Is anticipation evidence of language?

[motorollin]

I have long believed that non-human animals are not capable of true language. They can communicate, of course, but I always think of those communications as concrete, non-symbolic patterns of behaviour. So a dog will respond to the sound of another dog's bark, and will even interpret it in different ways (threatening, warning, calling...) but I don't think of that as anything more than an instruction which is acted upon due to innate patterns of behaviour. In other words, if a wolf finds some prey and makes a sound to call the rest of the pack to its position, I don't believe that the wolf is conceptualising its current position in linguistic terms, communicating that intentionally to others, who then understand the symbols being communicated and decode them into a location. They just hear the sound and move towards it because that is how they have evolved to behave.

More recently, my observations of my own dog have caused me to question my opinion of non-human language. My dog will respond to a variety of commants (the usual - sit, lay down, stay, get in your bed, go inside...). Of course, these are conditioned responses. I do not believe he has any conscious, conceptual understanding of what those words actually mean. However, if I say the word "dentastick" to him, his behaviour totally changes. He immediately stops whatever he is doing and looks at me, then runs to the drawer where the dog treats are kept, and looks between the drawer and me with a look of such anticipation on his face that it's very difficult to believe that he doesn't know what it means.

There are a few explanations for this behaviour:

1. His behaviour has been gradually shaped over time through conditioning. The treat and/or my responses to him have reinforced behaviours which appear progressively more communicative (but are not).

2. I am interpreting his behaviour as demonstrating anticipation of the treat, when in fact it has some other (or no) meaning.

3. He understands the word "dentastick". When he hears it, conceptual understanding is triggered which leads to feelings (and behaviours) of anticipation.


Anticipation has been demonstrated in dogs previously of course. Pavlov conditioned dogs to salivate to various non-food stimuli by pairing them with the presentation of food. However, salivation is an autonomic response and does not necessarily coincide with a conscious awareness of what is happening. In other words, there is no evidence that the dogs hear the bell, then had some comprehenion that "bell means food".

In the video footage of Pavlov's original experiments, the dogs showed some behaviours which could be interpreted as non-autonomic anticipatory behaviours - panting, darting their heads, wagging their tails etc. These are similar to the behaviours I see in my dog - jumping, wagging, whining, running to the drawer, all elicited by the trigger word "dentastick". It is of course possible that these behaviours are also innate, maybe even autonomic (i.e. a state of arousal, triggered by the [imminent] presence of food, and manifest as physical movement).

So the question remains: do these behaviours indicate that the animal has conscious understanding of the semantics of the word it is hearing, or is it merely behaving in ways which we interpret as such? The latter indicates that the animal is simply behaving in automatic ways, whether they be innate, conditioned or a combination of the two. The former, however, indicates that the animal is able to understand langauge by pairing a stimulus with a cognitive concept which represents an object in the world which may not even be present at the time.

Discuss

 

[the_leander]

IIRC there are monkeys that produce sounds in response to warn others in their troupe of a predator and the warning calls are different for different types of predator. But this was from a program I saw years and years ago.

Likewise the other day there was another BBC program about dolphins and how leading research suggests that they have signature sounds that are somewhat analogous to names. They call them out to let others know that they are there and they are copied by others in response.

 

[motorollin]

True, but the question remains: what is the underlying meaning which is represented by those sounds? If they are just patterns of behaviour then there is not necessarily any language involvement. However, underlying semantics means that the animal is aware of what they are communicating.

I'm aware that cognitive processes like this are not measurable, we can only observe the behaviour and hypothesise about the underlying cognition.

 

[the_leander]

Thing is, in the case of the monkeys, the sounds are learned, and whilst they may not have the complexity of true language, they do invoke a response, one type of call for snakes or ground predators, another for skyborne ones. The behaviour is different in response to either type of warning.

In the case of the Dolphins, there is clear evidence for higher reasoning, they recognise themselves in a mirror for instance. They have their own signature calls that are unique to themselves. It is likely, given the complexity of their calls that there is language involved, however, it is unlikely that we will crack it any time soon given how long it's taken us to recognise that they have their own names. It seems that whatever language they do use, follows a very different ruleset to our own.

 

[motorollin]

Thing is, in the case of the monkeys, the sounds are learned, and whilst they may not have the complexity of true language, they do invoke a response, one type of call for snakes or ground predators, another for skyborne ones. The behaviour is different in response to either type of warning.

Indeed, but again, why is that? Is it because a gene mutated and caused some of them to make sound (a) for ground predators and sound (b) for airborne predators, and the ones without that mutation died? Or is it because they actually know that symbolic sounds can be used to represent things in the real world and that those sounds can be used to communicate their corresponding meaning to others?

Regarding the sounds being learned behaviours, there is some evidence that animal sounds are genetically programmed. In one experiment some chicks were hatched independently of any other bird life. The calls they made were different to the parents and other birds, but through successive generations of hatchlings they gradually drifted back to match the calls made by the parents of the original separated chicks. This suggests that the sounds being produced are not learned. I'm not sure this has any bearing on whether the sounds are linguistic in nature or not.

In the case of the Dolphins, there is clear evidence for higher reasoning, they recognise themselves in a mirror for instance. They have their own signature calls that are unique to themselves. It is likely, given the complexity of their calls that there is language involved, however, it is unlikely that we will crack it any time soon given how long it's taken us to recognise that they have their own names. It seems that whatever language they do use, follows a very different ruleset to our own.

I think it really depends what the sounds are being used for and how they are responded to by others. The use of syntax to produce novel meaning would be pretty conclusive evidence that language was being used.

 

[the_leander]

Indeed, but again, why is that? Is it because a gene mutated and caused some of them to make sound (a) for ground predators and sound (b) for airborne predators, and the ones without that mutation died? Or is it because they actually know that symbolic sounds can be used to represent things in the real world and that those sounds can be used to communicate their corresponding meaning to others?

Without being able to read their minds such questions are impossible to answer one way or the other with any sort of accuracy. All I can tell you is that one call has them running into the trees and looking up for a bird of prey, another has them running to the trees looking out for ground based attack.

Regarding the sounds being learned behaviours, there is some evidence that animal sounds are genetically programmed.

That may be the case in some species, but in the case of the monkeys in question, they do not produce these particular calls from birth and at first use them incorrectly.

I think it really depends what the sounds are being used for and how they are responded to by others. The use of syntax to produce novel meaning would be pretty conclusive evidence that language was being used.

Unfortunately, as with the Egyptian language, we need a Rosetta stone as what we have learned so far over how many decades of study is that they have their own signature calls. Beyond that, we know very little.

 

[Robert]

Interesting discussion gents. I'm afraid I have no insight here, however the cameraman from Ocean Giants (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b013wpxz) was just on the radio, claiming that basic, two way communication between dolphins and humans is expected within the next five years.
What he based this on I'm not sure but it implies (to me at least) an assertion that dolphins posess language.

 

[motorollin]

Without being able to read their minds such questions are impossible to answer one way or the other with any sort of accuracy. All I can tell you is that one call has them running into the trees and looking up for a bird of prey, another has them running to the trees looking out for ground based attack.

In your opinion (and, as you say, without the benefit of direct insight into their cognition), do the behaviours you have observed provide evidence that they understand the sounds being made on a semantic level, or do you think it's just as (or more) likely that they are simply "behaving" (in the psychological sense).

...in the case of the monkeys in question, they do not produce these particular calls from birth and at first use them incorrectly.

That's very interesting. It does sound like they may be learning a language. Though they could be making ever more accurate attempts to mimic the adult exemplar. When the infant's sound is accurate enough, it is reinforced by a response from the parent. Ergo, language-like behaviours are trained using basic learning theory. It's exactly the same as a human infant saying "mamamama" (not because it knows what this means, but because it is genetically programmed to do so) and the mother responding as though it had used a word. Semantics are therefore bound to the label by shared experience of the context. I'm just not sure whether non-humans are capable of this last step.

Unfortunately, as with the Egyptian language, we need a Rosetta stone as what we have learned so far over how many decades of study is that they have their own signature calls. Beyond that, we know very little.

I'm quite surprised TBH. Their communication must be much more complex than I imagine it would be if we have not yet been able to identify the pattern.

 

[motorollin]

Interesting discussion gents. I'm afraid I have no insight here, however the cameraman from Ocean Giants (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b013wpxz) was just on the radio, claiming that basic, two way communication between dolphins and humans is expected within the next five years.
What he based this on I'm not sure but it implies (to me at least) an assertion that dolphins posess language.

Interesting idea. Shared meaning between conscious entities == language, so this would prove it. And I'm not talking about getting the animal to point to which cup the food is hidden under, since this is very easy behaviour to train and the animal doesn't need to understand that it is communicating in order to be successful.

 

[Karlos]

Is it valid to anthropomorphise (sp?) language as a concept? Looking at it from a human perspective seems an unfair prejudice to me. After all, it's well-known that members of various species are able to disseminate information between themselves using various (non-audio) methods of communication. The honeybee is a prime example of the latter.

 

[the_leander]

In your opinion (and, as you say, without the benefit of direct insight into their cognition), do the behaviours you have observed provide evidence that they understand the sounds being made on a semantic level, or do you think it's just as (or more) likely that they are simply "behaving" (in the psychological sense).

I simply don't know. Given that the calls are learned, and that there are specific responses to specific calls I'd go with a provisional yes to it being a proto language.

I'm quite surprised TBH. Their communication must be much more complex than I imagine it would be if we have not yet been able to identify the pattern.

You have in the Dolphin an animal with a highly advanced brain coupled with high levels of sociability and a huge range of calls, squeaks and whistles. As well as one of the few other species that is willing to protect a species other than it's own. One of the things the program mentioned was that instead of an individual calling out names of others, it calls out it's own name first and this gets acknowledged by others by them repeating it. What you have to take into account is that their world is very much different than our own and so their language rules will be in a large way governed by the limits set by the environment. It's possible, maybe even probable that many of our language rules will simply not apply to them.

 

[motorollin]

Is it valid to anthropomorphise (sp?) language as a concept? Looking at it from a human perspective seems an unfair prejudice to me. After all, it's well-known that members of various species are able to disseminate information between themselves using various (non-audio) methods of communication. The honeybee is a prime example of the latter.

Note that I'm talking about *language*, not speech. The difference being that the former is a (any) means of transmitting a message from one partner to the other(s), and the latter is simply a method of achieving that (by making sounds). I am open to the possibility that animals are capable of non-vocal language (humans do it too), but I find it very difficult to believe that a bee would be able to do that. Its dance communicates a series of instructions to find a location; there are not necessarily any semantics attached to that. The only analogy I can think of is blindly following a sat nav because it says "turn left, then go straight on, then you will reach your destination", and following semantically-rich and meaningful instructions like "keep going until you see a tree that looks like an old man's face, then drive straight on and you'll get to the place where that car accident happened last week."

 

[Karlos]

I realise this, hence my suggestion to examine communication and cognition in bees. You'll be surprised...

 

[motorollin]

I simply don't know. Given that the calls are learned, and that there are specific responses to specific calls I'd go with a provisional yes to it being a proto language.

I'm inclined to agree. It is very unfortunate that we have so far been unable to either learn the language of another animal or teach it one of ours. A meaningful linguistic response which we are able to understand is essential in working out the depth of the other individual's understanding.

You have in the Dolphin an animal with a highly advanced brain coupled with high levels of sociability and a huge range of calls, squeaks and whistles. As well as one of the few other species that is willing to protect a species other than it's own. One of the things the program mentioned was that instead of an individual calling out names of others, it calls out it's own name first and this gets acknowledged by others by them repeating it. What you have to take into account is that their world is very much different than our own and so their language rules will be in a large way governed by the limits set by the environment. It's possible, maybe even probable that many of our language rules will simply not apply to them.

I don't know, I think from what you've said that they are already carrying out many behaviours in common with us: identifying, greeting, responding, confirming, turn-taking, reciprocating, requesting.....

 

[motorollin]

I realise this, hence my suggestion to examine communication and cognition in bees. You'll be surprised...

I'll do some reading, though my understanding of bee's learning is that it can largely be explained by classical conditioning with some extra colour matching ability (presumably evolved to enhance their ability to return to nectar-rich plant species).

 

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Hey Moto! Back from holidays? /completely off-topic

 

[motorollin]

Hi Speel! That was a few weeks ago. I've just been busy with work and not reading the forum much. I actually came to check with Karlos whether Ramadan finished today or tomorrow (didn't understand the Ramadan calendars) and I've ended up getting hooked again

 

[Speelgoedmannetje]

You'll never leave!

 

[motorollin]

I need to make a new Royston Vasey sign

 

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Good! Strangers are simply not welcome here! Godspeed! Before they come here with their colors, sounds and tastes!