DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluating the “Narrow Language Faculty” Hypothesis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluating the “Narrow Language Faculty” Hypothesis © 2018 WUPJ, April 2018, Volume 6 Is Language Unique to Humans? Evaluating the “Narrow Language Faculty” Hypothesis Jessica Lammert * The differences between animal communication systems and human language have been an area of considerable research. The aim of the present review was to evaluate Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky’s Narrow Language Faculty hypothesis. This theory claims the sole property that distinguishes human language from animal communication is recursion, defined as the ability to embed one linguistic representation within another in a hierarchy. The current review examined evidence of animal grammar learning and assessed the claim that recursion is a universal property of human language. Other abilities that may be unique to human language are discussed. Conclusions on the current state of empirical evidence and the existence of continuity between animal communication and human language are made. Animal communication refers to the embedding of one linguistic representation transfer of information by an animal that within another in a hierarchical structure, elicits a change in the behaviour of the allowing for natural language strings such as animal receiving this information (Gillam, “The milk that I bought the other day was 2011). Examiners of human and animal spoiled.” The Narrow Language Faculty communication systems seek to understand hypothesis predicts that animals are unable the cognitive mechanisms and processes that to learn recursive grammars and recursive underlie their respective abilities. The goal grammar is the sole cognitive mechanism of this research is to understand how and that is unique and universal to human why human language differs from the language. The goal of this essay is to refute communicative abilities of other species and this hypothesis by reviewing several is often framed as a contrast between empirical studies of recursive abilities in continuous and discontinuous theories of humans and animals. The current paper will evolution. Continuity theorists propose begin with a description of the Narrow human language is a refinement of abilities Language Faculty hypothesis and supporting that are present in other species while evidence to be reconsidered. This will be discontinuity theorists propose human followed by a detailed review of empirical language abilities are qualitatively different studies on recursive abilities in various and emerged suddenly in the course of animal species and evidence of a human human evolution. language that does not utilize recursion. The review will close with a discussion of other One prominent argument against properties that may be unique to human continuity is the Narrow Language Faculty language. hypothesis (Fitch, Hauser, & Chomsky, 2005; Hauser, Chomsky, & Fitch, 2002). The Narrow Language Faculty According to the Narrow Language Faculty Hypothesis hypothesis, the sole property that How is human language different distinguishes human language from animal from the communicative abilities of other communication systems is recursion. animals? One suggestion in line with the Recursion refers to the potentially infinite discontinuity approach is that animals are *Initially submitted for 4420 at the University of Western Ontario. For inquiries regarding the article, please email the author at [email protected]. NARROW LANGUAGE HYPOTHESIS 2 unable to represent and process a particular Fitch and colleagues (2005) find syntactic operation: recursion. Fitch, Hauser, support for the FLN hypothesis and the and Chomsky (2002) divide human language central role of recursion in their review of abilities into narrow and broad language the animal communication literature. They faculties (Fitch et al., 2005; Hauser et al., note that no known animal communication 2002). The broad language faculty (FLB) system demonstrates recursion nor do includes abilities required for language that studies of trained apes, dolphins, and parrots are shared with other cognitive processes (for a review, see Pepperberg, 2017; ten (such as problem-solving and decision- Cate & Okanoya, 2012). However, this making) and with other species. In contrast, conclusion is erroneous because it is the narrow language faculty (FLN) consists assumed that the absence of recursion in of abilities required for language that are not animal communication is evidence that it used for any other cognitive tasks and are does not exist. It is unknown whether not shared with other species. Specifically, researchers have found null results either recursion is described as the vital component because recursion does not exist in animal of the FLN that differentiates human communication or because they lack the language from other forms of cognition and proper means of detection. Fitch and animal communication systems. colleagues’ justification of placing recursion in the FLN would be falsified by empirical These theorists also claim that evidence of recursive abilities in other recursion is the syntactic operation that species. delineates finite-state grammars from phrase-structure grammars. Both finite-state The primary purpose of the current grammars and phrase-structure grammars review is to evaluate the claims of Fitch, are representational processing systems that Hauser, and Chomsky (Fitch et al., 2005; allow linguistic symbols (words, phrases) to Hauser et al., 2002). The first of these is that be combined into extended strings. Some animals lack the ability to acquire phrase- linguists contend that embedded structures structure grammars and process recursion. and long-distance dependencies are only The second is that recursion is unique to permissible in grammars that feature human language and universally represented recursion (Chomsky, 2010; Corballis, 2013; in all languages. The third claim, implicit Hauser et al., 2002). While a finite-state with the second, is that no other language grammar can produce patterns of alternating ability is unique to humans aside from symbols such as ABAB, a phrase-structure recursion. Sufficient evidence against these grammar is required to generate patterns claims would challenge Fitch and such as AAABBB where each A-element is colleagues’ explanation of human language paired with a corresponding B-element and as consisting of a FLN with recursion as its may be separated by intervening elements sole occupant. (Chomsky, 1957). Thus, only phrase Grammar Learning in Animals structure grammars are recursive because relations among constituents allow To determine whether recursion representational units to be embedded within constitutes the FLN, an investigation into larger structures. whether non-human species can represent NARROW LANGUAGE HYPOTHESIS 3 hierarchical relations among discrete units is (two transitions in finite-state sequences, warranted. Other primates, who have already one transition in phrase-structure sequences; demonstrated a rich set of cognitive Hochmann et al., 2008; Perruchet & Rey, capacities, are perhaps the most likely to 2005). possess recursive abilities (Shettleworth, In the test phase, novel sequences of 2001). Researchers have investigated syllables that were either consistent or whether inconsistent with the trained grammar were non-human primates can acquire phrase- played over speakers. Researchers measured structure grammar using exposure-test if and for how long the tamarins oriented research methods where participants are toward the speaker. If the tamarins presented with stimuli and later must recognized the sequence as being familiar, discriminate between trained and novel test they should orient to the speaker for a items. Evidence that other primates can shorter period of time compared to those acquire phrase-structure grammar would who recognized the sequence as being novel. invalidate the first claim of the FLN The experimenters found the hypothesis, that only humans can process tamarins acquired the finite-state grammar recursive representations. but were incapable of acquiring the phrase- Fitch and Hauser (2004) employed structure grammar. Animals trained on the an experimental paradigm where finite-state sequences spent more time meaningless syllables are combined in oriented toward the speaker when the different sequences to explore whether non- sequences violated the grammar than the human primates can learn a phrase-structure animals trained on the phrase-structure grammar. While some sequences could be grammar. The preferential looking generated using a finite-sate grammar, paradigm, used extensively in infant others could only be generated using a cognition research, has been subject to phrase-structure grammar. This paradigm interpretative issues (Aslin, 2007). While in has been used to test the ability of cotton-top some studies, longer looking times are tamarins, birds, and humans to learn a interpreted as an individual recognizing phrase-structure grammar. novel stimuli, in others, longer looking times are interpreted as recognizing familiar To determine whether cotton-top stimuli (Hauser & Carey, 2003; Jordan, tamarins can learn complex syllable Brannon, Logothetis, & Ghazanfar, 2005). sequences, researchers exposed them to a As well, questions remain on the extent to 20-minute recording of sequences generated which looking can be interpreted as by either a finite-state grammar (ABAB) or knowledge (Shinskey & Munakata, 2005). phrase-structure grammar (AAABBB). As These findings support Fitch and colleagues critics have pointed out, “A” and “B” (2005) but should be interpreted with syllables were further differentiated
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Giving Voice to the "Voiceless:" Incorporating Nonhuman Animal Perspectives As Journalistic Sources
    Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Communication Faculty Publications Department of Communication 2011 Giving Voice to the "Voiceless:" Incorporating Nonhuman Animal Perspectives as Journalistic Sources Carrie Packwood Freeman Georgia State University, [email protected] Marc Bekoff Sarah M. Bexell [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/communication_facpub Part of the Journalism Studies Commons, and the Social Influence and oliticalP Communication Commons Recommended Citation Freeman, C. P., Bekoff, M. & Bexell, S. (2011). Giving voice to the voiceless: Incorporating nonhuman animal perspectives as journalistic sources. Journalism Studies, 12(5), 590-607. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Communication at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Communication Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VOICE TO THE VOICELESS 1 A similar version of this paper was later published as: Freeman, C. P., Bekoff, M. & Bexell, S. (2011). Giving Voice to the Voiceless: Incorporating Nonhuman Animal Perspectives as Journalistic Sources, Journalism Studies, 12(5), 590-607. GIVING VOICE TO THE "VOICELESS": Incorporating nonhuman animal perspectives as journalistic sources Carrie Packwood Freeman, Marc Bekoff and Sarah M. Bexell As part of journalism’s commitment to truth and justice
    [Show full text]
  • Human Uniqueness in the Age of Ape Language Research1
    Society and Animals 18 (2010) 397-412 brill.nl/soan Human Uniqueness in the Age of Ape Language Research1 Mary Trachsel University of Iowa [email protected] Abstract This paper summarizes the debate on human uniqueness launched by Charles Darwin’s publi- cation of The Origin of Species in 1859. In the progress of this debate, Noam Chomsky’s intro- duction of the Language-Acquisition Device (LAD) in the mid-1960s marked a turn to the machine model of mind that seeks human uniqueness in uniquely human components of neu- ral circuitry. A subsequent divergence from the machine model can be traced in the short his- tory of ape language research (ALR). In the past fifty years, the focus of ALR has shifted from the search for behavioral evidence of syntax in the minds of individual apes to participant- observation of coregulated interactions between humans and nonhuman apes. Rejecting the computational machine model of mind, the laboratory methodologies of ALR scientists Tetsuro Matsuzawa and Sue Savage-Rumbaugh represent a worldview coherent with Darwin’s continu- ity hypothesis. Keywords ape language research, artificial intelligence, Chomsky, comparative psychology, Darwin, human uniqueness, social cognition Introduction Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts should have been perfected, not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor. (Darwin, 1989b, p. 421) With the publication of The Origin of Species (1859/1989a), Charles Darwin steered science directly into a conversation about human uniqueness previ- ously dominated by religion and philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Human–Animal Communication*
    AN46CH21-Kulick ARI 26 September 2017 7:48 Annual Review of Anthropology Human–Animal Communication∗ Don Kulick Department of Cultural Anthropology and Ethnology, Uppsala University, 751 26, Uppsala, Sweden; email: [email protected] ANNUAL REVIEWS Further Click here to view this article's online features: t%PXOMPBEmHVSFTBT115TMJEFT t/BWJHBUFMJOLFESFGFSFODFT t%PXOMPBEDJUBUJPOT t&YQMPSFSFMBUFEBSUJDMFT t4FBSDILFZXPSET Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2017. 46:357–78 Keywords First published as a Review in Advance on August animal studies, animal communicators, animal training, ape language, 7, 2017 companion species, ethics, pets The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at by [email protected] on 11/02/17. For personal use only. anthro.annualreviews.org Abstract https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102116- Since the demise in the 1980s of research by psychologists who attempted 041723 Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2017.46:357-378. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org to teach human language to apes, a range of other perspectives has arisen Copyright c 2017 by Annual Reviews. ⃝ that explore how humans can communicate with animals and what the pos- All rights reserved sibility of such communication means. Sociologists interested in symbolic ∗This article is part of a special theme on interactionism, anthropologists writing about ontology, equestrian and ca- Human–Animal Interaction. For a list of other articles in this theme, see http://www. nine trainers, people with autism who say they understand animals because annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev- they think like animals, and a ragbag of sundry New Age women who claim an-46-themes to be able to converse with animals through telepathy have started discussing human–animal communication in ways that recast the whole point of think- ing about it.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining Language in the Wake of Primate Language Research
    Defining Language in the Wake of Primate Language Research Hanna L. Meyer December 2018 Abstract This text examines language as it is used in the animal language debate through pragmatic and structural linguistic perspectives on primate language research. The surge of primate language studies in America in the 1970's generated a wave of public and academic interest in animal language that continues today in the form of ongoing primate research both in the lab and in the wild. These studies have forced the field to examine the way it conceptualizes language, as well as the current criteria with which we use to define it I argue that the traditional linguistic approach to defining language, which measures language through surface level features, as can be seen in Hockett's design features, cannot fully describe language, and instead must include a more pragmatic perspective in order to more accurately measure primate language. Finally I argue that the term language, as it has historically been used to describe only human language is useless, as its exclusivity ignores the gradient of the complexity of higher mental faculties across the evolutionary tree. 1 Introduction From the domestication of dogs approximately 30,000 years ago (Saey, 2017), of horses 5,500 years ago (Wilfred, 2009), and the creation of the first zoo 5,000 years ago (Boissoneault, 2015), it is clear that the human interest in interacting with different species is deeply rooted in our natural history. Central to our interest in non-human animals is an interest in their communication abilities. It is impossible to understand 1 the cognitive abilities or social hierarchies of a species without an understanding of their system(s) of communication.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Human Primates and Language: Paper
    Non-human primates and language: paper http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/nhplanguage/ftpaper.html Language competence in NHPs An assessment of the field in the light of a 'universal grammar' "The Berlin wall is down, and so is the wall that separates man from chimpanzee." (Elizabeth Bates) "There is no debate, so I have no opinion." (Noam Chomsky) 0 Introduction The language competence of non-human primates is one of the most controversial issues in present-day linguistics, with disbelief ranging from bored indifference to vitriolic accusations of fraud. The present paper aims to assess the current state of debate from an open-minded, critical and detached perspective. In a first part, a brief outline of earlier research in the language abilities of non-human primates - more precisely of apes (bonobos, urang-utangs, chimpanzees and gorillas) - is sketched. The second part focusses on the landmark studies published by Dr. Emily Sue Savage-Rumbaugh and her colleagues. A third section looks into the views of the Chomskyan field, leading up to the concluding section on the innateness debate. 1 Early research on non-human primates' capability for language 1.1 Attempts to teach NHPs to speak The language capability of non-human primates has been a subject of research since the beginning of this century. In 1909 already did Witmer attempt to teach a chimpanzee to talk. He claims that the chimpanzee was capable of articulating the word ‘mama’. In 1916 Furness taught an orang-utan to say the words ‘papa’ and ‘cup’. After the unexpected death of this orang-utan, Kellogg and Kellogg wanted to follow up this work.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Umwelten in a Changing World
    Tartu Semiotics Library 18 Tartu Tartu Semiotics Library 18 Animal umwelten in a changing world: Zoosemiotic perspectives represents a clear and concise review of zoosemiotics, present- ing theories, models and methods, and providing interesting examples of human–animal interactions. The reader is invited to explore the umwelten of animals in a successful attempt to retrieve the relationship of people with animals: a cornerstone of the past common evolutionary processes. The twelve chapters, which cover recent developments in zoosemiotics and much more, inspire the reader to think about the human condition and about ways to recover our lost contact with the animal world. Written in a clear, concise style, this collection of articles creates a wonderful bridge between Timo Maran, Morten Tønnessen, human and animal worlds. It represents a holistic approach Kristin Armstrong Oma, rich with suggestions for how to educate people to face the dynamic relationships with nature within the conceptual Laura Kiiroja, Riin Magnus, framework of the umwelt, providing stimulus and opportuni- Nelly Mäekivi, Silver Rattasepp, ties to develop new studies in zoosemiotics. Professor Almo Farina, CHANGING WORLD A IN UMWELTEN ANIMAL Paul Thibault, Kadri Tüür University of Urbino “Carlo Bo” This important book offers the first coherent gathering of perspectives on the way animals are communicating with each ANIMAL UMWELTEN other and with us as environmental change requires increasing adaptation. Produced by a young generation of zoosemiotics scholars engaged in international research programs at Tartu, IN A CHANGING this work introduces an exciting research field linking the biological sciences with the humanities. Its key premises are that all animals participate in a dynamic web of meanings WORLD: and signs in their own distinctive styles, and all animal spe- cies have distinctive cultures.
    [Show full text]
  • Bio 314 Animal Behv Bio314new
    NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA SCHOOL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COURSE CODE: BIO 314: COURSE TITLE: ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR xii i BIO 314: ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR Course Writers/Developers Miss Olakolu Fisayo Christie Nigerian Institute for Oceanography and Marine Research, No 3 Wilmot Point Road, Bar-beach Bus-stop, Victoria Island, Lagos, Nigeria. Course Editor: Dr. Adesina Adefunke Ministry of Health, Alausa. Lagos NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA xii i BIO 314 COURSE GUIDE Introduction Animal Behaviour (314) is a second semester course. It is a two credit units compustory course which all students offering Bachelor of Science (BSc) in Biology must take. This course deals with the theories and principles of adaptive behaviour and evolution of animals. The course contents are history of ethology. Reflex and complex behaviour. Orientation and taxes. Fixed action patterns, releasers, motivation and driver. Displays, displacement activities and conflict behaviour. Learning communication and social behaviour. The social behaviour of primates. Hierarchical organization. The physiology of behaviour. Habitat selection, homing and navigation. Courtship and parenthood. Biological clocks. What you will learn in this course In this course, you have the course units and a course guide. The course guide will tell you briefly what the course is all about. It is a general overview of the course materials you will be using and how to use those materials. It also helps you to allocate the appropriate time to each unit so that you can successfully complete the course within the stipulated time limit. The course guide also helps you to know how to go about your Tutor-Marked-Assignment which will form part of your overall assessment at the end of the course.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Communication & Language
    9781446295649_C.indd 6 14/06/2017 17:18 00_CARPENDALE ET AL_FM.indd 3 11/14/2017 4:45:07 PM Animal Communication and Human 7 Language LEARNING OUTCOMES By the end of this chapter you should: • Understand how the study of animal communication informs us about the nature and sophistication of human communication. • Be able to discuss the details of the communication patterns of vervet monkeys and honeybees. • Know that attempts to teach apes to speak have been conducted for a hundred years and why those based on behavioural training were inconclusive. • Be able to define what a LAD and a LASS are (and know their theoretical differences). • Be able to discuss the differences between human and animal communication and therefore the complexity of the latter. • Be aware of how more recent training programmes based on social interaction have changed our understanding of how apes may learn to communicate with humans as well as how they have informed our understanding of children’s early language development. Do animals use languages? Can dogs learn words? Rico, a 9-year-old border collie, was able to learn 200 words (Kaminski, Call, & Fischer, 2004). But are these really words in the same sense that humans use them? What Rico had learned was to fetch 200 different 07_CARPENDALE ET AL_CH_07.indd 121 11/14/2017 10:48:26 AM 122 THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHILDREN’S THINKING objects (Bloom, 2004). This is an incredibly impressive feat, but what does it tell us about human languages? When a child learns a word, more is expected than the ability to fetch the object that it identifies.
    [Show full text]
  • How Prejudice Affects the Study of Animal Minds by Ashley Elizabeth Keefner
    How Prejudice Affects the Study of Animal Minds by Ashley Elizabeth Keefner A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2017 © Ashley Elizabeth Keefner 2017 Examining Committee Membership The following served on the Examining Committee for this thesis. The decision of the Examining Committee is by majority vote. Supervisor Dr. Paul Thagard, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, University of Waterloo Internal Member Dr. John Turri, Canada Research Chair in Philosophy & Cognitive Science, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Waterloo Internal Member Dr. Katy Fulfer, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of Waterloo Internal-External Member Dr. Alice Kuzniar, University Research Chair, Professor of German and English, University of Waterloo External Examiner Dr. Andrew Fenton, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Dalhousie University ii Author’s Declaration I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. iii Abstract Humans share the planet with many wonderfully diverse animal species and human- animal interactions are part of our daily lives. An important part of understanding how humans do and should interact with other animals is understanding how humans think about other animals. In this thesis, I argue that how humans think about the minds of other animals is marked by prejudice and that this prejudice fosters epistemological, metaphysical, and ethical problems related to study of, the conception of, and the conclusions we draw about animal minds.
    [Show full text]
  • First Language
    First Language http://fla.sagepub.com/ Semiotic combinations in Pan: A comparison of communication in a chimpanzee and two bonobos Heidi Lyn, Patricia M. Greenfield and E. Sue Savage-Rumbaugh First Language 2011 31: 300 originally published online 18 March 2011 DOI: 10.1177/0142723710391872 The online version of this article can be found at: http://fla.sagepub.com/content/31/3/300 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com Additional services and information for First Language can be found at: Email Alerts: http://fla.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://fla.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://fla.sagepub.com/content/31/3/300.refs.html >> Version of Record - Jul 26, 2011 OnlineFirst Version of Record - May 10, 2011 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Mar 18, 2011 What is This? Downloaded from fla.sagepub.com at UCLA on April 20, 2014 FIRST Article LANGUAGE First Language 31(3) 300–325 Semiotic combinations © The Author(s) 2010 Reprints and permission: sagepub. in Pan: A comparison co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0142723710391872 of communication in a fla.sagepub.com chimpanzee and two bonobos Heidi Lyn University of Southern Mississippi, USA Patricia M. Greenfield University of California, Los Angeles, USA E. Sue Savage-Rumbaugh Georgia State University, USA Abstract Communicative combinations of two bonobos (Pan paniscus) and a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) are compared. All three apes utilized ordering strategies for combining symbols (lexigrams) or a lexigram with a gesture to express semantic relations such as agent of action or object of action.
    [Show full text]
  • Language (Including Signjanguage)
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 385 148 FL 023 146 AUTHOR Jaramillo, James A. TITLE Can Human-Taught Primates Produce aNon-Verbal Language? PUB DATE 26 Jun 95 NOTE 83p. PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070) Reports Evaluative /Feasibility (142) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC04 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Animal Behavior; *Cognitive Processes;*Language Acquisition; *Language Processing; Language Research; Learning Processes; Linguistic Theory;*Nonverbal Communication; Primatology; Sign Language;*Visual Stimuli ABSTRACT The debate over whether primates can betaught visual language is examined, and evidence of useof nonverbal language in primate studies is compared with the languagecriteria of a number of linguistic researchers. Background information onlanguage, visual language (including signjanguage), andthe parameters of the studies is offered, including oral and human languagecriteria, conception of grammar, and use of word symbols(chip symbology). The performance of four apes in different studies, usingdifferent methods to teach visual language, is then examined in termsof these parameters. It is concluded that the apes can mentallymanipulate abstract concepts that have been defined by means of anarbitrary code, and that this manipulation involves mentally scanning a setof symbols and cognitively selecting one on the basis of itsspecific linguistic context. Ape results proved to belinguistically coded and expressed, establishing true linguistic comprehensiveproduction. Despite the fact that the ape linguistic abilities werefar below the level of adult communication,
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Communication
    16Ch16_OGrady.QXD 1/8/08 3:27 AM Page 514 CHAPTER Sixteen Michael Dobrovolsky Animal communication As I listened from a beach-chair in the shade To all the noises that my garden made, It seemed to me only proper that words Should be withheld from vegetables and birds. W.H. AUDEN ommunication—the passing on or exchange of information—distinguishes what is living Cfrom what is non-living in nature.1 Communication is found even in the apparently passive world of plants; trees, for example, have been found to pass on information about advancing predators by means of chemical signals. Animals communicate among them- selves and with humans so effectively that they are often said to use ‘language’. But the words communication and (human) language do not mean the same thing. Human language is a specific way of communicating, but not just any form of communication qualifies as language. A question that therefore interests many linguists is whether animals make use of any system of communication that genuinely resembles or approximates human language. If animals communicate with a system that is structured like human language, then language as we know it is not the unique property of our species. This chapter investigates the ways in which animal communication is like human language and the ways in which it is different. 16.1 Non-vocal communication One of the most striking things about animal communication is the variety of means through which it is carried out. Animals communicate not only with sounds but with scent, light, ultrasound, visual signs (see figure 16.1), gestures, colour, and even electricity.
    [Show full text]