The fact that there is an arbitrary relationship between linguistic signs and object they represent can be considered a defining feature of language and therefore we can examine in more detail whether arbitrariness is also present in communication system of animals. The first impression might be that there is a strong link between the message conveyed and the signal used to convey it (Yule, 1985). However, this is not supported when taking into consideration an experiment carried out on chimpanzee Sarah. Sarah was rewarded an apple if she managed to select the right plastic shape. Apple was represented by blue plastic triangle and therefore it is possible to say that the feature of arbitrariness is present in animal communication since there is no obvious relationship between the blue plastic triangle and an apple (Aitchison, 1989).
Another aspect of language is semanticity, which is according to Dobrovolsky the use of symbols that convey meaning “through set of fixed relationships among signifiers, referents and meanings”(Dobrovolsky, 1996). It is argued that semanticity is unique to humans since animals do convey a meaning but in a very restricted form e.g. bird songs or calls. However, there is certain evidence suggesting that semanticity is present in animal’s speech. This was shown in the experiment with chimpanzee Washoe when she named the objects after seeing them on the picture having a prior knowledge of the object from a different situation. Semanticity is also present in her use of sign “more”. Firstly, she associated this sign only with tickling situation but later she used it to demand “more” food (Aitchison, 1989).
Another important property of language is a cultural transmission or tradition (Yule, 1985). This indicates that language is not genetically inbuilt in humans- it must be learnt from the environment. However, this cannot be applied to animals whose learning is instinctive. For example, a puppy born in England or in any other different country will always produce the same sound whereas a baby born for example in Sweden but brought up in England will automatically become a fluent speaker of English. This, however, also has some exceptions which suggest that this feature is not unique to humans- for example birds – if these are in their first weeks separated from other birds they will still produce songs but these will be abnormal to their species (Yule, 1985).
Among Hockett’s features is also a spontaneous usage of language. This occurs when the speech is initiated freely. This is said to be present in both human and animal communication systems as most of the animals do express freely. Although there might be some difficulties to decide whether the answer is yes or no. These are based on experiment with chimpanzees that proved that in the interaction with humans they only rarely initiated the conversation and if they spoke, most of the times it was in response to trainer’s questions (Yule,1985).
Along with spontaneous usage comes turn-taking as a second social feature of the language. This means taking turns in speaking and it is one of the most obvious features present in both communication systems. It frequently occurs in phenomenon known as antiphonal singing when birds take turns in singing. (Yule,1985).
Duality is also one the defining features of language. This means that language is organised into two levels. There is physical level which enables us to produce sounds like p, i, g. These, standing by themselves, are meaningless. It is only at the second level after combining them into sequences such as p-i-g when they become meaningful. It is generally thought that this property is exclusive to humans but there is also evidence against- duality is present in bird’s songs where the individual notes do not have any particular meaning but a combination of them does convey a meaning (Aitchison, 1989).
The ability to refer to the past and future and other locations is called displacement. This feature enables us to talk about things far removed in the time and place. This too, is claimed to be an asset of human language only although it was proved that e.g. bees show ability to refer to distant sources of nectar (Yule, 1985). This, however, does not apply when referring to sources of nectar in the past or future or -as shown in experiment conducted by Karl von Frisch – to vertical movement (Yule, 1985) thus making the feature of displacement very limited and only partially present in animal communication.
Apart from displacement, another feature that seems to be particularly human trait is structure dependence. This involves recognizing the pattern of a language and manipulating parts of the sentences into different structures and also includes the use of grammar. Findings from the experiment with chimpanzees do not suggest that they grasped the idea of structure dependant operations and neither do the other studies of animals.
Similarly, there is no evidence of animals having an ability to reflect e.g. talking about the language in terminology.
Another feature, which is regarded a property strictly limited to human language is productivity. This indicates the ability to produce and understand novel utterances. Majority of animals appear to have fixed number of signals for example North American cicada has 4 and vervet monkey 36 (Dobrovolsky, 1996) and cannot produce anything new. But once again, there are some exceptions like the expression “water-bird” created by Washoe after seeing a swan (Yule, 1985). This, however can be argued as at the time this utterance was produced, Washoe was near a river and at the same time she could see a swan so it is not clear whether she was not referring to two different things “river” and “swan” rather than just one “ swan”(Aitchison, 1989).
Last property considered by Hockett a defining feature of a language is prevarication. This is an ability to make a statement knowing it is false. This aspect of language seems to be very limited in animal world as according to Hockett “lying seems extremely rare among animals” (Yule, 1985) although there is a certain evidence of this property being present in the animal communication system as shown in Matata’s behaviour in interaction with another female chimpanzee (Yule, 1985:26).
In conclusion, it is possible to say that critical evaluation of Hockett’s design features suggests that animals may have not as much of a language as just a communication system within their species.
Nearly each of the Hockett’s design features can be found in communication systems of certain species but it never is all of them that are present in just one communication system. This applies fully to all animal communication systems although it is worth mentioning that particular species such as apes are proved to do considerably better in regards to enclosure of design features in their speech. This however, is aided by assistance of research conductors and does not happen naturally.
References:
Aitchison, J. (1989) The articulate mammal – An introduction to Psycholinguistics. London: Hutchinson.
-
Dobrovolsky, M. (1996) Animal communication. London: Longman.
-
Yule, G. (1985) The study of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
