ANIMAL AND LANGUAGE

Animal and language is one of study which is found in Psycholinguistics. It reveal how the scientists did experiment to some animals based on intelegency (dolphin), vocal cord (bird) and behavior (primates).

1. 1

INTRODUCTION
There are definitions about language: Pei (1996) had an opinion about language, where
he said that language is a system of communication by sound, operating through organs of
speech and hearing, among members of a given community, and using vocal symbols possessing
arbitrary conventional meanings.
1
Besides, Gove (1961) said earlier that language is a systematic
means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures,
or marks having understood meanings. Looking for these statements, our mind will adjust that
animals do not have language like human. Although, it is not fully wrong because animals still
have a communication system which is appropriate to language context because language is a
form of communication, and it is probable that it evolved for the purpose of communication
(Pinker, 1998).
2

Besides, communication is the process of sharing information between two or more
persons. This can be verbally, through gestures or even body language. According to Borden,
Harris, & Raphael, (1994) communication is the transmission of thoughts or feelings from the
mind of a speaker to the mind of the listener. Communication has three purposes: request, reject,
or comment and is used to gather thoughts, express thoughts, receive and understand
information.
In brief, animals cannot talk but this doesn't mean that we can't understand some of what
they try to communicate. Even though they can't speak or use language to express what they are
meaning, we can still understand them through their actions and movements - they can
communicate. A dog may whimper if it wants to go outside. The difference between language
and communication is that language is not essential to get across information or expression.
Learning about language will bring us to come in Psycholinguistics area because
psycholinguistics is one of linguistics branches which learn about language process acquirement
through considering aspects like phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics by
psychologically to make sentences and understand it when we are communicating (John Field,
Psycholinguistics: A Resource Book for Students. Routledge, 2003). So, the writer will discuss
about how people taught some animals to acquire and develop its language.




1
http://www.blurtit.com/607292/what-is-the-difference-between-language-and-communication

2
Animal communication, animal minds, and animal language, by Johansson, Sverker. November 2001.
Bachelor’s Thesis. University of Lund.

2. 2
CONTENT
A. Teaching language to the chimpanzee, gorilla, and dolphin
1. Vicki: the speaking chimp
In 1940s, Cathy and Keith Hayes had an interest to teach language to animals where they
chosen to raise a female baby of chimp; they named “Vicki”. Vicki became a full member in this
family. After three years, Vicky only learnt to utter four words; “mama”, “papa”, “up”, “cup”
where the pronunciation was still difficult to understand. While Donald, Cathy and Keith’s son,
has been fluent in language.
2. Washoe: the signing chimp
In 1996, after Vicki’s failure, another couple team of psycholinguists, Allen and Beatrice
Gardener (1969, 1975), began to Teach sign language to a baby chimp, a female they called
Washoe (rhymes with ‘show’).
One of Washoe’s early signs was ‘open’, which expressed by a throwing out of the arms.
After about for years with the Gardners, Washoe learned a vocabulary of about 130 signs and
according to the Gardners, displayed two and three word utterances, such as, ‘go sweet’, when
she wanted to be taken to the raspberry bushes, and ‘open food drink’, when she wanted
something out of refrigerator. If such were the case, the two or three word length of utterance
would be similar to that produced by human children around the age of 1 to 2 years.
Comprehension, unfortunately, was not focused on by the Gardners.
3. Son of Washoe and a chimp signing community
One particular interest of theirs was Washoe ‘s ‘adopted’ son, Loulis, who they say,
learned signs from Washoe that was demonstrating signs for Loulis and even helping to mould
Loulis’s hands into the proper configurations.
Loulis used other signs, such as those for ‘hurry’ and ‘gimme’ (give me), which not
directly taught to him by Washoe. However, these are gestures which are used naturally by
chimpanzees.
4. Lana: the computer chimp
The Rumbaughs (Rumbaugh, 1977; Savage-Rumbaugh & Rumbaugh, 1978) taught the
chimp Lana a simple artificial language called Yerkish. Lana was named after the research
programed which was called the Language Analogue project. Lana was just over 2 years old
when the project began. Lana had to press certain keys in the right sequence to make request and
consequently receive desired items, e.g. ‘please machine give milk’ or ‘please Tim give ball’.
Lana learned hundreds of sentences in this fashion. She had names for people, food, objects, and
even special phrase ‘that-which-is’ to name things she did not know the name of .
Unfortunately, Lana’s sentences were not created according to rule but were learned by
rote, in a way similar to memorizing important whole sentences in a foreign language such as
‘where is the toilet?’This learning does not provide one with the ability to create novel sentences

3. 3
Lana produced had to be learned over many trials. Additionally, as Wallman (1992) notes, there
is a problem with this and many of the ape-language studies because ‘there is no evidence to
suggest that Lana had any notion of the meaning of “please” or even a child’s rudimentary
understanding of the sociolinguistic rules governing its usage’.
5. Nim Chimpsky and Chimpskyan revolution
Still other experiments in teaching chimpanzees sign language have produced
contradictory results. The achievements of a chimpanzee named Nim have been interpreted by
his teachers as consisting of frequent repetitions of a small number of all-purpose signs (NIM,
ME, YOU, EAT, DRINK, MORE, and GIVE) that were largely appropriate to any context.
These signs are said to have made up almost 50 percent of Nim’s production. Furthermore, there
are no reports of his engaging in creative combining of signs.

6. Sarah: the magnetic token chimp
David Premack of the University of Pennsylvania involved a chimp by the name of
Sarah. Premack gave Sarah 130 plastic tokens with magnets so that they could be manipulated
easily by her and others. These included tokens for the names of colours such as ‘red’ and ‘blue’
for different fruits such as ‘banana’ and ‘peach’, and for actions such as ‘wash’, ‘cut’, and ‘take’.
7. Koko: the signing gorilla
Francine Patterson (1978a, 1978b, 1980) repots remarkable results with the gorilla Koko,
born in 1971, which she has trained in American Sign Language and speech since 1972. Unlike
Washoe, Koko received speech input from her trainers as well as sign and speech exposure, with
help in molding the hands for sign making.
One interesting fact Patterson discovered was that Koko was productive in her sign
language. Koko could make new word to describe new objects by combining previously known
ones. Koko, for example, created ’eye-hat’ for mask, ‘white-tiger’ for a toy zebra, ‘finger-
bracelet’ for ring, and ‘bottle-match’ for a lighter. Human languages, of course, include similar
devices for word-making, e.g. ‘blackbird’ in English and ‘white bird’ for swan in Japanese.
After four-and-a half years of instruction Koko had learned 132 sign words. After 10
more years that total came to 500 or more. This is impressive compared to the achievements of
the chimpanzees; it is below the level, though, of that of 3 –year-old human child, whose
vocabulary, Koko’s syntax has not progressed beyond the same elemental level as that of the
chimpanzees who were taught language, i.e. two or three words utterances.
As far as speech is concerned, it is claimed that Koko is able to comprehend in speech
whatever she can understand in sign (Patterson & Lindeln, 1981). Patterson also reports that
Koko uses her signs for such purposes as to swear, rhyme, joke, and lie. She further states that
Koko can refer to past incidents, thus showing one of the cardinal characteristics of human
language, displacement, i.e, the ability to refer to events removed in time and place from the act
of communication. For example, when asked in sign, ‘you remember what you had for
breakfast?’ she replied with the sign, ‘yes, cake’ (Patterson, 1980, p.540). the fact, that Koko said
‘cake’ as a response indicates that she at least knew the word ‘breakfast’ and associated cake
with breakfast.

4. 4
8. Dolphin: teaching trough sight and sound
Scientists such as John C. Lilly, working with captive bottlenose dolphins in the early
1960s, thought it would be only a few years before there was a communication breakthrough.
Lilly performed many audio experiments attempting to show that dolphins were communicating
with each other. In an effort to facilitate communication, he began to use computers to translate
human words into dolphin whistles and to send messages. Much of his experimental work has
never been published.
Lilly's work ended in the 1980s. Since then, researchers led by Louis M. Herman have
developed a new approach to communication studies with captive bottlenose dolphins at the
University of Hawaii. Their goals have been to discover how dolphins process information, both
through sight and sound, how they learn and how they communicate. Herman's research has
verified earlier findings that dolphins have good memories and can mimic a wide variety of
sounds. Able to store new information, they can also update old information rapidly.
The dolphin's most impressive accomplishment is its ability to understand sentences
expressed in either an artificial acoustic or a visual language. In the sounds are generated by a
computer and broadcast experiments, the "words" of the language via an underwater speaker.
First the dolphin learns words such as fetch, ball and hoop. The words refer to (1) objects in the
tank; (2) actions that might be taken in connection with the objects; and (3) modifiers of place or
location. In "sentences" of two or more words, the dolphin is then told to do something. The
level of understanding is measured by the accuracy and reliability with which the dolphin carries
out the instruction.
Dolphins perform very well on such tests. To more than 600 two-word sentence
instructions, the dolphins gave correct responses about 80 percent of the time. They also
understood "new" instructions almost as well as familiar ones, with only a slight advantage to the
familiar. New instructions consisted of fresh combinations of words that either obeyed the
language rules or, in a few cases, were logical extensions of existing rules.
Gradually, the dolphins seemed to master sentence form and use. They were taught to
respond to sentences up to five words long. Then visual symbols or gestures, as well as auditory
signals, were tried. Comprehension for a dolphin trained with visuals was the same as that for a
dolphin trained with sound.
These and other experiments show that dolphins can learn rules and understand certain
abstract concepts. And they can work with both auditory and visual symbols. Compared with
apes taught to use America sign language - an exclusively visual medium for communication -
the dolphins have more range. The apes, on the other hand, learn more quickly in tests involving
symbols. Of course, all of these are laboratory feats and prove nothing about life in the wild - for
dolphins or apes. In the future, trained dolphins may be able to grasp more complex human-
taught vocabularies. But this does not necessarily mean that dolphins have their own language.
We cannot know where research will lead. Many scientists feel that we can only glimpse what
really goes on inside the mind of a wild dolphin.

5. 5
B. Animal communication in the wild
While language in the strict sense may be uniquely human, the other species have their
own means of communication, many of which appear to share at least some, if not all, of the
properties of language.

“The infinite use of finite media” is a crucial property of human language (Pinker,
1998a), but it is also a property of the songs of certain birds and whales, at least in the limited
sense of their combining a set of elements in an infinite variety of permutations. The majority of
animal communicative acts may be non-symbolic signals, but there are examples of
vocalizations where this is not self evident (Marler, 1998, further discussed below). Hauser
(1997) gives a thorough review of animal communication, in an evolutionary perspective, and
Hakansson (1995) provides a popular overview.
3


Some birds appear to have an innate “song acquisition device” (Whaling et al, 1997), in
analogy with the proposed language acquisition device of humans. Many species of bird need to
hear the songs of other birds during a sensitive period while they grow up, or they will not
develop normal singing abilities (Wiener, 1986). The interest of the birds can imitate human
speech (and other sounds) with amazing clarity. One bird can have a repertoire of a number of
phrases and sentences, such as “Hello, how are you?” and “get away from there!” Rarely,
though, does the bird produce an utterance in a relevant context.

Of great interest, is the way honey bees inform other bees of the presence of food in the
vicinity. They use both vision and touch. A bee reporting back to the hive will go through a
series of movements, a kind of dance, to tell other bees if a nectar source is near or distant and
moreover, if it is distant, just how far away and in what direction. Other bees can get the message
not only by seeing these movements but by touching that is by approaching the scout bee and
feeling its movement by their antennae.

“What do animal sounds mean” asks Marler (1998). The traditional view, among
biologists as well as linguists, has been that they have only affective meaning, expressing only
the emotions of the “speaker”, without symbolic referents. But numerous studies in recent
decades, starting with Seyfarth et al (1980), have demonstrated that many animals use alarm calls
and/or food calls, that for all practical purposes function as if they carried symbolic referential
meaning.

The original study of Seyfarth (1980) concerned the alarm calls of vervet monkeys. These
monkeys have a set of three distinct alarm calls, used for three different predators (snakes,
leopards, and eagles). When a vervet monkey hears one of these calls, he or she takes appropriate
action, different for each alarm call. They run for cover in bushes when hearing the eagle call,
and climb up into the treetops when hearing the leopard call, and stand up to scan the grass when
hearing the snake call. A purely affective call, basically conveying only that the caller was scared
by a predator, could not reasonably have led to such appropriate actions. Marler (1998) also

3
The Study of Language Fourth Edition, by Yule, George. 2010. New York: Cambridge University Press.

6. 6
reviews some interesting data on the call acquisition of young monkeys — the calls as such
appear to be innate, but the association of a particular call with a particular predator is learned,
and the young monkeys start out by over-generalizing, using the eagle call for anything from
falling leaves to actual eagles, and then gradually learns when it is appropriate to use the call.
Adults use the call almost exclusively when a monkey-eating bird is around. It should also be
emphasized that these monkey calls are not, as far as we can tell, iconic.
4


They do not resemble any sounds of the predator they’re referring to (Carstairs-
McCarthy, 1996). This non-iconicity is a central property of human languages as well, and has
been invoked as a defining and uniquely distinguishing property of human languages. Finding
similar non-iconicity in animal communication further undercuts the human claim to uniqueness.
But in order to regard calls as truly symbolic, referentiality and intentionality are crucial
diagnostic features, that are difficult to operationalize in wild animals. The phrase “functionally
referential” is often used in animal communication contexts, basically in order to sidestep the
contentious issue of whether animals intend to refer to an eagle or whatever, but retaining the
implication that these calls for all practical purposes function as if the caller intended to warn his
fellows. We shall return to the issue of communicative intent below.

Since the original work by Seyfarth et al (1980), similarly “functionally referential” calls
have been observed in numerous species.

3. Animal communication and human language
Like human beings animals also communicate with one another through their
communication systems which are called animal languages such as language of dolphins,
language of bees. Animals have both discrete and non-discrete systems of communication but
their messages as well as symbols are limited in quantity and dimension. On the other hand,
human languages are much more surprisingly unlimited. Now we will discuss differences
between human language and animal communication
The communication systems of most animals are instinctive. They inherit them
genetically. None can separate animals from their inbuilt qualities. On the contrary, human
language is non-instinctive. Humans can acquire and learn anything and any language as a result
of social interaction. For example, a baby and a puppy are growing up in the same environment
hearing mostly the same thing. But about two years later the baby will make human noises while
the puppy will not. In addition, Mowgli in the Jungle Book grew up in the animal environment
and his communication systems became like animals.
Because of its having arbitrariness, human language is conditioned by geography- its
culture, social and natural environment. The linguistic sign of the same object may differ from
one geographical region to another. For example, what is called by the English to be ‘dog’ is
called ‘perro’ by the Spanish, ‘sobaka’ by the Russian and ‘inee’ by the Japanese. On the other

4
“Animal Communication”. Contemporary linguistics: An Introduction, by Dobrovolsky, Michael. 1997.
625-663, London: Longman, pages 635.

7. 7
hand animal communication is not conditioned by geography. For instance, the dogs of all
countries have the same system of message and symbols.
Animal communication is devoid of ‘novelty’, ‘creativity’ and ‘multiplicity’ to produce
apt utterances according to different situations. Most animals have limited number of messages
or symbols they can send or receive. While human language possesses the qualities. A human
being can even in a most unlikely situation utter a sentence which has never been said before and
if can still be understood.
Human language is extendable and modifiable. The symbol or linguistic sign used in a
language a hundred years ago may be extended, changed and even may not be used any more.
But animal communication is opposite to this. For example, the bees and the monkeys use even
now-a-days the same communication system which they used, say, five thousand years ago.
‘‘Duality and displacement-the organization of language into two layers, and the ability
to talk about objects and events- are extremely rare in the animal world. No animal
communication system has both these features.
Humans produce sounds by the organs of speech, a rare gift of nature. No other species
except apes and monkeys have been endowed with this gift.

8. 8
CONCLUSION

According to experiments, we obtain that animals do not have language but animals still
have a communication system. Animal communication systems share many of their core features
with language, but the overlap is highly selective. All animals can communicate with each other,
although the messages that they convey are generally speaking very limited in terms of their content,
compared to the messages that we can convey using human language. Our language is richer and
more complex than animal systems of communication. The best way to find out is to compare human
natural language to animal “languages” put in systems of communication used by animals.
There are other species that have communication systems characterized by a certain degree
of complexity, for instance, some songbirds, dolphins, monkeys and apes, and even some insects:
honey bees can convey information to each other about the location of a source of nectar by moving
their body in a certain pattern. Furthermore, we know that certain animals, although they do not use a
language with human characteristics under natural conditions, are capable of learning certain parts, or
aspects, of human language, up to a certain level. For instance, some parrots can learn to imitate the
sounds of human language with a very high degree of accuracy. And chimpanzees can learn to
communicate with humans using what is basically human language. Since, due to physical
limitations they cannot learn speech, what they learn is usually some form of sign language, but
arguably they learn to use signs basically in the way that we humans do.
Other distinctions which can also be explained are given in the following manner:
Human Language Animal Communication System
Has grammaticality Has no grammaticality
Recurrent Repetitive
Cognitive as well as behavioral Only behavioral
Open system Close system
Structure dependent Non structure dependent

9. 9
REFERENCES

Dobrovolsky, Michael. 1997. “Animal Communication”. Contemporary linguistics: An Introduction.
625-663, London: Longman. 625-663.
Steinberg, Danny D. 1993. An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. New York: Addison Wesley
Longman, Inc.
Yule, George. 2010. The Study of Language Fourth Edition. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Johansson, Sverker. November 2001. Animal Communication, Animal Minds, And Animal
Language. Bachelor’s Thesis. University of Lund.
Internet:
http://clas.mq.edu.au/speech/animal_communication/
http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/hurley/Ling102web/mod1_popideas/mod1.4_animals.htm
http://www.blurtit.com/607292/what-is-the-difference-between-language-and-communication