http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2007/11/06/new_assessment_of_ape_language_skills_is
Very similar to the discussion we had in class. The data presented by the article, namely that apes tend only to use less than 2 words in a sentence and are therefore (for most intents and purposes) incapable of using grammar suggests that they only use language at the most basic level, pure association. I thought about this after class, and it seems to me that association is simply not unique to language. For example, if I point to a piece of cheesecake and think of delicious taste, then I am effectively naming that cheesecake with the sensation of taste. When we define a language, either the most basic element is association, or we leave it out of the definition altogether, since it's so brutally obvious and non-unique. So to judge whether or not these apes know language, they must demonstrate more than the ability to match sounds/signals with objects 1:1.
It's funny how the article describes the initial enthusiasm for verbal apes and only later criticism of the methods employed and data collected...since, as Descartes said, language is all that separates us from beasts, why are we so keen to see it replicated in monkeys? Maybe we're lonely...
Anyway, the point is that apes don't get any level of grammar - any kind of multiple word strings. Apparently the average number of words per utterance for some famous monkey was 1.15, suggesting a single noun per occurrence of language. Even when multiple words came out, it's very plausible that grammar still didn't exist. See, with a greater number of the words, the possibility for correct grammar decreases logarithmically. So the ape sentences of <3 words (no, not amorous words :)) could be saying many different things and we don't actually know whether they're grasping the concept of grammar (a hit b, as opposed to b hit a). Silly apes, language is for humans.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
haha definitely made me laugh! I think this all goes back to that same old question "how do you define language?". I agree that apes do not possess the same capacity for language that humans do and although I am a fan of calling all animal communications "language" there is definitely a distinction and human language is not really comparable to any animal language.
Grammar is definitely important. I thought it was interesting that you mentioned association of an object with a thought. This reminded me of Pavlov's conditioning experiment. The dogs associated the bell with the presence of food. A huge number of organisms are able to make these connections, and just because an ape is able to verbally identify (or sign) this connection does not seem to be a huge leap in complexity of language. The fact that humans can associate two concepts and describe them in an infinite number of ways, however, makes an enormous leap. Anyhow I'll stop blabbing, very interesting post.
Post a Comment