However, two problems arise when comparing human language to animal communication, and when asking ‘do animals naturally have a language?’ Firstly, whether the systems have evolved from a ‘primitive’ communication, such as cries (of which the intermediary point is seen in vervet monkeys. This can also be linked to the early stages of a human life when babies cry). This is called the Continuity theory. Or, whether human language has imposed itself upon this basic communication: Discontinuity theory. Secondly, one must ask what counts as communication. Different animals relate emotional reactions through movement (such as dogs wagging their tails, cats spitting). However, these are instinctive reactions. Should communication be defined as the intention of conveying information? If so, then yet another difficulty arises, in distinguishing between the simple everyday act of smoothing one’s hair. If we were to see a man doing this is the street, he may be doing so as an unconscious response to seeing an attractive woman (in which case it is not intentionally conveying information, and therefore not communication.) Or, he may be doing so in order to attract her attention, and therefore is conveying information to her in order to get a reaction. It is difficult to distinguish between the intentions (or lack of) behind the action, thus making it more complex to define when the term ‘communication’ is applicable.[2]
If we do not use animals to investigate language, and we were to compare human language with the early stages of communication of children, or pathological disturbances, we are also able to learn about the development of language, and even speculate about the structural organisation of the human brain. Lenneberg (1966) analysed language acquisition amongst children and drew conclusions about how the human brain is adapted specifically for language learning. The progression of a baby’s crying, to the cooing of a young child, to the babbling of a toddler, with increased amounts of intonation which expresses mood and adds to the meaning (in languages such as English), and finally to holophrasic speech (where individual words convey propositions, grammatical structures are introduced, and awareness of syntactic structures of the child’s mother-tongue.)[3]
In addition, children’s acquisition of language can teach us about how the mind is designed to use abstract variables and data – such as grammar structures. Children need not have been taught each individual possibility sentence structure, or each variation of language use. Grammar is a discrete combinational system, with components that can be applied in multiple combinations. This creates a vastness of language with an infinite range of possible concepts to communicate. It is speculated that a human would have to live trillions of years if he were to be taught all the possible sentence structures.[4] However, grammar is a code that is autonomous from cognition; a concept that fits with the innate abilities of children to use abstract variables and data structures. There is no need for a child to experience, read or hear a sentence, before they are able to produce it themselves. As well as this ability, it is claimed that a child has the innate understanding of grammar so that they can decipher the noises made by its parents. This leads to the more philosophical questions of whether the complexity of a child’s mind leads to their knowledge acquisition, or if it is the learning that contributes to a more complex and advanced mind.
In support of this, Broca (1863) claimed to have discovered a ‘language centre’ in the brain – which scientists today have been able to locate mainly in the left side of the brain. Others have attempted to locate other specific areas of linguistic activity within the brain, which has lead to the construction of the biological theory of language. By comparing this with the brain activity of animals when they communicate, we can learn a lot about the source and potential of language systems and communication systems.
What is more, when comparing human language with pathological disturbances, we are able to observe language in disillusion. Language is a system of expressing and receiving information between two or more participants. The individual is communicating thought process, be it emotional or factual. With pathological speech and those with language disorders, this communication is disconnected, therefore making it difficult to test the thought structures. Yet, it can tell us about what the missing links may be within the brain, which allows humans to retain and utilise language. For example, a patient may be unable to retrieve a specific word in their sentence, yet is able to describe the word and offer semantic references, such as “feathered swimmer” and “quack” for the word “duck”. Upon analysing this, it is possible to see the coherence of syntax and application of a grammatical structure, but a delayed ability of semantic references.
In light of how much we can learn from comparing human language to animal communication, it would be useful to look at the similarities between the two. Having already defined the term ‘language’ by identifying the key characteristics, we should be reminded of Hockett’s (1963) emphasis on human language’s criteria of interchangeability and complete feedback. Therefore, it is important to distinguish animal mimicry from the ‘true’ use of a language. There is a difference between understanding the meaning of language (such as the baby chimp, Gua, who was researched by Kellog in 1933)[5], and the ability to use a language. The latter is notably inhibited by all animals (in terms of vocalised language), as they do not physically have a developed enough oral tracts to produce some sounds used within human language. Even chimpanzees – who have proved to be the most promising in learning human language – have poor articulation skills.
However, when we look at the communication systems of other animals, it is possible to identify some of the elements of human language. Specialization appears in the communication and behaviour of birds and fish (such as baby birds chirping and opening their mouths to be fed by their parent). In the 1966 study into the communication skills of Washoe the chimpanzee, researchers found that the sign language they had taught her and that she was using, showed aspects of human language: Washoe had a concept of semanticity due to the fact that she understood how the signs she was using held a meaning for another concept. Washoe was able to generalise with some signs such as “more” and “key”, meaning that she was able to use the concept correctly in a different structure of communication that she had not been taught, and it still made sense. For example, the word “key” was originally only used in the context of the keys used to open the cupboard doors. However, Washoe was able to identify the same qualities in the car keys, and began using the word “key” to refer to these as well. Her communication also showed signs of creativity, but although what Washoe was communicating could be deciphered, and although it reflected to communication of how a young child would learn to talk, Washoe lacked a grammatical word order and failed to understand or use structure-dependant operations. What is notable is that historical linguists are unable to identify properties of neither arbitrariness nor productivity in anything other than human language. As well as this, it has been concluded that productivity and duality must have occurred at similar points in time, due to the fact that there is no other economical way of obtaining a sufficiently large number of different signals.[6]
Although the theory of language may not be applicable to animal signs and gestures, Sebeok (1968) discusses the idea of ‘information exchange’ between animals, which probes the question, why do only homo loquens use speech to communicate to one another? Any other type of communication that exists between animal species creates difficulties in conveying any message that is more complex than a reference to ‘organism and environment’. They are limited to what can be seen or simply referred to, for example, the visual displays of fish, or bee dancing. This is evident in the clever but limited communication of birds who use acoustic signals as alarm and mating calls; in ants who use chemical signals to warn other member of their colony; and the tactile signals of bees. The communicative behaviour in these acts shows a way in which one organism triggers another - surely, this is what communication should be defined as. Yet this is somewhat ambiguous. For example, if one were to see a member of their family cooking dinner and as a result they went to wash their hands in preparation[7]: the action of cooking could be argued as the communication that triggered another organism’s behaviour. However, this is not ‘language’. Therefore, the difference in ‘language’ and ‘communication’ is too great, meaning that a comparison between human language and animal behaviour only tells us a limited amount about the similarities. We must also note an important difference between what is informative and what is communicative: the former can be used to describe someone blushing, which informs others of their embarrassment. The latter is made up of signals and ‘signs’ that relate to the state of the world and responses to it. Therefore it may be more appropriate to compare human language with animal communication, but defining the latter by the organism’s intention to communicate with another; its recognition that another will respond through sound or behaviour.
In most species, communication only occurs in four contexts of necessity: mating, caring for young, cooperation in obtaining food and territory, and fighting within species or against predators. In contrast, human language makes use of the ‘sign’ and the subtlety of finite grammar to help us communicate more complex ideas. Human with an understanding of the English language are able to differentiate between the different meaning of “man bites dog” and “dog bites man”. Although both sentences use exactly the same signs, the implicit meaning of grammar structures tells the speaker and receiver something crucial.
We can also compare human language to animal communication in terms of how the systems are used. Amongst animals, their communication only consists of:
- a finite repertory of calls that warns others in the species of predators or territory invasion.
- A continuous analogue signal that registers the magnitude of some state, for example, bee dancing.
-
A serious of random variations on a theme, such as birdsong which repeats the same sounds but with subtle differences every time.[8]
In contrast, human language contains discrete elements that can produce an infinite amount of variations. The sounds (commonly referred to as ‘words’) are discrete and individual, therefore we can refer to language as digital (rather than the analogue signals of bees). Perhaps the most advanced feature of this system is that individual sounds or ‘words’ are compositional; they can carry different meaning depending on their position in amongst other sounds, or through the intonation and emphasis that is given through the speaker. Animal signs are rigid, whereas human language is flexible.
Another point of comparison has been noted, in the area of the organism’s brain that is used for communication. Human language is seated in the cerebral cortex of the brain, whereas primate vocal calls are located in the brain stem and limbic systems. Interestingly, these areas are heavily involved in emotion. This in fact relates more neatly with human emotions, such as laughing, crying or moaning, which are all controlled sub-cortically. Although animals recognise different objects, there is no evidence of them ‘naming’. Human language uses ‘signs’ to ‘name’ different objects and concepts, so that they can be referred to easily during communication. Animals however, show a mere emotional response to their surroundings at a present point in time. Different stimuli with provoke anger or fear. However, humans are able to ‘name’ items and refer to them at a later date, without any emotional attachment.
It has been argued that there is little usefulness in comparing human language to animal communication; language is merely a unique trait of the human race, just as an elephant’s trunk is. There is no need to compare and contrast the advantages and characteristics of this trait with other species. Despite this, it is interesting to observe the extent to which animals participate in this ‘human’ trait of language. From definitions and theory to active research, we can conclude that some animals are capable of working with the rudimentary characteristics of human language. Yet there is a lot to be said for the fact that no other animals are predisposed to work with language – teaching human language to animals is a somewhat unnatural experience. Just as birds have an innate disposition towards one type of song. Therefore the ease with which we acquire language suggest we are innately programmed to do so, which does not compare fully with animal communication.
[1] Charles F. Hockett (1958), A course In Modern Linguistics, ch.64 ‘Man’s place in nature’ (New York: Macmillan)
[2] Example taken from J. Aitchison (1989), The Articulate Mammal, ch.2 ‘Animals that try to talk’ (London: Unwin Hyman Ltd.)
[3] Ed. by John Lyons (1970), New Horizons in Linguistics 1, ‘The biology of communication in man and animals’ J. Marshall , page 239-240 (Great Britain: Watson & Viney
[4] J. Aitchison (1989), The Articulate Mammal, ch.2 ‘Animals that try to talk’ (London: Unwin Hyman Ltd.)
[5] J. Aitchison (1989), The Articulate Mammal, ch.2 ‘Animals that try to talk’ (London: Unwin Hyman Ltd.)
[6] Charles F. Hockett (1958), A course In Modern Linguistics, ch.64 ‘Man’s place in nature’ (New York: Macmillan)
[7] Example taken from Charles F. Hockett (1958), A course In Modern Linguistics, ch.64 ‘Man’s place in nature’ (New York: Macmillan)
[8] Steven Pinker (1994), The Language Instinct: The New Science of Language and Mind, ch. 11(USA: HarperCollins Publisher)
by
betx (student)
