Someone once said to me that all communication is a form of manipulation. Indeed when you look to the scientific literature on communication it suggests that communication only occurs when a signal elicits the appropriate response from the receiver! When it comes to animals there is a long and controversial history on whether or not animals have language. It is accepted that animals communicate in a variety of ways (smell, sound, body position, etc.), but attempts to draw parallels between communication in animals and human language have been met with fierce resistance.
Definitions of language are often vague and emphasize speech and the written word. The consequence of this is that animal communication can then be disregarded as language, along with presumably any human that does not use speech or the written word to communicate! Is it possible that there are components of language that can be specified that permit comparison? Yes, indeed there are. Language, by its very nature consists of three definable functions: referential, categorical, and differential. It also must contain a representational component such that language represents objects, events, or the environment.
Let's first take a look at representation. We can use the humble stingless bee (Melipona panamica) as an example. This little creature is extraordinary. Individuals accurately indicate the location of food to fellow nestmates by encoding distance, height and direction in buzzing, pulsing sounds and motions, a.k.a. the bee 'waggle' dance. No you won't see this dance at the current late night hotspots. The dance is highly specific. There are two parts, the waggle and the return. The waggle is a figure-eight and then a turn to the right, another figure-eight and then a turn to the left. Furthermore, if the bee moves vertically upwards the direction to the source is directly towards the Sun, while the duration of the waggle part of the dance signifies the distance. Some argue that this highly specific, complex dance that unfailingly provides concrete, accurate information about the location of food is not true communication. Why? Well, because, according to some scientists, an individual bee is unaware of the accuracy of its representation to other bees. After all, they would know what is going on in the mind of the bee that is dancing, right?
When it comes right down to it, linguistics have relied on the presence of grammar and syntax to set apart human language from animal communication. While some animal communication systems may meet the criteria for the functions of language, the ability to produce highly complex, predictable, sequences or combinations of ‘words’ is thought to be a property of human language. Syntax and grammar refer to the systematic combination of ‘words’ following the form and function of language, allowing for further classification of categories. It is thought that grammar and syntax is designed to solve linguistic problems and maintain the integrity of language. Under such circumstances, animal signals may be pre-linguistic, in that they preceded the evolution of human language. But alas, animals have words, syntax, and, yes, even grammar. Stayed tuned for Part II which will highlight some of the animals that are challenging our notion of language!
References:
Kako, E. 1999. Elements of syntax in the systems of three language-trained animals. Animal Learning & Behavior, 27, 1-14.
Nieh, J.C., Roubik, D.W. 1995. A stingless bee (Melipona panamica) indicates food location without using a scent trail. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 37, 63-70.
Premack, D. & Premack, A.J. 1983. The mind of an ape. New York: W.W. Norton.
Snowdon, C.T. 1987. A naturalistic view of categorical perception: In Categorical perception: The groundwork of cognition. Harnard, S., eds. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 332- 354.
Waldron, T.P. 1985. Principles of language and mind. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Cool! I am excited to hear the second installment.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things that interests me is the question of whether or not animal languages are the product of convergent or divergent evolution. Clearly this will vary from species to species. I doubt that the roots of language in bees and primates are from a common ancestor, whereas the language forms used by chimps and humans probably do share many features due to common ancestry. The convergent cases, where language has evolved in similar ways independently, are the most interesting to me. The convergent properties of language have the potential to tell us a lot about its function.
I agree that it is interesting to consider the origins of language. The consistency of alarm call specificity among a wide range of taxa might be a result of similar selection pressures, namely predation. Would this be more of a case of evolutionary relay though, rather than convergent evolution? Humans and chimp communication does share many features from facial expressions to gestures. One has to wonder that if chimps had the developed the vocal apparatus to produce certain sound combinations what language would have evolved? Certainly they have a rich vocal repertoire based on our limited comprehension and analytical skills. When it comes to gestures, Koko had a vocabulary of over 1000 words and often produced novel words. I remember an example where she named a new item (a cucumber) as a 'green banana'. Makes total sense to me. Washoe, the chimpanzee, successfully taught youngsters sign language herself, thus leading to somewhat of a cultural evolution of language in the captive chimp community in Washington State. What is also interesting is that among human populations we clearly see that environmental conditions lead to linguistic diversity and languages experience 'extinction' events. It would be interesting to just look at human language diversity in the context of convergence and divergence.
ReplyDelete