Animal Systems of Communication

(Edward Vajda)

There are about five thousand mutually unintelligible forms of

language spoken on the Earth today. Although these languages
differ strikingly in their phonological, morphological and syntactic
structure, each and every language serves to express a virtually
unlimited variety of old and new experience. Each and every
language can express any thought the human mind can
devise. In this way no human group possesses a primitive or
incomplete language. And each living language is constantly
changing as speakers easily adapt it to new circumstances (cf.
Navajo words for automobile parts). Human creativity continually
shapes language, and structural differences between languages
do not seem to limit the thought patterns of native speakers in
any fundamental or permanent way.

One way to better understand the apparently unique creative

potential of human language is to contrast it with systems of
communication found elsewhere in nature. The differences
between animal and human communication, as we shall see, are
profound, but all the differences seem to derive from a single
basic fact: Humans possess a natural, inborn facility to be
creative with symbols; as far as we know, animals do
not. (I say this not because I want to disparage animals or
condone their mistreatment. I do not. I like animals--especially
cats.) I only want to say that if animals do actually think
creatively, or if they have the potential to acquire human-style
creative languages, this capacity is not evident in their naturally-
occurring systems of communication. And attempts to teach
animals to communicate creativity with human-made symbols
have so far shown little real success; occasional claims to the
contrary have not been substantiated.

Let's first look at three specific systems of animal communication

to examine more closely the implications of these difference
between animals and humans. Let's talk about birds, bees, and
apes.

Birds have two types of sound signals--calls and songs.

Bird calls consist of one or more short notes and seem to be

instinctive responses to danger, nesting, flocking and a few other
basic situations. The English sparrow has three flight calls-- one
used just before takeoff, another during flight, and one just
before landing at a nesting site. Sparrows have two types of
danger calls, one to announce that a predator is nearby--like an
owl in a tree-- and the other to announce that a predator is
soaring overhead. These calls seem intended to coordinate group
activity in specific situations. The meanings of these signs
constitute a small, finite set which can't be increased. And bird
calls cannot be varied to produce variations of meaning.

Bird songs are used primarily by males to attract mates or

establish territory. Bird songs are limited to these and only these
functions. Although bird songs are longer than bird calls, their
internal elements aren't separable into meaningful units and
cannot be rearranged to produce new songs.

Interestingly, although bird songs are inborn, and young birds

naturally begin producing them at a certain age even if raised
away from their species, the fledgling bird must experience adult
songs to reproduce the song perfectly. If the fledgling is deprived
of this input it will grow up to produce the song naturally anyway,
but with marked imperfections. [This is radically different from
how human children acquire and use words. Children will not
naturally develop the word "apple" unless they hear it first and
then repeat it; they will not, without ever hearing it, naturally
develop a degraded version of the word "apple" or of any other
word.) The specific words of human languages are acquired
through exposure and are definitely not inborn.]

Let's turn to what is in some ways a more complex system of

communication. The honeybee system of communication
consist of dances performed on the wall of the hive. In the
1960's Karl von Frisch discovered that the Italian
honeybee performs three types of dances on the wall of the hive
to communicate to other bees the source of nectar.

1) The round dance is performed to indicate that the source of

nectar is within 20 feet of the hive; the richness of the source is
indicated by intensity of movement and by the number of
repetition; direction from the hive is not indicated.

2) The sickle dance is performed to indicate that the source of

nectar is within 20-60 feet from the hive; again, the richness of
the source is indicated by intensity of movement; the angle with
respect to gravity denotes the direction in relation to the sun.

3) The tail-wagging dance is performed to indicate that the

source of nectar is beyond 60 feet from the hive (80 feet in the
Austrian honeybee). It imparts all the information of the sickle
dance plus indicates the precise distance by the number of
repetitions per minute--the slower the repetition the farther the
distance.

The bees system of communication is capable of yielding an

infinite number of different messages, like human language. But
unlike human language, bee communication is confined to a
single subject: the location of nectar with respect to the
hive. Bees can only report the location of nectar recently
detected; they cannot reminisce about a wonderful source of
nectar found last week or convey parental worries about the work
habits of younger generations of bees; they cannot predict nectar
sources. Nor can bees vary their message to convey additional
information which is crucial for finding nectar, such as hardships
discovered en route to a source of nectar. In an experiment, one
bee was tricked by being made to walk in a tube 25 feet to a
particularly rich source of nectar; when she returned to the hive,
this bee performed the tail-wagging dance, expressing that the
honey was hundreds of feet from the hive--which would have
been correct if the bee had spent the same amount of time flying
to the source instead of walking there.

Novice bees returning from their first nectar foray instinctively

know how to perform the dance--just like a newborn baby
instinctively knows how to cry and later instinctively develops the
smile reflex. The bees' dance is basically an instinct-driven
response to an external stimuli-- like our laughter, sneezes, or
tears but unlike our words.

What about ape communication? Many people think that

primates are at a level of development only a few steps below
that of humans. In some parts of Indonesia people believe that
apes don't speak because they know that if they did humans
would put them to work. As it turns out, ape communication is no
closer to human language than the systems of bees and birds--it
is a strictly limited, non-creative system.
First of all, the social context of primate communication in the
wild is completely different than for humans.

a) Among apes communication generally takes place within a

single social group composed of members of both sexes and of
disparate ages, who have spent most or all of their lives
together. Attempts at communication between complete
strangers is very rare.

b) Primates, as a rule, have very good eyesight and much of

their communication is accomplished in gestures or body
language. To show dominance, a primate has a relaxed posture
and walks with a sort of swagger. The timid primate, by contrast,
is tense and walks with its back arched as if to spring away at
any moment.

c) The meaning of gestures differs from species to species, even

slightly from group to group among the same species. Monkeys
use a grimace to signal aggression and hostility, while
chimpanzees bare their teeth as a form of greeting or
reassurance. One species of primates raised within the
community of another species will come to comprehend the other
primate's signals but will only produce the signals of its own
species. This seems to indicate that primate communication
systems, like those of bees and birds, are largely instinctive
rather than learned.

Let's generalize the similarities and differences between

human and animal communication?

Similarity. All systems of communication contain signs, units of

form with specific meaning (words). Human languages contain
sound symbols called words; animal systems use more varied
formal media, but each form is a sign conveying definite
meaning.

a) Foxes have a system of 20 vocalizations.

b) Electric eels have a system of electric pulse signals

c) Spiders have an elaborate system of courtship gestures.

d) Scents and smells serve as signals for many other species.

Differences. For animals, the form of the signal may be visual,
auditory, olfactory, but each animal system differs entirely from
all human languages in six key ways.

1) The signs of animal systems are inborn. Birds, apes and bees
naturally and instinctively develop their species' signals, even if
raised in captivity and away from adults of their own
species. Humans must acquire language through exposure to a
speech community (cf. example of children picking up obscenities
vs. a child getting a new tooth). A Korean child adopted and
raised in America won't spontaneously develop Korean words or
sentences in an all-English speaking environment--or naturally
develop a degraded form of Korean. The words of human
languages are definitely not inborn. Rather, it seems that it is
the capacity to acquire creative language which is innate to
humans. (Linguist Noam Chomsky calls this still mysterious
capacity the LAD, or language acquisition device.) The actual
form of any particular language is definitely not inborn and must
be acquired through prolonged exposure. No linguist disputes the
fact that a child of any ethnic origin can learn any language
flawlessly if raised in a community where that language is
spoken. In acquiring a human language, exposure to a speech
community is all important; racial or ethnic origin in themselves
are completely unimportant.

2) Animal systems are set responses to stimuli. Animal

communication is here and now--used to express something more
or less immediately present in space and time. In other words,
the signs of animal communication are used as indexes. As far
as we know, animals can't communicate about yesterday, about
what might be or what wasn't. In this way animal communication
systems are not unlike the repertoire of sounds of a 12 month old
infant, who has a way of conveying interest in something
immediately present, or conveying emotional responses such as
discontent, loneliness, and a few other basic states of being.

Human language is not purely a reflex triggered automatically by

external stimuli or internal emotional states. Human language
can be used as an index, just like animal communication, but it
may also exhibit what has been termed displacement. Humans
can not only talk about things that are absent but also about
things that have never been. Humans can invent myths and tell
lies. Human language can be used arbitrarily, with the stimulus
deep within the speaker's psyche and the topic not present or
even non-existent. Animal languages can only be used as a
means of pointing to something directly present in time and
space.

3) In animal systems, each signal has one and only one

function. More than one sign cannot share the same
meaning. For example, gorillas in the wild have three types of
signals which express danger, presence of food, and desire for
sex. The gibbon system of communication consists of three
signals: a signal for danger on the ground, another for danger in
a tree, and another for danger in the air; these three do not
overlap in meaning and each meaning can only be expressed by
that one sign.

In contrast the signs in human language usually have more than

one meaning; and each meaning can be expressed by more than
one sign (example with the word eye).

4) Animal signals are not naturally used in novel ways. Animal

systems are essentially non-creative. They cannot be used
metaphorically or figuratively. As far as we know, animals can't
lie or invent myths.

Human language is creative and can be used in novel ways. Two-

year old children can produce novel utterances they have never
heard before (*sheeps, *Daddy gived the book). By three,
children regularly produce sentences they have never heard
before and regularly use words in new, creative ways. Messages
can be sent that have never been heard before by the sender or
by anyone else. Human languages are infinitely creative in
that a potentially limitless number of messages can be sent.

Unlike animals, humans can lie, they can use language to distort
or extend the world around them. Animal communication is
based on a limited inventory of signs. If you learn the set of
signals and their meaning then you know the system completely;
there is no creativity for extending it further. This is not the case
with human language. If you were to learn the entire set of
words in any human language, you would still not know the
language.
5) Because they are non-creative, animal systems are closed
inventories of signs used to express a few specific messages
only. Honeybees, for instance, can communicate only about the
location of a source of nectar. As far as we know, bees do not
communicate about the weather or the beauty of nature, or
gossip about other bees in the hive.

Human language is unlimited in its expressive capacity. Besides

containing word symbols, human languages are based a system
of patterns, or rules, called grammar.

Grammar can be defined as patterns with function but no

specific meaning: phonology (new sound combinations),
morphology (new words), syntax (new sentences). It is the
grammar that allows language signs to be used with
virtually endless creatively.

Animal systems is limited to a strictly defined, finite range of

possible messages--there is never anything new because there is
no abstract level similar to human grammar.

6) Because they are non-creative, animal systems seem not to

change from generation to generation. Actually, they change
extremely slowly, over periods of many thousands of years, but
as a result of genetic drift rather than conscious
innovation. (Compare the dialects of the American redwing
blackbird, and the dialects of the European honeybee).

Because it is a vehicle for creativity, human language is very

changeable. Human language often changes quickly from
generation to generation. If you read Shakespeare, who wrote in
the 16th century, you will note that the use and meaning of many
words has changed. If you were to read Chaucer's Canterbury
Tales, written a few centuries earlier, you would need to consult a
dictionary of Middle English to get through the text. And if you
tried to read Beowulf in the original, you would understand
almost nothing; even a dictionary wouldn't be enough to get you
through the text. The English spoken 1000 years ago would
seem a completely foreign language, at least as unintelligible to
you as German or Icelandic. And roughly 7000 years ago, the
ancestors of such different languages as English, Italian, and
Russian were simply dialects of the one and the same
language. And 40,000 years ago it is possible that the ancestral
forms of such disparate languages as Basque, Navajo, and
Chinese may have been dialects of the same language.

Animal languages also change, but they change with the slowness
of genetic drift. The minute differences between the dialects of
the European honeybee language, by contrast took perhaps
100,000 years to develop. Human language changes more than
that even during the lifetime of each individual speaker (cf.:
computer terminology; such terms as "to impact," "to pig out";
also the changing pronunciation of wh). Human language is
constantly in flux; animal systems are extremely stable.

What conclusions can we draw about naturally occurring

animal communication? We can say that the signs of animal
communication are more like inborn and involuntary human
reactions such as laughter, crying, and sneezing than they are
like human language. As far as we know humans have always
had laughter and tears as natural inborn responses--children
develop them naturally and they don't change from generation to
generation--although, even here, humans can use these
responses deliberately and creatively, or suppress their naturally-
felt urges to express them.

TEACHING ANIMALS CREATIVE LANGUAGE. Animals clearly

do not have creative communication which could be called true
language. But can animals be taught to use creative human-style
languages? This question is still debated by linguists and natural
scientists--but the answer is probably no. Let's look at some of
the evidence for and against the presence of latent creative
linguistic ability in animals.

Some birds have an almost uncanny capacity for

mimicry. Mockingbirds imitate the songs of other birds. Parrots
and mynah birds can render perfect imitations of the human
voice. This shows that the difference between human and animal
languages is not due merely to the specific structure of the
human speech organs which animals lack. Mynah bird can repeat
"dad" and "bad" but cannot produce a novel utterance "dab" by
creatively rearranging the elements in the former two words. In
order to produce "dab" the parrot would have to hear it and
respond to it as a stimulus. A two-year old child, by contrast, can
invent new utterances based on the elements of the ones he has
already heard. A parrot, on the other hand, can repeat "cat" and
"cats", "dog" and "dogs", but if it hears the word "parrot" it will
not be able to produce the form "parrots" by analogy. (There is a
report of an African gray parrot in Chicago who can form plurals
creatively, and says "Hello" and "Good-bye" at the appropriate
time. This seems to be a highly unusual instance if it is true.)

Let's compare how children naturally form plurals of nouns

creatively. One child psychologist performed experiment with
three-year old children: showed a picture and called it a wug,
then showed several of them. The children all produced the
plural "wugs".

This experiment seems to prove that the difference between

human and animal languages is in the brain rather than due to
the specific structure of the speech organs. If bird calls were put
to use by humans they could be used creatively and would cease
being set responses to certain stimuli only. On the contrary, if
human signs are used by parrots, they seem to be used as single
isolated responses to things present at the moment. In other
words, they are indexes (indices) used telegraphically.

What about apes? Can humans teach apes to use language

creatively? Unlike certain birds, apes clearly lack the vocal cord
apparatus necessary to imitate the actual sounds of human
speech. This is irrelevant, though, since the true language organ
is the brain. Is there a latent language capacity in the brains of
our closest evolutionary cousins? Once again, scientists disagree,
although experimentation so far suggests that apes have only
very minor amounts of ability to be creative with human-taught
symbols.

a) In an experiment, two linguists from Berkeley, Beatrice and

Allen Gartner tried to teach a female chimp Washou to
communicate using colored blocks. By the age of 6 Washou had
learned 100 signs but couldn't put them together in novel ways or
use them in the absence of the given stimulus. In other words,
each symbol was used as an index.

b) Certain other experiments however, seem to indicate, that

apes, given extensive teaching and training by skilled scientists,
evince a limited capacity to be creative with symbols. (One ape
supposedly signed that a bagel was a "rock bracelet".) However,
apes seem incapable of acquiring a true grammar--a set of
functional patterns that can express unlimited meaning.

Human children, by contrast, learn language without being

deliberately taught by anyone at all. Even severely retarded
children acquire language spontaneously from adults without any
special teaching. Thus we must conclude that animals--even the
most clever apes, and, yes, even cats, lack the cognitive mental
apparatus to be infinitely creative with communicative
symbols. Humans--all humans--are distinguished from all other
species by an innate capacity acquire grammar and create
language.

And yet, linguists and psychologists still do not understand

precisely what this human language learning apparatus is. The
question remains a subject of intense scientific scrutiny and
debate. One aspect of that debate is--if humans evolved from
apes--then how could creative human language have evolved
from stimulus and response systems like those found in modern
primates. Tomorrow we will discus theories on the origin of
human language.