Presuppositions
All these studies appear to be presupposing
a ladder model of evolution
and a design features presentation of the uniqueness of
human language; see B9
|
amoebas |
|
sponges |
|
jellyfish |
|
flatworms |
|
trout |
|
frogs |
|
lizards |
|
dinosaurs |
|
anteaters |
|
monkeys |
|
apes |
|
humans |
if it is argued, that what makes humans unique is their
capacity to verbalize,
and the ability to verbalize characterized by the design
features then any encroachment on the design features - albeit through
intensive training - blurs the distinction between humans and apes.
Design
features - Charles Hockett
1. Vocal auditory channel efficient darkness no object
2. Broadcast transmission and directional reception -
facilitates diffusion and
reception of signal
3. rapid fading - keeps channel open
4. interchangeability - great flexibility
5. complete feedback - fast monitoring
6. specialization - amount of energy expanded does not
change meaning
7. semanticity
8. arbitrariness
9. discreteness
10. displacement
11. openness
12. tradition - may be taught and learned
13. duality of patterning - requires few units
14. prevarication
15. reflectiveness
16. learnability
17. creativity - flexibility
18. turntaking
19. Recursiveness
features biased towards speech (acoustic features)
abstract properties of the system are the most
interesting.
biased towards human language - productivity and
semanticity important for human language but not for animal communication.
if productivity is renamed creativity in the sense of an
infinite number of novel messages can be sent with finite means.
difficult sometimes to apply design features to animal
communication systems.
Chomsky's
framework - B9
"each
known animal communication system either consists of a fixed number of "linguistic dimensions" each
associated with a
non-linguistic dimension in the sense that selection of a point along one indicates a corresponding point on the other."
Bounded - unbounded - non-linguistic dimension tied to a
specific set of conditions or no.
Discrete - nondiscrete - whole signal not broken up or
one made up of smaller units with
possibility of recombination to encode
different messages.
Bee dancing - unbounded, non-discrete within its
parameters
Bird songs/calls primate calls/postures/gestures
bounded, discrete
Human language is unbounded, non-discrete
"available
for the free expression of thought or for appropriate
responsesin any new context and is undetermined
by any
fixed association of utterances to external stimuli or physiological states."
Creativity
Unbounded
scope - available for the free
expression of novel thoughts and for the communicating of novel messages by
novel signals.
Stimulus
freedom - human language is not
under the control of either external stimuli or internal emotional states.
contextual
appropriateness - human language can be
used appropriately in novel
situations.
These characteristics are not interdependent.
Other systems may have 1 or 2 but not all 3. Normal language use is unbounded
in scope, stimulus free and contextually appropriate.
Computer program with randomizer stimulus-free but
bounded in scope.
Bee dancing unbounded in scope but stimulus bound.
Primate calls a bounded system could be used (by humans
?) in a stimulus-free and contextually appropriate way.
Structurally - human languages are primarily discrete at the minimal
meaning-bearing level - words, sounds. Compositional
in that the meaning of complex expressions determined by the meaning of their
constituent parts and their grammatical relations.
Human languages are unbounded in scope and subject
matter.
Functionally
human language is almost entirely stimulus-free and
contextually appropriate. speaker intention normally discernible, e.g. report,
express fear, warn.
humans can react to stimuli in novel unpredictable ways.
Bird mobbing call difficult to describe functionally because it reports presence
of predators, warns, expresses fear.
Language is species-specific. Celerity of
acquisition. argument for LAD, or language gene.
Is human
language unique ?
Scholars who have undertaken research with apes can
claim to have shown that the design features are manifested in ape behaviour.
discreteness - specific signs used to represent particular words.
displacement - apes can refer to objects not in view
semanticity
- good question ? they have at least associations between objects and events and
responses.
reflectiveness claimed for Sarah ????? - I don't see it.
openness - combining signs in novel ways.
tradition - apes pass on signs to their young.
counterarguments
AMESLAN is said to be not truly symbolic.
"gimme" "drive" signs non-arbitrary. Not true of sign
language as used by humans.
Premack's plastic chips and lexigrams less open to this
charge.
AMESLAN is condensed (few function words) and Washoe's
language could be described as onomatopoeic. signs resemble natural gestures.
Trainers have given too much credit.
Data was reported in summary and without details of
context.
"water bird" would be less interesting if
Washoe had spent all day making signs like "water shoe", "water
banana", "water fridge".
Real data more like reported by Terrace for Nim.
Imitation of immediately preceding human gestures
abound. genuine recombination is rare.
Utterances of apes are tied to the spatio-temporal
context. displacement is rare.
lack of syntactic structure and word order is erratic.
chimps cannot pick up ill-formed sentences.
they don't spontaneously ask questions. (cf. children)
chimps do not use language referentially - do they go
beyond associating a particular word and a particular context.
Kanzi bonobo chimp whose behaviour is more child-like.
acquired the understanding of symbols without specific teaching.
much depends on interpretation "strawberry" a
name, a request to be taken to where the strawberries grow, eat strawberries
etc.
do apes behave like pigeons who can be trained to react
- pecking once or twice - to visual stimulus.
Pigeons can "name" but they do not know the
meaning of say "tree", its associations within the vocabulary
structure, its sense relations.
Naming by apes goes beyond what pigeons do. But Nim could
not name two objects presented at the same time, e.g. an apple and a banana,
although OK one at a time.
Savage-Rumbaugh claims that her apes have some notion of
inclusion e.g. fruit.
Chimps syntactic ability is perhaps over-tied to set
frames and therefore can be seen as merely a sophisticated version of
stimulus-response.
Pinker's
critique
Eroding the design features based uniqueness makes good
television.
Beauty and the beast pictures on TV in magazines.
Animal rights arguments - certain species of monkeys are
more humane than humans. Macaques would rather go hungry than harm their
fellows. Does man have the right to do what he likes with other species ?
What if apes were not only the nice guys they were also
semi-human as well. Destruction of species.
What about the nasty animals ?
1) Exaggeration of claims. People who live close to
animals, develop an empathy which tends to exaggerate their communicative
ability.
Aunt Mathilda "My cat "talks" to
me."
2) Ape researchers - with the exception of Terrace -
have been coy about releasing
their data.
Pinker says Apes did not learn ASL. a
preposterous claim.
One of Washoe's trainers was a deaf signer.
"Every
time the chimp made a sign, we were supposed to write it down in the log ... They were always complaining because my log didn't show enough signs. All the
hearing people turned in logs with
long lists of signs. They always saw more
signs than I did ... I watched realy carefully. The chimp's hands were moving constantly. Maybe I missed something, but I don't think so. I just
wasn't seeing any signs. The
hearing people were logging every movement the chimp
made as a sign. Every time the chimp put his finger in his mouth, they'd say "Oh, he's making the sign for drink,"
and they'd give give him some milk ... When the chimp scratched itself, they record it as a sign for scratch
...
When [the chimps] want something, they reach. Sometimes [the trainers would] say, "Oh, amazing, look at that,
it's exactly like the ASL sign
for give !" It wasn't."
Such exaggerated empathy clearly increased the chimps'
word count.
On the the lexigram, the key needed to initialize the
computer was translated as please,
which also boosted the word count.
3) Worse still, members of Terrace's team claim that the
trainers were missing the really interesting things that the chimps were doing.
They were using instinctive gestures that they would
have used in the wild. Not ASL signs
but natural gestures.
4) What syntax there is, is greater than chance order of
2-word combinations.
ASL - no inflections, not well contoured. Any favourable
comparison with young children depends on high degree of training. like
behaviourist psychologist, training circus acts.
Chimps never develop longer utterances like children.
Nim's data repetitive to the point of inanity. If you listen long enough to
random combinations, you will notice some structure now and again.
5) No spontaneity. No comment for its own sake. No turn
turntaking.
6) No indication that they 'understand' language.
"toothbrush" means "toothbrush", "brushing
teeth", "I want my toothbrush" "it's time for bed".
Terrace and Premack have more or less blown the whistle.
Premack interested in chimp cognitive psychology.
The Gardners have isolated themselves.
Only Savage-Rumbaugh makes claims.
7) Kanzi's achievement spontaneous acquisition
but mother intensively trained in his presence.
96% of his utterances are requests.
3-symbol utterances are fixed formulas. Just noticeable
differences from other apes.
Pinker goes on to argue that the language instinct is
unique to humans and that it could have evolved by natural selection.
no Creator, no Big Bang
Bush model of development. Each stage in evolution
branches off. No possibility of chimps developing into humans. or developing
language. Many species have existed and become extinct. Chimps may be the
living species closest to us and therefore have maintained some ancestral
language ability., but for Pinker that gives them no special status.
One can imagine contingencies which could have wiped out
chimps. (Extraterrestrials with a penchant for fur coats) who would have to
shoulder the language burden ? Hedgehogs, starfish ?
The development of the language instinct is unique but
so are mant other developments in the natural world. The human brain has
developed in a way (hard-wired) that makes it able to handle language.
Different wiring in the brain is morally neutral. It
does not make us better, simply different.
The Design features-based debate is futile. Human
uniqueness depends on a set of criteria that can be breached which pushes the
Uniqueness camp to shift the goalposts.
Plato defined 'man' as a 'featherless biped'. Diogenes
refuted him by plucking a chicken. It is not biology
fallacy of drawing a line across the evolutionary
ladder.
distinguish analogous traits, similar in end result like
bird wings and bee wings. Common function - different history.
Homologous traits - same history (same general
architecture) function may or may not be different. bast wing, front leg of a
horse, seal flipper.
This means that even if teaching ASL to cghimps had been
entirely successful, it would have proved nothing in terms of homologous
traits. Chimps would never have evolved natural language. Perhaps there could have
been indications that language might have developed in chimps., e.g
developmental grammar.
Elephant's trunk.
te evolutionary arms' race
Stagewise development - intermediate forms
Bickerton's protolanguage. Chimp signing, pidgins,
2-word child utterances.
immigrants, pidgins, telegrams, tourists, aphasics are
examples of an intermediate language.
"Why
should language be considered such a big deal ? It has allowed humans to spread
out over the planet and wreak large changes,
but is that more extraordinary than coral that build
islands, earthworms that shape our landscape by building soil, or the photosynthesing bacteria that first released corrosive oxygen into the
atmosphere, an ecological catastrophe
of its time ?" (p.369)