Introduction to Language

1.   Stages of Language Acquisition

A.      Piaget and Cognitive Development

Jean Piaget was a Swiss psychologist that was famous for his four stages of cognitive development for children. He was a huge supporter of education for children. In fact, he believed it was the only way to save the world, in the future.

-        Sensorimotor Stage

This stage covers the first two years of life. Motor and reflex actions are how the child learns about the world and himself or herself. The child begins to separate himself or herself from the rest of the world.

The child begins to recognize different objects and people. It is best to teach children at this age with sensory expressions. A frown or a smile can be a good teaching aid. The child will also learn to tell the difference between a soft and stern voice and what they mean.

In this stage the child will learn that once you leave the room, you will return again. This means that he is aware that people and objects exist that are not in his immediate circle of vision or hearing.

-        Pre-operational Stage

This stage is from two to seven years. The child begins to learn the difference between the written and spoken word. He still sees things in specific groups like colors, as opposed to what they may be. He knows they are different, but prefers to place blue things with other blue objects for example. His thinking is related to himself and he will be difficult to convince of things that are not his opinion.

-        Concrete and Formal Operational

After seven years, the child begins to learn more complex terms and begins to understand rational thought. He understands that written language is just as important as spoken language. His language learning is becoming complete. This is especially true as he enters adolescence.

-        Criticism

These developmental stages are basic when it comes to language. They are not as separated or complex as other theories.

B.       Chomsky

Noam Chomsky [2] gives more credit to genetics than the learning process. According to Chomsky the child has a natural ability to understand and eventually learn language. This is also known as universal grammar.

There is also a critical period in Chomsky's theory. This is a time of life that starts at birth and extends into puberty. It is easier for them to pick up and comprehend language at this time. This means that a second or third language will be easier to learn at these ages.

Chomsky's theory teaches that children possess language acquisition skills. This is where the Chomsky LAD or "language acquisition device" comes into existence. This may be compared to a built in computer program that gives children skills to process and learn language. This may happen even if they have limited exposure to it.

There is also a feature of creativity in language. Language is designed for an infinite amount of different uses and messages. It is always changing and evolving to meet our needs. This is why children may invent words or phrases. They are unfamiliar with a certain aspect and so they "fill in the blanks" with their imagination.

-        Criticism

Chomsky's method often comes under criticism. It is a very vague and general overview of language. And many feel that language is not something that is simply given to us

-        A More Modern Approach

Caroline Bowen PHD [3] is a Speech Language Pathologist with a doctorate degree in clinical linguistics. She has written a great deal about linguistics and child development. In specific is her article on "Developmental Milestones for Receptive and Expressive Language Development".

Dr. Bowen breaks down early language development into two categories. They are receptive language and expressive language. Receptive language involves listening and learning to understand language. Expressive is learning to speak and use language to communicate.

-        Receptive Stages

At less than three months of age, a baby can recognize a familiar voice. This can be soothing and comforting to them. Between four to six months they learn the word "no" and are amused by things that make noises. As the child grows his comprehension increases a great deal.. He learns about simple games, then at one year he can point at things that he wants.

At two years of age he can understand more than one command in a sentence. As the years go by, comprehension increases in complexity.

-        Expressive Stages

When a tiny baby starts to recognize different sounds, she also makes different sounds for different motions. Next is the babbling stage as the baby experiments with her voice.

Within a few months, the babbling becomes more coherent as vowels and syllables replace much of the babbling. Between one and two years of age, the baby can form simple sentences.

At three her vocabulary increases by leaps and bounds. It becomes easier for others to understand her speech. Between four and five years of age, she begins to become fluent in her speech.

-        Criticism

This explanation is a complete description of child language development. It does not offer a theory as to why things happen as they do. Yet, it is very exact in its descriptions.

-        Evaluation

Language learning comes in stages and some theories are specific as others tend to be rather vague.

Piaget explained language development in four stages. The earliest stage was sensorimotor and had to do with basic functions. Since the child learns with basic motor functions at this stage, it is best to teach them in the same manner. The other three stages offer gradual increases in cognition and speech skills. The main criticism is that this method does not go into great detail with aspects of learning speech.

Chomsky's theory focuses more on innate and genetic gifts for learning to speak andcomprehend language. Many people do not agree that genetics plays that large of a role.

Dr Bowman breaks language learning into speech learning and comprehension learning in her article "Developmental Milestones for Receptive and Expressive Language Development". It does not offer any explanations for the causes or reasons for the development. However, it is very detailed and exact in its aspects of child language development.

2.   Theorists on child language acquisition

This is a list of pyscologists/ theorists linked to children acquiring and learning language. I have an exam coming up on this subject in June. Many people who study English Language at A-level will have this exam too. By the way this is a way of helping me revise and may provide readers with some interesting information.

Chomsky- Noam Chomsky stated that children are born with an innate knowledge of language when they are born and learning of their native language is at high speed when hearing it from others. This links to children overrgularising and putting grammar into utterences when they are not needed. Chomsky is one of the most famous theorists on child language acquisition, but becase his theories were based on his own intuitions about English and not actually studied on real children, many theorists find flaws within his theories and statements

Chomsky created the LAD- language acquisition device

1)        Baby already knows about linguistic rules, as they are born with an innate knowledge of language.

2)        The baby hears examples of his/ her native language

3)        The linguistic rules help the baby make estimations and presumptions about the language it is hearing.

4)        From these estimations and presumption the baby works out grammatical sets of rules. As more language is heard the grammar becomes more and more like adults.

Skinner- Skinner bases his theory of children acquiring language thrugh behaviourism. Skinner states that all behaviour is conditined e.g. punished or rewarded until it becomes natural and automatic. Babies imitate their parents/carers and are either reprimanded or praised according to their accuracy. This is Skinner going against Chomsky, as he believe biology plays almost no part in the way children learn language.

Piaget-  Piaget's theories on children learning language is mainly focused around "cognitive development," meaning language is controlled by the development of thinking. If a baby can use sentences involving phrases such as, "more than", "less than" it is obvious that the concepts of "more than" must have been grasped, before the child uses the phrase in an utternace.

Bruner-  As a way of respoonding to Chomsky's LAD learning system. Bruner theorised the lanuage acquisition support system (LASS) Bruner states through lass that parents often use books and images to develop their childs naming abilities and their ability to get involved in conversation.

(LASS)

a)        Gaining attention- drawing the babies attention to a picture

b)        Query- asking the baby to identify the picture

c)        Label- telling the baby what the object is

d)       Feedback- responding to the babies utterances

3.   The Biological Foundations of Language

Does Empirical Evidence Support Innateness of Language?

"The principles and rules of grammar are the means by which the forms of language are made to correspond with the universal froms of thought....The structures of every sentence is a lesson in logic." — John Stuart Mill

3.1  BIOLOGICAL BASIS OF LANGUAGE

"Human knowledge is organized de facto by linguistic competence through language performance, and our exploration of reality is always mediated by language" (Danchin 29). Most higher vertebrates possessintuitive knowledge which occurs as the result of slow evolution of species. However, the ability to create knowledge through language is unique to humans. According to Benjamin Whorf, "language is not merely a reproducing instrument from voicing ideas but rather is itself the shaper of ideas we dissect nature along lines laid down by language" (Joseph 249). In addition, the development and acquisition of language seems to be related to "complex sequential processing, and the ability to form concepts and to classify a single stimulus in a multiple manner" (Joseph 178). Antione Danchin suggests that the knowledge we create through language allows us distinguish ourselves from the rest of the world to produce models of reality, which become more and more adequate due to the "self-referent loop" which enables us to understand ourselves as objects under study. This "path from subject to object," which is common to all humans, Danchin claims, suggests the existence of a universal feature of language.

Biological foundation of language may contribute significantly to such universality. The issue here is not whether language is innate, for, clearly, language must be learned. Nor is the issue whether the aptitude for learning a language is inborn: it takes a human being, with a functional brain to learn a tongue. The question to explore is whether there is biological foundation at the root of organization and internal structure of language.

The scholars considering spoken language acquisition have divided over internal and external causation dichotomy. Two prototypical models of language acquisition are "selectivist" and "constructivist" models, respectively. The selectivist model, which depends on internal causation argument, can be associated with Noam Chomsky. The selectivist model assumes that "language template is pre-organized in the neuronal structure of the brain, so that the fact of being an integral part of a given environment selects the borders of each individual neuronal structure, without affecting its fine organization, which pre-exists" (Danchin 30). The constructivist model, which assumes external causation of language acquisition, follows lines drawn by behaviorists such as Piaget and Skinner. This model assumes that "language is built up constantly from a continuous interaction with a well-structured environment" (Danchin 30).

Ø  Noam Chomsky's View On Language

Noam Chomsky basic argument is that there exists an innate language acquisition device, a neural program that prepares them to learn language (Kandel 638). Chomsky assumes the existence of a genetically determined system of rules, which he refers to asuniversal grammar, underlying all tongues. According to Chomsky, a language template is set up by the special "language organ" of the brain. Chomsky does not deny that the importance of environmental factors in language acquisition. His claim is that there exist strict biological invariants governing the function of language. In explanation of his theory on the ontogenesis of spoken language, Chomsky holds there pre-exists in humans, a language structure that is

one of the faculties of the mind, common to the species,a faculty of language that serves the two basic functions of rationalist theory: it provides a sensory system for the preliminary analysis of linguistic data, and a schematism that determines, quite narrowly, a certain class of grammars. Each grammar is a theory of a particular language, specifying oral and semantic properties of an infinite array of sentences. These sentences, each with its particular structure, constitute the language generated by the grammar. The languages so generated are those that can be "learned" in the normal way. This knowledge can then be used to understand what is heard and to produce discourse as an expression of thought within the constraints of the internalized principles, in a manner appropriate to situations as these are conceived by other mental faculties, free of stimulus control (Chomsky 12-13). 

Ø  B. F. Skinner's view on language

Behaviorists view the process of language acquisition as a building process that results from interaction with the environment. In outlining his assertion that humans acquire spoken language as a result of behavioral conditioning. B.F. Skinner writes:

A child acquires verbal behavior when relatively unpattterned vocalizations, selectively reinforced, gradually assume forms which produce appropriate consequences in a given verbal community. In formulating this process we do not feed to mention stimuli occurring prior to the behavior to be reinforced. It is difficult, if not impossible, to discover stimuli which evoke specific vocal responses in the young child. There is no stimulus which makes a child say b or a or e, as one may make him salivate by placing a lemon drop in his mouth or make his pupils contract by shining a light into his eyes. The raw responses from which verbal behavior is constructed are not "elicited." In order to reinforce a given response we simply wait until it occurs. (Skinner 31)

Skinner views the child as the "passive subject of operant conditioning in whom randomly occurring behavior is selectively reinforced" (Vocate 3).

3.2 LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT

John Hughlings Jackson wrote, "No child would ever talk unless he were taught; and no child could be taught unless he already possessed, by inheritance, a particular series of nervous arrangements ready for training" (Marshall 41). It is amazing hownatural language acquisition is for children: "Language development does not begin with the childs first efforts to learn material that is linguistic" (Locke 268). Children are ready to learn even before birth: some acquisition of language, such as vocal learning, begins as early as the final trimester of pregnancy (Locke 267). Language development begins with the infants inclination to attend and respond to certain aspects of talking behavior. Genetic factors seem to play an important role: the infants responsiveness to facial and vocal activity is presumed to be heavily influenced by genetic factors. Specific neural preadaptations underlie such behavior: Clinical and electrophysiological research reveals that humans have mechanisms that are similarly dedicated to processing faces and facial activity (Tranel, Damasio and Damasio, 1988 as quoted in Locke) and to voices and vocal activity (Creutzfeldt, Ojemann, and Lettich, 1989 as quoted in Locke).

These examples of specialization in of social cognition are important in language development. Tomasello and his colleagues (1986, Locke 269) found a positive relationship between the amount of time infants participated in joint attention episodes with their mothers at 15 months and extent of expressive vocabulary at 21 months. Snow (1989, Locke 269) found that vocal imitation at 14 months was related to the number of nouns and verbs produced, the total productive vocabulary, and the ratio of words produced to words comprehended at 20 months. Such evidence supports Chomskys view of the existence of deep internal structures associated with language acquisition.

Another fascinating fact is the fast rate at which children acquire language. The table below (adapted from Kandel) points out that in children 12-18 months old, the vocabulary is about 30 to 50. In children 18-24 months, the vocabulary is about 50 to several hundred (which means, in about six months the vocabulary more than doubled). When the child starts to walk at three years old, he has vocabulary of around 1,000 words. This means that, in a little more than a year, a child gains around nine hundred words about 25 words a day!

Table 1. Stages of Development in the Acquisition of Language

Average Age	Language Milestones	Motor Milestones
6 months	Cooing, changes to distinct babbling by introduction of consonants	Sits using hands for support; unilateral reaching
1 year	Beginning of language understanding; one-word utterances	Stands; walks when held by one hand
12-18 months	Words used singly; repertory of 30-50 words (simple nouns, adjectives, and action words), which cannot as yet be joined in phrases but are used on e at a time does not use functors (the, and, can, be) necessary for syntax, but makes good progress in understanding	Grasping and release fully developed; walking; creeps downstairs backward
18-24 months	Two-word (telegraphic) phrases ordered according to syntactic rules; vocabulary of 50 to several hundred words; understands propositional rules	Runs (and falls); walks stairs with one foot forward
2-5 year	New words every day; three or more words in many combinations; functors begin to appear; many grammatical errors and idiosyncratic expressions; good understanding of language	Jumps with both feet
3 years	Full sentences; few errors; vocabulary of around 1,000 words	Tiptoes; walks stairs with alternating feet
4 years	Close to adult speech competence	Jumps over rope; hops on one foot; walks on a line

Children do not have to learn to correct many of their mistakes, for some errors never happen. When an error is made and corrected, it is a logical error with respect to the usual syntactic structure (Danchin 32). In other words, children do not repeat mistakes which must be corrected again and again. The accuracy at which children learn new words is also amazing. Children as young as two or three years old is not taught words in terms of definition. They pick up meanings of words in context. For example, when I pick up a thick, black pen and tell them it is called a "pen," children almost always understand what I mean by a "pen." They rarely, if ever, make the mistake of thinking that what I meant by "pen" was in reference to its being black, or thick. This suggest that there must be some kind of intuitive system of "rules" regarding language.

    Critical Period

Like other neural functions, the ability to learn language has a critical period (though this critical period may be longer compared to others). Many theoretical works have demonstrated that an "important regression of connectivity (and even of cell number) takes place as learning progresses" (Danchin 33). The brain goes through "pruning" of unnecessary connections as language development takes place. In other words, the neuronal synaptic connections are not created, or built, as we learn language: they pre-exist: unnecessary ones merely decay as language learning takes place. Such processes occur in the formation of synapses in sensory systems. For example, in development of visual system, synaptic formation is ruled by the "fire together, wire together" principle. Early in the developmental stage, the visual system receives overwhelming amount of input and there is a high branching of synaptic connections. As some inputs become more dominant (either in number or intensity) certain synaptic connections are reinforced and other connections that are less frequently utilized decay and disappear. No one denies the existence of strict biological constraints that govern sensory modalities. If the neurological development in language acquisition is parallel to the development of sensory modality, it would be a strong evidence against the constructivist model which insists that language is built through interaction with the environment.

Deaf parents have a non-oral linguistic interaction with their children much earlier than normal parents. Serazin has made observation that the neurological development of children born from deaf parents was more normal than the development of deaf children born to normal parents (Danchin 33). Such examples suggest that although the individual performance is the result of interaction with the environment, the fundamental rules of syntax are imposed by the neuronal structure.

Another fact that supports the critical period of language acquisition and thus the selectivist model is that the ability to learn language fluently decreases with age. "Among Chinese and Korean children who have immigrated to the United States there is a linear relationship until puberty between the age of arrival and proficiency in English" (Kandel 638). The fact that this phenomenon applies so widely suggests that there is a biological basis that is universal.

    Lateralization

Without a doubt, language has biological basis. A multitude of neuronal structures and fiber pathways are involved in the formulation, expression, and comprehension of speech and verbal thought (Joseph 253). Close studying of the organization of language in the brain may give us important clue as to how much language acquisition is governed by biological structures.

Dr. R. Joseph asserts that the right and left half of the brain utilize different means of communication and sometimes rely on different language systems (11). There is strong evidence that information processing is carried on differently in each hemispheres of the brain. In majority of humans, the left hemisphere, is efficient at processing spoken language but has great difficulty processing social or emotional sounds. The right hemisphere on the other hand is very efficient in social and emotional sounds, but is deficient in language skills (Joseph 12).

The fact that human brain is unsymmetrical is well known. Specialization of the left hemisphere for language in right handed people, with relatively a few exceptions, has been generally accepted for more than a century (Bogen 13). Although more recent studies suggest that there is a complementary hemispheric specialization of language functions in the brain (as opposed to the left hemisphere being the language facilitator), the evidence still holds that left and right hemispheres differ in their language functions.

Studies of patients after hemispherectomy, or the "surgical removal of an entire cerebral hemisphere," support laterilzation of linguistic functions in the brain. (Code 51). Although some researchers suggest that the right hemisphere possesses some language abilities, it is clear that, in general, the function of the right hemisphere is inferior that of the left hemisphere.

    Localization

One common way of studying language function is by analyzing various language disorders and deficits. Lesions to certain parts of the cortex lead to loss or deficit of certain functions. Studying of the language performance in association with lesions in the brain has been recognized well over 100 years. In general, these studies suggest localization of language functions in the brain: a lesion to certain part of the brain may only the production of language without disturbing the ability to comprehend spoken speech. The aphasias are most commonly divided into three main types: Wernickes aphasia which is characterized by a major deficit in comprehension; Brocas aphasia which is which is characterized by deficit in production; and conduction aphasia which is characterized by a combination of syndromes of both Brocas aphasia and Wernickes aphasia.

The lesion in Wernickes aphasia is to Wernickes area and often extends to the superior portions of the temporal lobe, Brodmanns areas 39 and 40, and inferior portions of Brodmanns area 37. Wernickes area is located in the left posterior inferior frontal part of the brain and is adjacent to the lateral sulcus. As mentioned earlier, such lesions affect language comprehension. Both visual and auditory inputs are impaired. Although speech remains fluent, some difficulties with language production exist with the more severe forms of Wernickes aphasia: paraphasia is disorder in which the patients use the wrong word or combination of words in speech. Extra syllables may be added words as extra words may be added to sentences. Neologism refer to fabricating of a new word. Of the different parts of speech, nouns are most prone to distortion. Logorrhea refers to excessive speech. People suffering from logorrhea exhibit a phenomenon called press of speech: people may use unnecessary words in expressing their thoughts. Empty speech is the failure of conveying the ideas in mind. People who have this impairment are not aware that they have such disorder (Kandel 640).

Brocas aphasia is caused by damage to the motor association cortex in the frontal lobe, usually extending to the posterior portion of the third frontal gyrus (Brodmanns area 44 and 45), which forms part of the frontal operculum (Brocas area). In severe cases the surrounding premotor and prefrontal regions (areas 6, 8, 9, 10, and 46) are also damaged (Kandel 640).

A wide range of deficit exists in Brocas aphasia. Patients may suffer from a slowed, simple speech to almost complete muteness. Words may be omitted, plural nouns may be expressed in singular forms as verbs may be left in infinitive. Patients of Brocas aphasia are generally aware of their disorder (unlike Wernickes aphasia). The ability to read aloud and the ability to write are also affected by Brocas aphasia.

Brocas aphasic patient Leborgne is probably the most familiar aphasic patient in history. This famous aphasic patient is known by his nickname Tan. "Tan" was the meaningless automatic utterance he produced most times he attempted speech. Such utterances are called speech automatisms in contemporary literature. Patients with speech automatism, usually described as "globally" aphasic, have severe deficits in the ability to utilize syntax, semantics, and phonology in "expression or comprehension in any modality" (Code 44).

The last of the three main types of aphasia, conduction aphasia, is caused by damage to the pathway connecting the to main language areas (Broca and Wernickes). This pathway, arcuate fasciculus, runs in the white matter in the temporal lobe. Injury to the supramarginal gyrus of the parietal lobe and posterior and superior aspects of the left temporal lobe can cause damage to the fasciculus (Kandel 641).

Studies of aphasia can offer an incredible insight to organization of the brain for language. The occurrence of specific language disorders caused by lesions to certain parts of the brain further illustrate localization of functions in the brain. Given certain language disorder, we can correlate it to a physical problem in a specific region of the brain. Such evidence suggest that there are certain preexisting universal biological order in the brain. If they did not preexist, how would the many brains build synaptic connections that were similar to one another, even the brains of people that speak different languages? Localization of linguistic functions in the brain suggest that there are innate physical structure of the brain which govern our learning of language.

    Plasticity Of Neural Structure

There are always exceptions to the rule. In some population of the people, the locus of language functions is completely differently organized. For example, in children that were born with, or even developed early, cortical lesions to the parts of brain that are thought to be important in language processing, it has been shown that different parts of the brain "take over" the functions of the damaged parts. In some cases where the children suffered a serious damage to the left hemisphere early in development, language deficits were not that apparent. The right hemisphere contained the language centers. Do such evidences suggest that there really are not preexisting biological conditions when it comes to language? Answer to this question goes back to the language acquisition and critical period arguments: There is evidence that suggests the regression of neuronal connectivity as language acquisition and development takes place. As stated earlier, our brain, rather than building from scratch, goes through "pruning of preexisting synaptic connections in the brain: there are many ways in which these connections can be made. Also, the brain adapts the given conditions and function to the best of its ability. For example, we know that the patients whose commissure has been surgically severed display a variety of behavioral deficits. However, in people with a congenital defect in which the corpus callosum is simply absent, there is little or no behavioral disorder. This suggests that the two hemispheres of the brain have adapted another way of exchanging information. Such examples merely suggest plasticity of the connections in the brain.

    Constructionist or Selectivist Model?

There seems to be enough evidence to suggest the existence of strict biological constraints behind our language function. Biological evidence supports the selectivist model, which takes after Chomsky, that plastic preorganized brain structures are shaped to their final form after a proper interaction with the environment. There exists biological constraints that regulate language function. Such claims, however, cannot exist without criticism. The biological evidence, such as the functional asymmetry of the two hemispheres of the brain, are still primarily correlational. As early as 1926, Head stated, "with language and other higher functions, there is no such thing as a topographical description; a description in functional terminology is the only one available" (Caplan 121). Or as Luria insists, Chomskys concept of grammar and his transformational rules are limited analogies rather than accurate descriptions of the real processes involved in the formation and decoding of speech (Luria qtd. in Vocate 3). 

It seems improbable that we would understand the actual neuronal basis of language any time soon. There is so little known about the brain, itself. We do not know how exactly language is processed in the brain. All the knowledge we have about the language in relation to the physical brain, or vice versa--the physical brain in relation to language, we have gained by merely assuming correlation based on evidences suggested by case studies of persons with certain brain lesions and certain speech disorder that follow that lesion. We still have very little idea concerning exactly what it is about the fine structure of different neuronal regions that makes them an appropriate habitat for the functions that are impaired after damage to those areas (Marshall 53). At the same time, there is no evidence to suggest that stimulus from the environment is the only thing of importance in mechanism of language acquisition and development. Lateralization of language functions, organization of the language centers in the brain, and the readiness with which children learn language all point toward the selectivist model, which assumes the existence of strict biological constraints. There is simply too much evidence to disregard the idea of preexisting conditions in our brain which govern our language abilities. Until we better understand the brain and the neuronal basis of language, however, the debate is still widely open. To borrow Chomskys very own words, "it remains to be seen in what respects the system that develops is actually shaped by experience, or rather reflects intrinsic processes and structures triggered by experience."

4.   Can Chimpanzees Talk?

Humans seem to acquire language in a manner different from other types of behavioral learning. The onset of language learning is sudden (around the age of 2). We learn our native language without instruction, in fact, we can learn 2-3 languages at that age as easily as one. If we do not learn to speak between the ages of 2 and 6, it appears that we lose the ability to speak normally the rest of our lives. All this evidence suggests that we have a 'language organ' which other species do not possess, a segment of our brain which is triggered by a stage of development, much the same as walking is.

A simple way to disprove this Innateness Hypothesis, as linguists call it, is to demonstrate that other species have the capacity to speak but for some reason simply have not developed speech. A logical candidate for such a species is the chimpanzee, which shares 98.4% of the human genetic code. Chimpanzees cannot speak because, unlike humans, their vocal cords are located higher in their throats and cannot be controlled as well as human vocal cords.

It does not follow from their lack of speech, however, that chimpanzees are incapable of language, that is a human-like grammar. Perhaps they can acquire grammar and speak if they could only use grammar some way other than with a voice. The obvious alternative is sign language, since all primates have extremely dexterous hands and sign language is a language. You have probably already read about the regular chimpanzees Washoe and Nim Chimpsky, and the lowland gorilla Koko, all of whom learned to sign and interact very naturally with their trainers. All of these animals were taught to sign in order to get food, tickling, grooming, toys, and to get out of their cages. The question, then, is whether chimpanzee and gorilla signing is language; is it based on grammatical rules?

4.1 What is Language?

We have all managed to get around in a foreign country by 'talking with our hands'. This is possible because language is not the only symbolic means of communication. In order to prove that chimpanzees and gorillas are capable of language, and not simply a different kind of symbolic communication system, they must learn a sign language with the basic characteristics of human language. These include the following.

        The language must be based on arbitrary symbols. The sounds of words do not normally contain any hint of their meaning. The sound of the word dog does not suggest dogs. In fact, the French word chien and Russian sobaka work just as well to express the same thing as dog though they are radically different sounds. So signs must not look like their meanings.

        The arbitrary symbols must be used in strict order. In English we can say "I see the dog" but not "the see dog I". If we move words around in sentence, we have to change the morphology, the shapes of the words, as in "The dog was seen by me."

        Recombining the same lexemes always results in a different meaning: a houseboatis quite a different object from a boathouse, even though they comprise the same words (I mean, lexemes). So chimps will have to be able to 'recombine' the same symbols to create different words, e.g. top versus pot, and recombine words to create different phrases. In fact, chimps will have to come up with new, creative combinations to describe new, previously unencountered situations. So if Bill Gates were to introduce trains to get from one room to another in his house, we wouldn't think twice before calling it a 'housetrain', even though we have never heard the word before. Chimps have to be able to do the same.

        The symbols will have to be relative and not absolute. Virtually no word in any human language has only one meaning. Rather, words have meanings only in context. Take a look at these examples.

The table was covered with junk food.

We'd better table this motion.

The chair was inviting.

She can chair a meeting harshly.

Chimps must be able to determine meaning on the basis of sentence context. Any dog or horse can learn to associate one sound with one meaning.

        Chimps will have to talk Jabberwocky. Remember the 'Song of the Jabberwocky' from Alice in Wonderland mentioned in 'But There are no Such Things as Words?'

That bit of free knowledge pointed out that sentences contain not words, but lexemes and morphemes. Lexemes are not so interesting because they are simple symbols: sound-meaning pairs. Morphemes are more interesting because they refer to the grammatical categories which define language and their meaning varies with context: "John was painting [verb] a painting [noun] while painting [participle] his room." In order to prove that pongids are using language and not a simply a semantic system concatenating ordinary symbols, there must be evidence of those arbitrary morphological categories which distinguish language from other types of communication systems and cognition (mental) processing.

It is possible to communicate using symbols (audible or visual) plus a semantic strategy for interpreting the meaning of symbol combinations. For example, if I were to say simply CAR HIT MAN, and you knew the meanings of these three words, you could figure out that some car probably hit or will hit some man-even without grammar. However, language is different. With the grammatical rules of language, not only can we specify tense, but word (lexeme) order actually plays a subordinate role. I could say the following in English, using the same lexeme order but with a wide variety of meanings:

The car hits the man.

The car was hit by the man.

Did the car hit the man?

The car that hit the man...

Notice the wide variation in the meaning of the sequence car hit man when joined by grammatical morphemes, the markers of the grammar of a language. Morphemes are critical to the understanding of the intent of the speaker in these sentences. So if we wish to prove that chimps are capable of language and not simply a symbolic communication system, we must demonstrate that they can learn and manipulate morphemes and syntax, as opposed to simple absolute symbols plus semantic strategies for interpreting them. Grammar is the soul of language and morphology is the expression of grammar.

4.2 So, Can Chimps Talk?

The evidence is mixed but not promising. Chimps and gorillas can easily learn up to 120 different arbitrary symbols if taught those signs using conventional reinforcement techniques. Trainers teach chimps these symbols by taking the chimp's hand and forming the symbol, then giving the chimp a food treat if he does it himself on the correct cue. It takes as many as 100 tries to get a chimpanzee to correctly form one sign. All symbols thus far have been absolute symbols whose meaning do not vary with context.

Kanzi, an unusually intelligent Bonobo chimp recently trained at Georgia State University, is remarkable in that he learned to use around 200 symbols on a portable electronic symbol board, a computer with buttons in the shape of absolute arbitrary symbols, rather than manual signs. More interestingly, Kanzi learned how to use this board while watching his foster mother, Matata, being taught by traditional reinforcement methods. So Kanzi did learn how to use arbitrary symbols without being taught, although he did observe direct reinforcement of each symbol during the process and the symbols were taught one at the time.

The evidence for the mastery of syntax is not so convincing. While chimpanzees can learn to order their symbols to get what they want, it is not clear that they have mastered syntax. The reason is that when they initiate communication, even adult chimps often abandon the order they have learned and phrases such as fight mad Austin (a famous utterance of Kanzi's friend Panbinisha), but the order doesn't seem to matter. Apparently Panbinisha was trying to express, "there was a fight at Austin's and someone (Austin?) was mad". It is interesting that even human children simply don't make such errors once language acquisition begins and certainly adult speakers would never utter such strings. Notice it lacks any morphemes (-ing, at, I,she, -ed), the hallmarks of grammar.

There have been occasional reports of chimps signing new combinations of words in an acceptable order in response to new situations. Washoe, for example, once was in a boat on a pond when she encountered her first duck. She signed 'water bird'. This could be a new compound noun or it could be two separate responses to the water and a bird. The problem is that we have no way of measuring the chimp's intent.

Perhaps the most troubling outcome of the chimp and gorilla research is the lack of"Jabberwocky" evidence: none of the trained animals seem to assimilate grammatical morphemes. The best translation of a chimpanzee phrase corresponding to 'Give me the orange' is 'give Washoe/me orange' (whereWashoe/me is the hand pointing back at the signer). There is no evidence of tense, number, agreement, articles, or pronouns in primate signing. Certainly prefixes and suffixes do not exist. This is important for the symbols mastered thus far by chimps are absolute symbols that refer to real things in the real world, on a par with a system of highway signs. Grammatical morphemes refer exclusively to the categories and relations of grammar and represent the decisive proof that an organism is using language. Why can't chimps and gorillas use grammatical categories?

The maximum number of lexeme symbols (simple nouns, verbs, and adjectives) is interesting, too. The brightest chimpanzees master fewer than 200 of these symbols by adulthood. Human children know about 50 by the time they are 18 months old, when they begin learning nouns, verbs, and adjectives at the rate of about 5 per day. So the maximum achievement in symbol acquisition among other primates is more than matched by human children before the onset of language acquisition. In fact, the type of phrases spoken by chimpanzees and gorillas also resemble those spoken by children before they acquire their first language: "give orange" or "give Bobby orange" (without the pronoun me) are common expressions of children who have not yet learned to speak.

The results suggest that while chimpanzees and gorillas are far more intelligent than anyone had imagined during the first half of this century, they are not capable of human language. Rather, they have a primitive version of the semantic ability children use to begin learning language. Even though we are 98.4% genetically identical to chimpanzees, the difference is nonetheless qualitative, not quantitative. That is, the difference is not that we simply differ in the quantity of intelligence we have, but human beings seem to have a different kind of intelligence. The philosophical implications of this conclusion are interesting but Dr. Goodword will leave that for a phantom philosopher.