Savage-Rumbaugh


 * Language and Animal Competencies**

Animals do not speak, but that does not mean that their communication systems are completely incomparable to human language. Speech is not a prerequisite for language. If humans did not have the kind of vocal and hearing abilities required for complex speech, language would have developed using another kind of communication. Pinker asserts that the question "do animals have language?" is impossible to answer properly because the term "language" does not have one agreed-upon definition.

This article assumes a definition for language that is somewhat different from that of other readings so far. The definition is less strict and consequently includes ACSs. - because of this definition finally arising in a much more concise manner than I have been able to arrive at myself, I have more confidence in the world of linguistics. Finally, someone is talking sense.

Symbols or words are distinguished from other behaviors by their meaning. Comprehension is the first step in learning language. Research has shown that language exists as a continuum in different species, rather than the existence or nonexistence of language. Many animals show comprehension of language and the ability to use symbols. Language should be considered a result of early experience or learning rather than an instinct.

Chimpanzees, though their physiology prevents them from using speech, are capable of comprehending and using language. Lana the chimpanzee learned to use a computer to make specific requests for food and attention from humans. She was also able to learn the names of six colors and six objects. Sherman and Austin, two chimpanzees, learned how to request specific items. Research done with bonobos showed that while an adult bonobo could not be taught language usage, a baby bonobo could learn everything the trainers were doing even without being the recipient of the training. Kanzi, a young bonobo, learned how to request items, tell researchers what he was about to do, invent new games, and later he learned to understand over 150 spoken words. He learned entirely by observation for the first 2 1/2 years of his life. Kanzi later showed language competency similar to that of a human toddler.

The article also mentions Alex the parrot, see Pepperberg page. - also youtube talking grey parrots, it's interesting. I'm wondering if Alex can be found on youtube, but I know that after reading Pepperberg's article, I was slightly shocked for all the talking parrots I could find online didn't seem up to par, especially not matching the type of bird you'd expect from the description that Savage-Rumbaugh gave Alex.

Kanzi also learned to make tools by trial and error and observation. He and the chimpanzees Sherman and Austin all learned to use a joystick and could play PacMan. Sherman and Austin also demonstrated the ability to cooperate using symbolic communication when they had to work together in order to use tools to obtain food.

"The language system is open" (p. 8281). Bodies and emotions are fluid, why would anyone ever expect language in all its media outlets to be any different?

---I find it so great to read that Kanzi was able to understand at least 150 spoken English words. For me personally, my receptive competency with language is most definitely a lot higher than my practiced productive language, and so it was very cool to see a correlation there. Maybe this is how it works for most species that process language?

"For both Kanzi and Alex, the language acquisition contexts were designed to encourage spontaneous responding and designed such that uses of words were efficacious" (p. 8283) - This is exactly how we learn words! We first observe and then we practice and practice. Kanzi, Alex, Sherman and Austin, found reasons to understand and produce language (possibly by promise of reward) and in many ways this is what I think we could call close to 'total immersion' especially in Kanzi's case. This is the same recommendation I make to anyone attempting to learn a language foreign to them. Fantastic!

definition of language according to this article: "language is a biobehavioral system that provides for the learning of meanings of symbols and for their use to exchange information within a social context. Symbols may be based in any modality- sound, vision, touch, etc."

The article explores the cognitive capabilities of apes and parrots (and briefly acknowledging pinnipeds), arguing that they are capable of learning basic forms of language ranging from object identification to semantics to social problem-solving. Through repeated stimulus-response-reinforcement training, specific chimps, bonobos, and parrots were able to reach remarkable levels of linguistic comprehension.

language acquisition in animals: Rumbaugh's group used computer-monitored word-lexicon keyboard system to produce symbols to label objects, request food, solve problems, and announce intended actions. Working with bonobos, the sue savage-Rumbaugh groups learned that, like humans, bonobos have a "critical period" of specific skill acquisition. While unsuccessfully attempting to train an adult female bonobo basic language skills, her baby, through observation alone, was able to identify over 150 words, could play PacMan with a joystick, and make stone tools. The researchers found that parenting was important for a young chimp or bonobo to harbor a flexible ability to learn new tricks from their attempt to train a young chimp to do the same tasks and attributed the lower language and skill acquisition to rearing.

__summary of article:__ language is a continuum root of our language planted in apes apes, pinnipeds, and parrots carry potential for language skills that would be most expansive through early conditioning and regular social exchanges.

Certain biological adaptations have allowed certain species a means to interact on a scale greater than their immediate surrounding. Those creatures who allow themselves to (humans), or are in a situation to learn (test species), have the means to do so. These learned interactions if used will spread from parent to child creating a social structure that is limited by the range of communicating tools allowed by the biological make-up. Certains species of Apes have shown an ability to learn rudimentary language skills from a young age. Through a series of devised tests using lexigrams, researchers are begining to paint a picture of the evolution of language as affected by phyisical abilities of species. ie. use of tools, symbols, and their brain's capacity for emotional attachment. Because the creatures have these social interactions with humans as well as their biological adaptations, they have been allowed a chance to overcome the limitations of a wild environment to specialize their language skills. See related Video [] Another interesting point is the opposition to the paradigm shift that human language evolved from ACS style communication lies mainly within dogmatic philosophies that do not embrace physical observances as necessary truths. As savage-Rumbaugh stated in conclusion, "time will surely vindicate those who argue, from scientific data, that the evidence of animal species' potential for language is of inestimable significance from the perspectives of science philosophy, language and public policy".
 * What I got from the article.**

Lexigram: a figure or symbol that represents a word Bonobo: known as a pygmy chimpanzee; a small chimpanzee, //Pan paniscus//, primarily of swamp forests in the Democratic Republic of Cong; a threatened species.

“pygmy is a misnomer because the body weight of the bonobo is, on average, the same or slightly less than that of the eastern common chimpanzee (//Pan troglodytes schweinfurthi// […] it has been established through molecular genetic analyses that the chimpanzee genus, //Pan//, is most closely related to humans and shares approximately 98% genetic identity. It follows that bonobos and chimpanzees share many human-like morphological, physiological and behavioral traits” www.zoosociety.org

Speech is not the only aspect that should be considered when thinking about language (what are all the different components that make up language/what do you need to have to language?). Speech is thought to be unique to humans, and therefore language, but that is not true. “The primary foundation of language is in the comprehension of speech or of the units of any other language system, and not in the production of speech” (1). In the article, it states that research shows that many animals species have the potential to gain processes and skills that are essential parts of language. It cannot be said that animals do not have language, because language is complex and difficult to define. An important first step in language is understanding it when used by others. “The acquisition of language, whether child or ape, is highly contingent on specific aspects of early rearing; and apes, if reared from birth in a language-structured environment, can understand hundreds of novel sentences of request that they hear even for the first occasion in tightly controlled research procedures” (1). Formal training based on stimulus–response–reinforcement is stated to be less effective than social/language rearing in the cultivation of language and in comprehension of speech. Through the use of lexigrams, chimpanzees learn to make requests for specific items and can attain a large number of interactions, including problem solving. Research stated in the article shows that a bonobo chimp (Kanzi) spontaneously learned from watching the training of his mother. Kanzi’s remarkable achievements, traceable to his early rearing, are in sharp contrast to the devastating eﬀect that impoverished rearing during early infancy has upon the cognitive and social competence of common chimpanzees” (2).

[] []

According to this article, language "should not be viewed as or called an instinct." While the evidence is clear that various words and phrases can be learned by nonhuman animals, I don't think this means language can be learned in its entirety. Sherman and Austin learned to make requests (like Alex the parrot), but their language skills were no where near what a human is capable of--and humans are not taught language as vigorously as these chimpanzees (and parrots in the case of Alex) were taught. Not to mention that these cases are individuals among an entire species being taught language, not an entire species creating language (as humans did). Kanzi was exceptionally apt at picking up language; he learned much from just observing his adoptive mother, Matata, despite her not learning much at all. The difference in individuals was great in this case.

This does not mean that what Kanzi, Sherman and Austin, Alex, etc. accomplished was not impressive. I believe Bickerton to be right when he asserts (see page 107 of Adam's Tongue) that nonhuman animals and humans should not be compared when it comes to language--we musn't attempt to make nonhumans into humans because we're not the same and we have different niches! It is fascinating to see what nonhuman animals can accomplish given the difference of niches, but it does not prove anything about where language (as we humans know it) came from.


 * Throughout reading this article, I also found myself agreeing with Bickerton's statements that nonhuman animals and humans should not be compared in terms of their communication systems. I also found myself running small experiments with my cats. They are both 13 and well above the age any of the birds or chimps were when they were tested, but I did find something interesting. When I stopped speaking to the cat in English and instead attempted to communicate with him via head movements we seemed to have some sort of deeper understanding than when I was speaking to him. I am not describing this well, but the article made me curious about whether or not we ought to be trying to learn animal communication systems rather than forcing our own on them.

--- I think animals (including humans) find the most efficient form of communication their body allows. In the first paragraph the authors suggest that if speech and hearing were not so well developed we would have found an alternative medium for our language. I agree with this, but it seems to me that vocalizations make for a versatile and expansive language system that would be hard to parallel by other means. If we made language with body movements or non verbal noises, I think it would severely limit the range of phonemes we could use to express ourselves. This does not mean it is impossible that other animals using different organs could develop language, but it puts it in perspective for me why they do not as of yet (as far as our current understanding of language and animal communication goes)

If language is not an instinct how is Universal Grammer possible? We have a hardwired capability to comprehend and create language, but it is not instinctual? Would a child raised in peaceful silence-not the tortuous existence Genie lived-not put sounds together to express itself?

I am impressed with how quickly Kanzi and other apes were able to use a joystick to play a video game and that language was the deciding factor in this. It seems like such an abstract idea even to me, a human. The authors say “they seemingly saw/understood 'how it worked' very readily and what was to be gained by using it with precision.” I am confused as to what these apes believe they could gain by playing a video game. Did they understand what was happening when they beat a level or were eaten by ghosts in PacMan? Living without concern for food or shelter, is the visual stimulus of a video game really so attractive to other animals? Feel like this is a big question that psychologists should be aware of, and as the authors conclude in their discussion “human quality of life, thought, and culture need to be understood from a comparative perspective.” ---