Probing the Realities of Ape Language
Sue Savage-Rumbaugh and William M. Fields
Ape language work at GSU's Language Research Center (LRC) has
produced important advances in the understanding of apes and their potential for
linguistic processes since the first keyboard was presented to the chimpanzee (Pan
troglodytes) Lana in 1972. At that time, little was known about the perceptual and
cognitive capacities of great apes and it was considered unlikely that they would be
capable of discriminating the small 2 dimensional printed patterns ("lexigrams")
intended to serve as words. The first studies left no doubt that Lana could discriminate
lexigrams visually, and that she could learn the simple ordering rules sufficiently well
to apply them to novel sequences. Lana could also associate different symbols with various
real world people, places, and things. The computer-collected data demonstrated that
imitation was not the basis of her performance.
The second generation of language studies with the
lexical-keyboard system attempted to compensate for some of the perceived inadequacies in
Lana's semantic performance. Her errors had revealed that while she grasped the
combinatorial rules of her syntax, she often did not consistently apply semantic content.
Consequently, the "meaning" of words came under intense focus, and receptive
understanding, along with object labeling, became an important component of the linguistic
instruction. The social aspect of language was also enriched far beyond what had been the
case for Lana and lastly, in place of working with a single subject, efforts were
concentrated upon communications between two co-reared male chimpanzees, Austin and
Sherman (2 and 3 years of age).
The work revealed that symbolic communication of a high level,
with the use of an abstract code and with mutual understanding and cooperation, was
possible between non-human creatures. It also revealed that the semantic processing of the
symbolic components of the communicative system was not just lexically based and dependent
upon stimulus-response associative phenomena. It was instead, semantically grounded and
functionally abstract. Finally, it illustrated, for the first time in the field of animal
language, the critical components of listener comprehension and listener cooperation.
The third generation of language studies at LRC began with
bonobos (Pan paniscus). Bonobos were selected because their naturally occurring gestural
and vocal capacities appeared to be more complex than those of chimpanzees. At first this
research effort focused upon replicating the chimpanzee studies with a mother-infant pair,
Matata and her 6-month-old son, Kanzi. Matata's progress was slow in that she acquired
only 8 symbols across a 3-year training period. Her son Kanzi however, learned the symbols
even though he was not being trained. His success with observational learning led to the
abandonment of training orientedapproach. All further effort focused upon the natural,
rather than the acquired, acquisition of language. Lexigrams were combined with speech in
semi-naturalistic forest setting which fostered communication and eschewed intentional
training.
Symbol acquisition and symbol comprehension proceeded much more
readily under these conditions, and was made possible by the spontaneous appearance of a
high level of spoken language comprehension. For the first time, contingencies associated
with symbol use and acquistion were noncritical and understanding at a grammatical level
emerged. These findings were replicated with an additional bonobo, Mulika.
The fourth generation of language studies addressed the question
of whether or not the capacity to acquire language skills without the assist of
intentional training was unique to the bonobo or was instead a function of the new
methodological approach that had been developed with Kanzi and Mulika. Two apes were again
co-reared, but this time they were different species and the co-rearing began at birth.
Neither Panpanzee (the chimpanzee) or Panbanisha (the bonobo) were exposed to training of
any kind, nor did they observe training being given to Matata. They were immersed with a
naturalistic environment as newborn infants, which included daily trips to the forest and
round the clock exposure to spoken English accompanied by the presentation of lexical
symbols. This work revealed that the species variable did not account for the differences
in linguistic competency displayed by Kanzi and Mulika. Panzee was able to acquire lexical
symbols and speech comprehension without exposure to any systematic training. She was
however, delayed in her symbol acquisition relative to Panbanisha and Mulika, and her
responses and symbol use were more concrete and less varied. In addition, her
understanding of novel sentences was very limited, however the co-rearing only lasted
until age4 and had it continued longer she might have demonstrated facility equal to that
of Panbanisha in this regard.
The current series of studies is centered around Panbanisha and
her son Nyota and addresses cultural issues of bi-species rearing rather than biological
platforms or methodological variables. The previous 27 years of language rearing efforts
has led to the inescapable realization that no logical understanding of what has come to
be called ape language can be obtained without fully acknowledging the cultural domain in
which the exchanges take place. More importantly, no understanding of ape behavior can be
achieved without recognizing the role of individuals within a socio-dynamic culture.
Finally, a thorough grounding of knowledge requires a grasp of the cultural substrate
which serves as the hidden platform for all communicative action. Achievement of such an
understanding will take us far beyond what has traditionally been conceived of as the
scientific study of other species; for speaking and sharing a culture with another species
moves beyond investigating them---it moves directly into the realm of sharing the
responsibility for life with them.
The emergence of this new theoretical perspective can come about
only through a bi-species co-construction of reality. That is, it will require the joint
mental construction of what are seen --by members of both species -- as the social flow of
connected events. This is because language becomes manifest only through jointly
understood "events." The perception of action as "events" occurs only
within an inter-individual subjective framework of connectedness which operates to
structure space and time. It is through such "connectedness" that we are able to
perceive human noise-based utterances as "language". That is to say, the noises
which we make could not be perceived as carrying representational value if we did not
subjectively construct these abstractions regarding the actions of others and the links
between different actions, in a common manner. It is in understanding how we come to do
this that we will finally grasp how it is that culture is fashioned through language, and
language, in turn is fashioned through culture.