Re: Apes and language

On Jan 19, 7:11 pm, "H.K. Kingston-Smith" <HK...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What is the consensus in professional linguistic circles as far
as language and apes are concerned? I seem to recall that the experiments
with Washoe, Koko and others drew some controversy, in that the
linguistic abilities adscribed to them by their trainers could be
elicited by independent observers only in very limited ways. That is,
such observers countered that any (or most) linguistic abilities detected
in the experiment were the product of the human experimenter - and that
the "Monkey see, monkey do" adage remains, to a large extent, valid.

What are the current views?

I don't know about current views, but to me it seems that those apes
did handle individual symbols, not syntax or grammar in any kind. My
impression is that you can teach an ape the symbol for banana and the
symbol for eating, maybe even the symbol for hunger. But you cannot
devise a language with a consistent syntax, and you cannot discern a
stable pidgin kind of syntax in the way how the ape uses the symbols.
It is not that there is a tendency for the ape to type, for example,
"myself hunger eating banana", but rather a haphazard combination of
all four symbols often repeated several times. There is no development
towards even the rudiments of a grammar, syntactic functions, parts of
speech, or anything that is the hallmark of the lousiest excuse of a
language human beings have ever developed.

Besides: A human being who had been taught a limited number of symbols
would start using the symbols creatively. He would for example start
using the word "hunger" in the figurative meaning "desire" ("Tarzan
hunger eating banana" = Tarzan wants to eat banana, and then, by an
extension of meaning which is natural in human language, "Tarzan
hunger sleep", "Tarzan hunger copulating Jane", "Tarzan cold, Tarzan
hunger inside house" and so on).
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... most words in shakespeare are currently used in exactly the same ... We can still use archaic language, ... there is any English speaker in the last 200 years who could pick up ... All I'm claiming is that 'ape' is used by ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... "ape" in Shakespeare is irrelevant to any argument about current ... We can still use archaic language, ... there is any English speaker in the last 200 years who could pick up ... It's not the dictionaries that are wrong; ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... "ape" in Shakespeare is irrelevant to any argument about current ... We can still use archaic language, ... there is any English speaker in the last 200 years who could pick up ... It's not the dictionaries that are wrong; ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Chez Watt Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... Sloppy or deliberately vague use of language is rightly ... 'Ape' has ALWAYS referred to non-humans ... Lab results don't change the meanings of words; ... it became accepted because the distinction ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... language, which so many biologists, being Mongoloid idiots, are ... You don't give a hoot about language. ... There is no group 'ape' to which 'man' belongs. ... That makes us mammals. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading