Theory And The Animal Language Controversy example essay topic

There has been considerable historical discourse over the nature of language. Most contend that thought and language are two interrelated criteria. Just how these criteria relate to the controversy over whether animals have language capabilities and even more specifically to the Sapir-Whorf human language thought debate, however, is not always clear. From a human context we know that language is a skill which allows us to communicate our thoughts to others and in so doing to attain desired 'biological, cognitive, and social / behavioral feedback' (McDonnell, 1977). The question as to whether language is a skill that human beings are born with or whether it is a skill that is acquired is a complex one and not one in which all researchers are in agreement. Neither are researchers in agreement about whether animals have the capability of language.

To resolve these controversies we must look to both human and animal research. The linguistic relativity theory known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was developed by Benjamin Lee Whorf (a linguist and anthropologist) and Edward Sapir. The theory argues that language is a finite array of lexical and grammatical categories that group experiences into usable classes which vary across cultures but influence thought. The theory maintains that a concept cannot be understood without an appropriate word for that concept. To explore this theory and the animal language controversy we must first accept that both animals and humans have the capacity for language.

The next task then would be to determine whether that capacity is innate or acquired. A characteristic which is innate is an instinctual behavior and most often one which one was born with. An innate or instinctual behavior is often associated with an organism's genetic propensity to behave or react in a certain way. Innate language ability or our genetic makeup, under the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, would serve to limit the conceptual ability of an individual for without words concepts could not be understood according to this hypothesis. There are numerous points which can serve to discredit this hypothesis.

The interaction between genetic makeup and behavior or reaction is an interesting one. Some researchers contend that basic linguistic organization, or grammar, is a one, which is built into the human brain (McConnell, 1977). These researcher believe that humans develop the capacity for speech because of a sort of preexisting central nervous system map which allows us to translate our mental experiences into words (McConnell, 1977). They believe that the 'baby talk' uttered by infants is simply a precursor to actual language and that both 'baby talk' and the ability to translate one's thoughts into language is one which is part of the human genetic blueprint (McConnell, 1977).

If the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis were accurate, therefore, human conceptualization would be limited to the words which we were born understanding. We know that this is not the case. We can demonstrate this inaccuracy with a brief look at the animal language controversy which rages on in many circles. While it is agreed in most cases that humans have the genetic blueprint for language, it is not always agreed that animals have this same blueprint. Most researchers recognize that human infants can distinguish between various sounds in human speech at a very early age. According to psychologist Patricia Kuhl at the University of Washington, for example, infants can distinguish between each of the 150 universal components of human speech (Grunwald, Goldberg, and Be; 1993).

It could be contended that, while they may not have the same range of sound recognition, young animals also associate various sounds emitted by their species as having particular associations. One has to only observe the interactions between a family pet and their offspring to be cognizant of this fact. Indeed, animals quickly learn to recognize the meaning of various human words as well when they are exposed to them on a regular basis. Animals also conceptualize other human activities and belongings. A dog can learn for example that a newspaper will be delivered at a certain time and that his owner is pleased when he brings this paper to him. The dog does so without any understanding of the words newspaper, newspaper boy, or even fetch.

He does so based on his understanding of human behavior. These observations alone should negate the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis There are therefore obvious differences in the language capabilities of human and animal. It is the ability to translate our mental experiences into words which gives humans the capability of abstract thought and, according to researchers, which separates humans from animals (McConnell, 1977). There is considerable biological and psychological support for the theory of innate speech. Speech is most often controlled by only one of the brain's hemispheres, the left hemisphere (McConnell, 1977). That part of the brain which controls speech is, in most cases, somewhat enlarged in comparison to the same region in the non-controlling, right, hemisphere (McConnell, 1977).

This difference in not as apparent in the higher primates and is not present at all in lower animals (McConnell, 1977). Primates differ from humans too in that their vocalization in that the ability to produce these sounds appears to be controlled by the limbic system or the 'emotional brain' (McConnell, 1977). That the areas of speech control differ between man and primates can be demonstrated by comparing the results of the destruction of the cortical speech centers in both man and primate (McConnell, 1977). While this typically results in the loss of the ability to speak in man, it does not affect this ability in primates (McConnell, 1977).

This would imply that only the human brain has evolved to transfer the control of speech from the emotional area of the brain to the cortex which controls voluntary, non-emotional, actions (McConnell, 1977). It is obvious in evaluating the theory of innate speech that the mental capacity for speech which it is assumed that we are born with is one which is shaped by environmental stimuli into a particular language (McConnell, 1977). In other words, The innate 'baby talk' that is produced by the infant is ultimately refined into a language form which can be understood by others through a process of the infant's interaction with its environment and the people in that environment (McConnell, 1977). If this were not the case, their would only be one language for all of human kind instead of the multitude of languages which are, and have been, spoken on this planet (McConnell, 1977). With this as a premise, the stumbling block inherent in the theory of innate language then becomes obvious, if the basic fundamentals of language are innate then there should be some commonality between all the languages of the world which would allow us to prove this fact (McConnell, 1977).

Other researchers take a slightly different approach on the question of whether language is innate, however. They argue that initially human communication was similar to that observed in chimpanzees, a series of grunts and groans and screeches (McConnell, 1977). These researchers contend that the need for more advanced language did not exist for human populations until approximately 70,000 years ago and that the origin of that need approximately corresponded with the date of the beginning of the last ice age (McConnell, 1977). Because humans were forced to migrate into areas which were unfamiliar to them they had to refine their ability to communicate with one another in order to survive in the foreign terrain (McConnell, 1977). As people learned to communicate more and more complex ideas, language developed accordingly (McConnell, 1977).

McConnell (1977) relates the sequence in which this evolution of language could have occurred by observing that the simple equivalent of 'danger' could have been modified to be more specific by combining that idea with other words to give it additional meaning. This would entail the understanding of a concept prior to the invention of a word to encapsulate that concept, the exact opposite of the contention of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Under the above theory of language development, language evolved because of an innate 'need' and an innate 'ability' to learn to predict various components and stimuli from their environment and to control these components and stimuli (McDonnell, 1977). Social interaction is, in arguably, a tremendously important part of linguistic development and refinement. Obviously it is social interaction which determines the particulars of our language.

It could be contended therefore that because animals have not been presented with the appropriate stimulus which would require the refinement of their language, they have not refined language skills to the degree which is evidenced in humans. This does not mean that animals are incapable of language, or that they lack an understanding of concepts due to their lack of words for those concepts, just that they presently lack the degree of refinement which is observable in human language.

Bibliography

Grunwald, Lisa; Jeff Goldberg and Stacey Be. (1993, 1 Jul).
Discovery: The Amazing Minds of Infants. Life. Hub a, M.E. ; and S. Ramisetty-Miller. (1995, 1 Sep).
The Language skills and concepts of early and non-early Readers". Journal of Genetic Psychology. McConnell, James V. (1977).
Understanding Human Behavior:" An Introduction to Psychology". Holt, Rinehart and Winston. New York. Murray, Linda A. (1996, Feb 1).