When the Apes Speak, Linguists Listen. Part 2. What the Critics

CurrsmtCmmments” EUGENE GARFIELD INSTITUTE FOR SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION* 3501 MARK ET ST., PHI LAOELPHIA, PA 19104 When the Apes Speak, Lin@sts Listen. I Part 2. What the Critics Say Number 32 August 12, 1985 Last week, we discussed the projects and function of the symbols they use. designed to teach apes a means of com- Rather, the critics suggest that the ani- munication comparable to human lan- mals are imitating the trainers or that guage. 1 These projects, which began they are conditioned to respond in the about 20 years ago, were designed to test appropriate manner. Critics afso suggest the linguistic potential of our closest rel- that the apes trained to use artificial lan- atives in the animal world—the great guages rely on rote memorization rather apes, including the chimpanzee, gorilla, than knowledge of syntactic rules in for- and orangutan. In the earliest project, mulating word sequences. In the case of researchers taught a chimpanzee to use ASL-trained apes, some critics say re- American Sign Language (ASL), a ges- searchers may be interpreting too much tural form of communication used by from the animals’ responses, identifying deaf people in North America. In later as ASL signs movements that are not projects, chimpanzees were taught arti- well-formed ASL words. Others suggest ficial languages using plastic symbols or the animals may receive inadvertent cu- a computer keyboard. Each research ing from their trainers. group published data describing the re- In addition to all the controversy sur- markable similarities between the lin- rounding the methods and interpreta- guistic skill of their chimpanzee and ear- tions of these studies, one of the major ly language development in human problems in thk field is the lack of a stan- children. However, shortly after this re- dard definition for human language. If search appeared, questions arose con- we can’t describe language by a well-de- cerning the methodology and interpreta- fined set of criteria, it is difficult to de- tion of these studies. Let’s now review cide whether another species is using it. the controversy surrounding the claims Until recently, we assumed that humans that apes are able to use a rudimentary were the only species to use language, form of human language. And is the and, therefore, we had no need to define comparison between ape and child lan- it precisely. In fact, Margaret Atherton guage a valid one? and Robert Schwartz, Department of Phdosophy, University of Wisconsin- Mdwaukee, noted that language is close- What the Crftfes Say ly tied to our concept and definition of Criticism of the ape language studtes human inteUlgenee and that as long as encompasses interpretive as well as language is uniquely human we can be- methodologic issues. Many critics feel lieve human mentality is unique and spe- that the ape language researchers have cial.z However, anthropologists Horst not provided sufficient evidence to show D. Steklis, Rutgers University, New that the apes comprehend the nature Brunswick, New Jersey, and Michael J. 302 Raleigh, Brentwood Veterans Adminis- versity of Nevada, Reno, suggest that in tration and Neuropsychlatric Institute, the arttlcial language experiments con- University of California, Los Angeles, ducted by psychologist David Premack note that both behavioral and neurologi- at the University of Pennsylvania and by cal research support the idea of shared Duane M. Rumbaugh working at the cognitive features between great apes Yerkes Regional Primate Research Cen- and humans, 3 Therefore, it should not ter at Emory University and Georgia be surprising that the great apes possess State University, Atlanta, the chimpan- at least rudimentary language abilities, zees could perform the tasks required of The definition of language and the them on the basis of learning sets and uniqueness of human mental abilities be- rote memory.b In return, Rumbaugh and came an important issue with the first Sue Savage-Rumbaugh, Yerkes Region- words of Washoe, an AS1.Arained chim- al Primate Research Center and Georgia panzee. However, the claims that ape State University, state that the Gard- language researchers make for their ani- ners’ Washoe project failed to demon- mals are questioned not only by lin- strate that ASL signs, when used by a guists, but by the ape language research- chimpanzee, are functionally equivalent ers themselves. to the words used by humans. They also suggest that a series of ASL signs formed IS ItLanguage? by a chimpanzee is nothing more than the animal producing a group of “appro- The major question raised by the ape priate” responses, or signs, and not rudk language studies is whether the newly mentary sentences as the Gardners and found communicative abilities of these Francine G. Patterson, who worked apes can be considered language. Noted with the ASL-trained gorilla Koko, linguist Noam Chomsky, Massachusetts have suggested.7 Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Moreover, psychologist Herb S. Ter- suggested that human language is ac- race and colleagues, Columbia Universi- quired effortlessly and without training.d ty, New York, concluded from their ape However, Catherine E. Snow, Institute language study, which was designed to for General Linguistics, University of replicate the Gardners’ work, that the Amsterdam, the Netherlands, noted that chimpanzee can learn that particular language acquisition is the result of in- symbols are appropriate to particular sit- teraction between the mother and chdd uations.a The function of the ASL sym- beginning in eariy infancy and involves bols used by Terrace’s chimpanzee, teaching on the mother’s parts Mothers Nim, was not so much to identify things speaking to their children limit the or convey information but to satisfy the semantic content, but not the grammar, trainer’s requirement that the chim- to what the child can understand and re- panzee use the proper symbol to obtain a produce. The ape language experiments reward.g also require extensive training of the research subjects. Spontarteity Ape language researchers seem to be the most severe critics of each other’s One quality that is generally agreed to work. Since three different language sys- be characteristic of human language is tems have been used to train the apes, spontaneity. Terrace and colleagues re- the various researchers d]sagree as to ported that Nim’s language performance whether the others are indeed teachhg was almost entirely prompted by the and testing their animals in the best way. trainers or imitative of their signs.s Imi- For example, psychologists R. Allen tative signs are those that are repeated Gardner and Beatrix T. Gardner, Uni- immediately after the trainer makes the 303 sign. Prompted signs, on the other hand, tions, Miles found that 37 percent of use only part of the sign made by the Chantek’s utterances were spontane- trainer. By observing films of Washoe ous. 13 Her reanalysis of videotapes of and Koko signing, Terrace and col- Nim’s signs found that 8 percent were leagues reached a similar conclusion re- spontaneous. As Sanders suggested, the garding the lack of spontaneous signing. pattern of the ape’s signing is sensitive to However, in a recent book, linguist the setting, goals, and behavior of the Philip Lieberman, Brown University, trainer. Spontaneity and imitation are Providence, Rhode Island, points out related to the environment as well as to that Terrace used very stringent crite- the animal. 12 ria.g Terrace considered signing sponta- Rumbaugh and T.V. Gill, then his neous only if it was not preceded by a graduate student, noted that their chim- teacher’s signing.g Lieberman noted that panzee, Lana, seemed to lack motiva- these criteria are much more stringent tion to use language, requesting the than those used by child language re- names of things only when they were searchers in analyzing spontaneous ut- food items. “She never ‘discussed spon- terances. He points out that, according taneously the attributes of things in her to the criteria used by Terrace, children world.” 14 According to Savage-Rum- between the ages of one and two years baugh and colleagues, both Washoe and almost never produce spontaneous ut- Lana used their language sk~s to “con- terances.g trol and regulate the behavior of their Patterson, then of Stanford Universi- human experimenters.”ls Mark S. Sei- ty, California, d~putes Terrace’s asser- denberg, Center for the Study of Read- tions about the spontaneity of Koko’s ut- ing, University of Illhois at Urbana- terances. She claims that 41 percent of Champaign, and Laura A. Petitto, De- Koko’s signs are spontaneous and 11 partment of Human Relations, Harvard percent imitative, 10in contrast to the 28 University Graduate School of Educa- percent spontaneous utterance figure tion, Cambridge, afso suggest that the Terrace and coUeagues calculated for apes have not learned the meanings or Koko. ]1 Patterson, as well as the Gard- grammatical functions of signs; rather ners, notes that films of ape-trainer in- they have learned that signing behavior teractions made under classroom drill is very important to the researchers and conditions are not representative of the can be used to obtain food, Seidenberg everyday discourse that is necessary for and Petitto compare th~ behavior with comparison with chdd language. that of a child who learns an obscene Psychologist Richard J. Sanders, Uni- word. The child knows that repeating versit y of North Caroliia, Wilmington, a this word will produce a certain response former graduate student in Terrace’s in the adult. In essence the chtid under- laboratory, suggested that the method of stands the consequence of saying the testing influences the degree of imitation word but not the meaning of the word. lb by the ape. 12 In fact, in a study of lan- Another indication that the apes do guage acquisition in the ASL-trained not understand the symbolic signifi- orangutan Chantek, anthropologist H.

Load more