IS LANGUAGE

RESTRICTED TO
HUMANS?
By
Nafiri Muhammadi

Introduction
Judging by newspapers and popular books, there appear to be a vast
number of animals which talk talking budgerigars, talking dolphins
even a talking sh.
Clearly, the word talk can be used in two totally different senses:
1) to utter words
2) to use language in a meaningful way.
Psycholinguists would like to investigate whether animals can talk in a
meaningful way. They are interested in this research because they want
to know the answer to the following question:
Are we the only species which possesses language?
2

If so, are we the only species capable of acquiring it?

Aitchison (2008)

Introduction
This current chapter examines these topics based
on Aitchisons views in his book, The articulate
mammal.
First, animal communication systems are compared
with human language to examine whether animals
can be considered to talk in any real sense.

Second, various attempts to teach languages to

animals are put into consideration.

Do Animals Talk Naturally?

To answer the question, the first task is to investigate whether
any animals naturally have a true language. Then, we have to
compare human language with animal communication.
Aitchison proposes two special problems to be discussed before
a coherent reply to the question, Do animals talk naturally can
be given.
1) The first problem is this: are we comparing systems which
differ quantitatively or qualitatively?
2) It is not always easy to decide what counts as communication
in animals.

Do Animals Talk Naturally?

There are two theories of communication, continuity and discontinuity
theory to answer the question: are we comparing systems which differ
quantitatively or qualitatively?

Continuity theory

is about means of communication

in a continuous line of growth.

Discontinuity theory

is about the differences the

basic of animal heritage and superimposed on it. Language
is a complex mosaic in which some features are continuous,
and some discontinuous with animal communication.
Actually, animal is intentionally trying to convey information
surrounding it.

Essential Nature of Human Language

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

The vocalauditory channel

Arbitrariness
Semanticity
Cultural transmission
Spontaneous usage
Turn-taking

7)
8)
9)
10)
11)

Duality
Displacement
Structure-dependence
Creativity
Ability to read intentions.
(Hockett and Altmann 1968)

Let us discuss each of these features in turn, and see whether it

is present in animal communication. If any animal naturally
possesses all the design features of human language, then
clearly that animal can talk.
6

Essential Nature of Human Language

1) The Use of the Vocal-Auditory Channel

Sounds are made with the vocal organs, and a hearing

mechanism receives them. The advantages of this
method of producing the sound are that it leaves the
body free to carry on other activities at the same time,
and also requires relatively little physical energy. This
characteristic is of little use in an attempt to distinguish
animal from human communication. (a) language can be
transferred without loss to visual symbols and (b)
patients who have had their vocal cords removed, and
communicate mainly by writing, have not lost their
language ability.

Essential Nature of Human Language

2) Arbitrariness

Arbitrariness means that human languages use neutral

symbols. There is no connection between the word DOG
and the four-legged animal it symbolizes. It can equally
be called UN CHIEN (French), EIN HUND (German), or
CANIS (Latin). GL (Turkish) and RHODON (Greek) are
equally satisfactory names for a rose.
So we conclude that arbitrariness cannot be regarded as
a critical distinction between human and animal
communication.

Essential Nature of Human Language

3) Semanticity
Semanticity, the third suggested test for language ability,
is the use of symbols to mean or refer to objects and
actions. To a human, a CHAIR means a four-legged
contraption you can sit on. Furthermore, semanticity
applies to actions as well as objects. For example, to
JUMP means the act of leaping in the air. Some writers
have claimed that semanticity is exclusively human.

Essential Nature of Human Language

4) Cultural Transmission or Tradition
Cultural transmission or tradition indicates that human
beings transfer their languages down from one
generation to another. The role played by teaching in
animal communication is unclear and varies from animal
to animal and even with species.
An evidence is that A child brought up in isolation away
from human beings, does not acquire language. In
contrast, birds reared in isolation sing songs that are
sometimes recognizable, though almost always
abnormal.

10

Essential Nature of Human Language

5) Spontaneous Usage & 8,3,6 Turn Taking
Spontaneous usage indicates that humans initiate
speech freely. Speaking is not something which they do
under forcible restriction, like a dog that will stand on its
hind legs only when a biscuit is held above its nose. This
feature is certainly not restricted to humans, and many
animals use their natural communication systems freely.

11

Essential Nature of Human Language

6) Duality or Double-Articulation
Duality or double-articulation means that language is
organized into two layers: the basic sound units of speech,
such as P, I, G, are normally meaningless by themselves. They
only become meaningful when combined into sequences
such as P-I-G PIG. This property is sometimes claimed to be
unique to humans. But this is not so. Duality is also present in
birdsong, where each individual note is itself meaningless it
is the combinations of notes which convey meaningful
messages. So once again we have not found a critical
difference between animals and humans in their use of this
feature.

12

Essential Nature of Human Language

7) Displacement
The ability to refer to things far removed in time and
place. Humans frequently say things such as My Aunt
Matilda, who lives in Australia, cracked her knee-cap last
week. It may be impossible for an animal to convey a
similar item of information. However, as in the case of
other design features, it is sometimes difcult to decide
whether displacement is present in an animals
communication system.
13

Essential Nature of Human Language

8) Structure Dependence
Humans do not just apply simple recognition or counting
techniques when they speak to one another. They automatically
recognize the patterned nature of language, and manipulate
structured chunks. For example, they understand that a group of
words can sometimes be the structural equivalent of one:

As far as we know, animals do not use structure-dependent

operations. We do not know enough about the communication of
all animals to be sure, but no denite example has yet been found.

14

Essential Nature of Human Language

9) Creativity
This feature refers to the ability to produce and
understand an indefinite number of novel utterances.
Humans can talk about anything they like without
causing any linguistic problems to themselves or the
hearers. They can say what they want when they want.
Most animals have a fixed number of signals which
convey a set number of messages, sent in clearly
definable circumstances. Some animals try to
communicate to courting a mate and the marking of
territory.

15

Essential Nature of Human Language

10) Intention Reading

Human beings are the worlds experts at mind

reading. As compared with other species, humans
are much more skillful at discerning what others are
perceiving, intending, desiring, knowing, and
believing. Although the pinnacle of mind-reading is
understanding beliefs as beliefs are indisputably
mental and normative the foundational skill is
understanding intentions.
16

Essential Nature of Human Language

In order to qualify as talkers they have to utilize all the design
characteristics of human language naturally, the answer is
clearly no.
a) no animal communication system has duality and
displacement,
b) no animal system can be proved to have semanticity or
c) to use structure dependent operations,
d) no animal can communicate creatively with another animal,
and
e) no animal can mind-read with ease and efficiency of humans.
Although animals do not naturally talk this does not mean that
they are incapable of talking.

17

Teaching Sign Language to Apes:

Washoe and Nim
Over the past 50 or so years, several attempts have been
made to teach human language to chimpanzees. The rst
experiment was a failure. An animal named Gua was
acquired by Luella and Winthrop Kellogg in 1931, when she
was 7 months old (Brown 1958; Kellogg and Kellogg 1933).
She was brought up as if she was a human baby, and was
fed with a spoon, bathed, pinned up in nappies, and
continuously exposed to speech. Although she eventually
managed to understand the meaning of over seventy single
words, she never spoke. Gua showed clearly that it was not
just lack of opportunity which prevents a chimp from
learning language. The Kelloggs son Donald, who was
brought up alongside Gua, and was approximately the
same age, grew up speaking normally.

18

Teaching Sign Language to Apes:

Washoe and Nim
Signer 1: Washoe
The chimp was kept continuously surrounded by humans
who communicated with her and each other by sign. The
chimp acquired a number of single words, her speech
clearly had semanticity, she could also generalize the
situation, displacement, and creativity. The fact that this
chimp spontaneously transmitted signs to another chimp is
interesting and important, but it does not change these
signs into language.
19

Teaching Sign Language to Apes:

Washoe and Nim
Signer 2: Nim
Repetitive, inconsistently structured strings are in fact
characteristic of ape signing. The experiment conclude that
(1) Nim did not use his signs in the structured, creative,
social way that is characteristic of human children, (2) it
would be premature to conclude that a chimpanzees
combination show the same structure evident in the
sentences of a child, (3) Nims signing with his teachers bore
only a superficial resemblance to a childs conversations
with his or her parents.

20

Conquerors of the Keyboard Pointers:

Lana & Kanzi
Pointers : Lana
Lana showed that her system had semanticity, she also
showed some evidence of creativity and displacement.
Lanas trainers, confidently claim that she had language, but
they define language in a much broader way than we have
done. That is, they define it as any communication system
which refers consistently to the outside world by means of a
set of arbitrary symbols which are combined together in
accordance with conventional rules.
21

Conquerors of the Keyboard Pointers:

Lana & Kanzi
Pointer 2: Kanzi
Kanzi is a highly intelligent, sociable creature. But his
language is not significantly more advanced than that of the
other primates. He used symbols primarily to obtain items
he wanted. The notion of talking for the sake of talking is
largely a human attribute.

22

Conclusion
Let us now summarize our conclusions on these primates. We need to
recognize, perhaps, that having language is not an all or nothing matter.
It is misleading to treat language like virginity you either have it or you
dont (Miles 1983: 44). All the apes we have discussed can cope with
arbitrary symbols and semanticity, and display some displacement and
creativity in their speech. They therefore have a grasp of some design
characteristics of language which hitherto had been regarded as
specically human. However, their ability does not extend much further.
The animals show little evidence of structure, they merely display a
preference for placing certain symbols rst or last in a sequence.

The final conclusion of this chapter is that the apparent ease with which
humans acquire language, compared with other apes, supports the
suggestion that they are innately programmed to do so.

23