Is anticipation evidence of language?

Well, dogs aren't that smart to begin with, so they probably don't have a clue. Apes however, are much smarter.

Language in Apes
Allen and Beatrice Gardner began teaching sign language to an infant chimpanzee named Washoe in 1966. The Gardners provided Washoe with a friendly environment that they thought would be more conducive to learning. The people who cared for and taught Washoe used sign language almost exclusively in her presence. Washoe learned signs by various methods, including imitation and instrumental conditioning. Washoe was able to transfer her signs spontaneously to a new member of a class of referents; for example, she used the word "more" in a wide variety of contexts (not just for more tickling, which was the first referent) (Gardner & Gardner 1979: 190). The Gardners noted that "Washoe has transferred the DOG sign to the sound of barking by an unseen dog" (191). They also reported that Washoe began to use combinations of signs spontaneously after learning only about eight or ten of them. The Gardners soon extended their experiments to several other chimpanzees: Moja, Pili, Tatu, and Dar. They needed to replicate their success with Washoe, and they did. All of these chimpanzees "signed to friends and to strangers. They signed to each other and to themselves, to dogs and to cats, toys, tools, even to trees" (Gardner & Gardner 1989: 24). Private signing by the chimpanzees has recently been studied systematically; the study confirmed that private signing is robust (Bodamer, Fouts, Fouts & Jensvold 1994). One of the most remarkable developments in this research occurred when Washoe adopted an infant named Loulis. For the next five years, no sign language was used by humans in Loulis' presence; however, Loulis still managed to learn over 50 signs from the other chimpanzees. Bob Ingersoll, who studied Washoe and Loulis during this time, believes that there wasn't much active teaching going on, but rather Loulis picked up the signs from the other apes' use of them. The learning of signs from other chimpanzees meets Hockett's criterium of cultural transmission. Because the chimpanzees continued to use sign language without any input from humans, the Gardners concluded that "once introduced, sign language is robust and self-supporting, unlike the systems that depend on special apparatuses such as the Rumbaugh keyboards or the Premack plastic tokens" (Gardner & Gardner 1989: 25).
Click to expand...
 
Glaucus said:
Well, dogs aren't that smart to begin with, so they probably don't have a clue. Apes however, are much smarter.

Language in Apes
Click to expand...
The main problem I have with the Gardeners' experiments is this part: "They signed to each other and to themselves, to dogs and to cats, toys, tools, even to trees". It just makes me wonder to what extent the apes knew the communicative value of what they were doing. And when you remove the communicative intent from language, I think it's questionable whether it's really still language.

Having said that, this is the strongest evidence I have ever seen for semiotic abilities in non-human species.
 
motorollin said:
It was fine thank you. I don't really know what to do on holiday, so I usually get back and feel quite glad to be back in my routine ;)
Click to expand...
Normally, I go to an island near here, in a bungalow of a relative, and read books (I still have soooo many I want to read), cycle around the island, or go for a swim. Or I go sailing.
So much to enjoy!
 
Though I'd note 'language' is not indicative of reasoning. Small children before they can talk have various concepts about the world around them. For example they know a ball doesn't go through a wall. They know about permanance. Kids then get confused if you 'trick' the frame into being the ball does go through a wall. They display confusion and increased interest. So there is reasoning going on there. Even though at the time they can't verbally communicate what the problem is that they are preceiving.
 
motorollin said:
"They signed to each other and to themselves, to dogs and to cats, toys, tools, even to trees". It just makes me wonder to what extent the apes knew the communicative value of what they were doing.
Click to expand...
People do that too. They talk to their plants, they talk to their cars (especially when they aren't working) and they talk to their computers when they do something unexpected. They talk to themselves and they talk to imaginary beings. Perhaps that is more an indication that you have integrated symbols into your thought processes.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
People do that too. They talk to their plants, they talk to their cars (especially when they aren't working) and they talk to their computers when they do something unexpected. They talk to themselves and they talk to imaginary beings. Perhaps that is more an indication that you have integrated symbols into your thought processes.
Click to expand...
That's very true. What we do know, however, is that humans are aware that plants, cars, computers and imaginary beings are not conscious, and are therefore not really being spoken to. I think that kind of language is really a form of self-talk.

Also, the language used when talking to inanimate objects tends to be very different to that used when talking to other humans. Machines and equipment tend to be subject to expletive or aggressive language (probably because they cause frustration); plants tend to be spoken to with affection (maybe because they are living organisms from which we derive pleasure [though weeds and thorns are likely to be spoken to differently]); pets are spoken to in a similar way to plants, though perhaps with more expectation on their comprehension/reciprocation.

Even human infants know that trees can neither hear nor understand human language. They might self-talk and say something like "you're a pretty flower" or "you naughty weeds have grown everywhere!". But if I saw a human sign or speak the word "dog" to a plant, then I would think that they had an unusual understanding either of the nature of communication or of the ability of the plant to function as a communication partner.
 
Even human infants know that trees can neither hear nor understand human language.
Click to expand...
Not sure I'd agree with that.

But regardless, even if an ape decided to sign to a tree, it MAY only mean it isn't aware that trees are incapable of understanding communication. The fact is, some people think talking to plants helps them grow. My girlfriend is convinced our cat understands english and will explain complex things to her (whereas I'm convinced she only knows where we keep her food and reacts positively whenever she thinks she might get some). Some people talk to patients in a comma or to an invisible man in the sky without ever getting or expecting a response. In otherwords, humans personify things around them, it shouldn't be a surprise if apes do the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top