Deciphering the Dolphin Language Appendix U 1 by James T. Fulton U.1 Introduction 1 The goal of this appendix is to report the evidence related to the eternal question of whether the dolphin, and 2 particularly the bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, unless otherwise indicated, employs what is traditionally 3 described as language in English. If it logically does, the secondary goal is to define the next steps in deciphering 4 that language. 5 This appendix is subsidiary to “Hearing: A 21st Century Paradigm” and the website Processes in Biological Hearing. 6 There is a limitation in the vocabulary used in the linguistic community revolving around the multiple uses of the 7 word language. This work will separate the word language used as a noun and the word language used as an 8 adjective. As an adjective, it will be used to delineate a language protocol (neural software) that is coupled with a 9 vocalization capability (physiological hardware or plant) that together support language (used as a noun) to describe 10 both intraspecies communications and interspecies communications (under more complex conditions). 11 - - - - 12 Human academicians of one linguistic school have long argued that only humans employ language; all lower 13 animals only communicate. In a 1980 text2, Herman & Tavolga (Chap. 4) reviewed the literature of this linguistic 14 school from the communications perspective and Herman (Chap. 8) reviewed the similar literature related to the 15 cognitive capabilities of the dolphin. Herman noted (page 409), “The recent demonstration s of language-learning 16 capabilities in Pongidae (with a string of citations and using 1980 cladogram) reveal that most and possibly all of the 17 design features of human language are present in the learned linguistic transactions of the apes. Nevertheless, many 18 linguists continue to defend a distinction between human and animal language skill by assuming, for example, that 19 the demonstrated capacities of the apes, though impressive, are likely to be restricted to the elementary ‘Stage-1 20 Level’ of two-word sentences or by defining new criteria for language that are not met by apes (with a string of 21 citations). It seems likely, as Thorpe (1972) suggests, that linguists will continually be able to retreat to new 22 definitions of language in the face of demonstrations that animals have met prior criteria.” 23 24 The assertion that only humans employ language reminds one of the similar position that only humans 25 employed color capability in vision; all other animals were monochromatic; today we use the color vision of 26 dogs as models of human color vision and we know all animals (and insects) enjoy color vision. 27 More recently Chomsky has taken up the cudgel to defend the above linguistic school by introducing a new criteria 28 based on requirement that a species employing language must demonstrate use of the recursive form within its 29 syntax. Hauser reviewed this situation in 2001 and went on to discuss the concept of recursion. Recursion in 30 linguistics will be addressed in Section U.2.1.4. Suffice to say here that the recursive technique occurs in two 31 distinct forms and dolphins have been shown to interpret the serial form correctly. Herman et al. have shown that 32 dolphins can in fact understand recursive sentences with a high degree of statistical reliability, even when presented 33 in a totally acoustic “foreign,” i.e. synthetic, language. As a result, the noted linguistic school must now retreat once 34 again by insisting that to exhibit true language, a species must exhibit the capability of using the nested form of 35 recursion; a recursive form that humans have considerable difficulty with. 36 Recently linguists have focused on this so-called unique recursive syntax capability, to differentiate between dolphin 37 communications and human language. Such a distinction does not appear to be sustainable based on the evidence. 38 There is in fact evidence that the dolphin may have a more flexible vocalization capability than humans. This 39 expanded vocalization capability clearly expands the physiological plant of the dolphin. This capability could easily 40 provide a distinct syntax in the language protocol of dolphins not found in the human language protocol. This 41 equivalent syntax could easily result in greater communications scope than provided by the so-called unique 42 recursive capability of the human language protocol. 1June 12, 2014 2Herman, L. ed. (1980) Cetacean Behavior: Mechanisms and functions. NY: John Wiley & Sons Reprinted in 1988 by Krieger Publishing, Malabar Fl. 2 Processes in Biological Hearing 43 Christian3 in a TED talk given in 2011 came to less precise but different conclusion, “Powerful message, but I do 44 disagree about our species being unique because we have language. Other species (whales, other primates, 45 elephants, etc.) have language and pass knowledge down through the generations. What may make us unique is 46 WRITTEN language.” 47 As Herman noted (page 410), “Accordingly, the best path to follow at this point may be to bypass additional dispute 48 on definitions in favor of further empirical study of language capabilities of animal subjects.” 49 - - - - 50 Herman & Tavolga noted (1980, pg 176) three approaches to determining whether animals employ language, 51 1. Cryptanalysis. 52 2. Behavioral analysis, also known as ethology. 53 3. The serendipitous method. 54 The serendipitous method is assumed and a human and dolphin are placed together for a long time in the hope that a 55 common language will arise between them. Although this procedure usually results in a close social bond, it has 56 never resulted in an interspecies language. One should note the human voice range is below the optimum hearing 57 range for dolphins and the majority of the subtle features of dolphin vocalizations occur at frequencies above the 58 auditory range of humans. 59 While occasionally noted that deciphering the potential language of the dolphin requires a multi-discipline 60 investigation, no such team of specialists from the required disciplines has yet appeared. This appendix assembles 61 data and conjecture from a wide variety of teams in order to evaluate the potential for dolphin language (as a noun) 62 based on its use of all the elements of a recognizable language protocol. From this assemblage, an initial plan of 63 attack to expose the language of the dolphin is defined. The plan calls for extensive computerized evaluation of the 64 phonemes, morphemes and rule-based syntax of the dolphin. This part of the plan extends beyond the resources of 65 the author. 66 A critical tool in defining the phonemes involves the discipline of information theory. It is important to note the 67 dolphin language is vocal, not written. This vocal speech involves a phonetic symbol set quite distinct from the 68 alphanumeric symbol set of written languages. Its phonetic symbol set may be analogous to that of humans but this 69 question can not currently be addressed because the dolphin phonetic symbol set is currently an open (incompletely 70 defined) set. As a result, attempts to employ the concept of entropy must be examined warily. Functions like the 71 entropy, of any order, of a language can only be calculated if the symbol set is closed (completely defined). 72 The usual test for the existence of a phoneme is the minimal pair test; is there a difference in meaning between pairs 73 such as ‘din’ versus ‘tin’? 74 - - - - 75 Considerable progress has occurred during the last few years in determining whether or not dolphins, and 76 particularly the bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, are able to communicate with each other. It is well 77 recognized that this species has the brain power (based on physical size, complexity, and brain weight to total body 78 weight) and inquisitiveness to support language. Its ecological niche also supports a need for language 79 communications; it feeds in groups patrolling large estuaries where visual communications is limited. It is a tribal 80 animal with various tribes residing in specific areas for very long (evolutionary) times. This relative isolation of 81 tribes with only occasional communications between tribes has led to identifiable differences in the sound patterns 82 used by different tribes. 83 Adams in his “The Hitchhiker;s Guide to the Galaxy,” set the stage for the following discussion: 84 “Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieve so much—the 85 wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a 86 good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than 87 man—for precisely the same reasons.” 88 U.1.1 Physiological framework related to dolphin communications EXPAND 89 While the physical anatomy of the dolphins is well documented, the literature is much poorer regarding the 3Christian, D. (2011) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqc9zX04DXs Appendix U - 3 90 physiology of the dolphins, particularly in regard to their vocalization facilities, their hearing facilities and their 91 neural systems, including cognitive capabilities. 92 After the following global discussion, the more detailed physiology of the dolphin will be considered. This 93 physiology goes beyond the assertions of Connor & Smolker (1996, pg 644) and expands on the mechanisms and 94 capabilities of the vocalizations found in dolphins. 95 U.1.1.1 The evolution of the cetaceans 96 A paper by Manger in 2006 generated a large and vocal opposition. His assertion was that the unique development 97 of the members of Cetacea was due to changes in the temperature of the oceans over th eons. The first response with 98 many authors occurred in 20074 and included a major survey of the archeology, phylogeny, evolution and cognitive 99 and communications traits of Cetacea.