a similar age. Although the chimp never uttered a word, she
did learn the meaning of over seventy single words.Far more successful and fascinating were the attempts to teach apes
language made two decades later. These attempts can be divided into
those apes who were taught sign language, and those who were taught to
use symbols to communicate. When we look at these efforts and their
results we must be careful to distinguish whether the animal has
uttered the words, for the sake of uttering them, or whether the
utterances are meaningful in that the ape is attempting to
communicate.Those apes who were taught sign language were instructed in a modified
form of ASL. It was found that in the early stages of learning that
the chimps' learning curve was comparable to that of an infant. It is
apparent that the chimps had mastered a certain amount of semanticity,
they understood the meanings of particular signs. However the
vocabulary of these "students" never became very large, the most
optimist estimates being over a hundred. In addition there is evidence
of displacement, evidenced by the fact that a chimp, in this case
Washoe, asked for an object that was absent. Although the chimps were
capable of, and repeatedly did use great amounts of repetition, the
creativity of the apes was limited to actual word strings of two,
three and on rare occasions four words. The strings themselves did not
have a set order or combination, something which indicates a lack of
structure dependence, this however, can be explained away as being due
to stress on the animal or imprecise training. In addition there was
no turn taking, no real conversation.In the case of apes that used symbols to communicate, there is
evidence of creativity, semanticity and displacement, but little
evidence of a mastery of structure-dependant operations. Although two
chimps have learnt that when one of them presses a symbol the other
can collect the object that is represented by that symbol. Although an
impressive piece of communication, it is no different to the trainers
filling in the role of one or the other animal since neither of the
animals conversed simply in order to converse. This trait is apparent
in all apes.Although the apes did assimilate some of the aspects that make up
language, they did so in a rudimentary and limited fashion. In addition
no ape was cognizant with all of the rules of grammar discussed at the
beginning of this essay, subconsciously or consciously. The human
manner of speech seems unnatural for the ape and a great deal of
effort is necessary to obtain limited results. It is also apparent
that apes do not need a sophisticated system of language to be apes,
but that for humans to be humans, we do. As such it appears that apes,
along with the rest of the animal Kingdom, excluding humans, cannot
"speak" as humans can. We must then ask why this is so and perhaps
consider why it is that we seem to be unique in that we can
communicate just for the sake of talking. Perhaps Chomsky is correct.Mary Anne Winslow is a member of Essay Writing Service counselling department team and a dissertation writing consultant. Contact her to get free counselling on custom essay writing.
Keyword : communication, apes