Talking about Caenorhabditis elegans' social behavior: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20109657 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3955269/ https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9a6b/123a06536a39ab5a9b09a495b76a7ad31573.pdf http://grantome.com/grant/NIH/R01-GM113692-01 There is a lot of documentation, easily accessible,about this topic!!!
Just a quick comment on the argument between Dr. Jensvold and Dr. Harnard regarding language in chimpanzees: Dr. Harnard seemed to want to know why can’t chimpanzees speak language (english, french, etc.) when they can speak sign language. Chimpanzees can communicate with us their thoughts because of sign language, but I feel like Dr. Harnard wanted to argue (I might be mistaken) that chimpanzees can’t talk because their are not smart enough or they lack some capacities (which is the case physiologically) and that they can’t talk the topics we are talking about. For instance they won’t ever speak of science or engineering. But we can’t EXPECT them to speak about that even in sign language. They are similar to us, but they are NOT us, and they never will be. As Dr. Jensvold said, they have evolved to a specific ecological, sociological\”political” environment. Let’s not forget that about 7 million years separate us from them. They are not capable of language and complex expression of what they think. But they have other abilities, such as best memory when doing the tactile screen number test (where the chimps must memorise the numbers in order in not even a second from a flashing screen). The humans fails miserably compared to the chimps on this taks. This is one example of how chimps are DIFFERENT from us in terms of cognition, which doesn’t mean that are not as smart as us. Obviously, I lack a lot of knoledge to argue that they are as smart as us. That was not a quick comment after all.
My point is more about language than about chimps (and has nothing to do with modality: oral or gestural).
Every existing language (and almost certainly also every past language) can say anything and everything that can be said in any other language: You can express any subject/predicate proposition. You can say anything that can be said.
So the question is, if chimps have (gestural) language, why don't they use it?
If by gestural you mean sign language, then chimps do use sign language between them. A chimp can and will sign to another chimp is this one is for example in the way and if that other chimp do use sign language as well. A chimpanzee will stop signing to a non-signing chimp after a few tries, realizing that this mode of communication doesn’t work with that specific individual. But, chimps will always use their body language all the time between them as well as with us. I think we can compare that to someone trying to speak to a deaf person. Even though articulated language is more easy to use and is the norm, with this individual it doesn’t work, so we will adapt to it (using body language ourselves or sign language if we know it). So chimps do use language apropriate to the situation in my opinion, whether we are speaking of body or sign language. In the case of articulated language, they do not have the physilogical apparatus to say articulated words as we do, so we should not expect that from them, and we should not lower their cognitive capacites in comparison to us because of that.
Stevan - I am so confused by what you mean that they don't use it. The research is so well documented in the ways that they use it. eg.
Jensvold, M.L., Wilding, L., Schulze, S.M. (2014). Signs of Communication in Chimpanzees. In G. Witzany (Ed.), Biocommunication of animals (pp. 7-19). Dordrecht: Springer. Jensvold, M.L. (2014). Experimental Conversations: Sign Language Studies with Chimpanzees. In N. Gontier & O. Pombo (Eds.), The evolution of social communication in primates – a multidisciplinary approach (pp. 63-82). Switzerland: Springer. Leeds, C.A., Jensvold, M.L. (2013). The communicative functions of five signing chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Pragmatics & Cognition. Leitten, L., Jensvold, M.L., Fouts, R., & Wallin, J. (2012). Contingency in requests of signing chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Interaction Studies. Jensvold, M.L.A., & Gardner, R.A. (2000). Interactive use of sign language by cross-fostered chimpanzees. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 114, 335-346. Gardner, R. Allen, Beatrix T. Gardner, and Thomas E. Van Cantfort, eds. Teaching sign language to chimpanzees . Suny Press, 1989. Gardner, R. Allen, and Beatrix T. Gardner. "A vocabulary test for chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)." Journal of Comparative Psychology 98.4 (1984): 381. Bodamer, Mark D., and R. Allen Gardner. "How cross-fostered chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) initiate and maintain conversations." Journal of Comparative Psychology 116.1 (2002): 12. Chalcraft, Valerie J., and R. Allen Gardner. "Cross-fostered chimpanzees modulate signs of American Sign Language." Gesture 5.1 (2005): 107-132.
There is no doubt that chimps can communicate, with one another and with us. They also communicate with the signs they have learned.
Whether chimps are communicating nonverbally or using signs, humans can usually "translate" what they are communicating into a sentence in English.
When it is French that is being translated into English it is safe to assume that the French speaker really meant what the translation says. And that the French-speaker could have said anything else that can be said in English. The same is true of sign language -- when it is spoken by a human sign-language speaker.
Is all this likewise true of what chimps can and do say and mean in sign language?
(It is not the communication, or the chimps' intention and knowledge that I wonder about. Not the message but the medium. There is no human language in which you can say this, but not that. And in principle, in any language, you can get from any this to that, if you can say this at all. Is this true in chimps? And if not, why not? Could it be that our linguistic translations -- though not our interpretations of what is being communivated -- are somehow misleading?)
I'm not sure either to understand exactly. Even if I'm not fully convince that "There is no human language in which you can say this, but not that", I can still give you this assumption as a starting point. However, when you ask why chimps don't use their gestural language, suggesting that if they have it and "can say this" they should be able to "get from any this to that", I'm not sure tu understand your idea behind this question. I mean, even if I conceid that in "any [human] language, you can get from any this to that", that does not mean that every human who can have some use of his language can indeed "say anything and everything that can be said in any other language". So, not only "our linguistic translations [...] are [or could be] somehow misleading" or inapropriate, but even if chimps don’t use their gestural language to "express any subject/predicate proposition" and "say anything that can be said", it does not imply that no possible chimps could be able to do it with his language.
The question I asked Ms. Jensvold was if she observed a syntactic structure in the use of sign language by primates and if some of them ever used grammatical signs, as “for” or “but”.
In his article “the mood of a worm”, Emmons (2012) reviews the litterature on nematocin, a peptide present in nematodes that have behavioral effects similar to those of oxytocin and vasopressin in humans (sexual behaviors and water/salt balance). In humans, those two hormones are often associated with certain emotions wich translate in observable behavior. Nematodes that are nematocin-defficient don’t avoid raw salt like the nematocin-regular ones, putting them at serious risk of dehydration and possible death. If a normal nematode learns to avoid raw salt because of the harm that it does him, is this proof that it feels something (i.e. it is sentient)?
Je n'avais aucune idée que les chimpanzés pouvaient utiliser le langage des signes. Une question a été posée concernant ce qu'ils exprimaient à l'aide des signes et j'ai trouvé très surprenant de savoir qu'ils parlaient de leur journée, de leurs 'sentiments'. Je dois avouer que la question sur le fait qu'ils n'utilisent pas ce langage pour dire n'importe quoi (tout) m'a également rendue un peu confuse. Il est vrai que cela s'apparente plutôt à un mode de communication. Or, le fait que l'être humain ait cette capacité cognitive dite 'supérieure' ne devrait pas justifier leur supériorité, de la même façon que la géolocation des chauves-souris ne justifierait pas leur supériorité par rapport aux autres espèces, y compris l'humain.
Talking about Caenorhabditis elegans' social behavior: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20109657
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3955269/
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9a6b/123a06536a39ab5a9b09a495b76a7ad31573.pdf
http://grantome.com/grant/NIH/R01-GM113692-01
There is a lot of documentation, easily accessible,about this topic!!!
Just a quick comment on the argument between Dr. Jensvold and Dr. Harnard regarding language in chimpanzees: Dr. Harnard seemed to want to know why can’t chimpanzees speak language (english, french, etc.) when they can speak sign language. Chimpanzees can communicate with us their thoughts because of sign language, but I feel like Dr. Harnard wanted to argue (I might be mistaken) that chimpanzees can’t talk because their are not smart enough or they lack some capacities (which is the case physiologically) and that they can’t talk the topics we are talking about. For instance they won’t ever speak of science or engineering. But we can’t EXPECT them to speak about that even in sign language. They are similar to us, but they are NOT us, and they never will be. As Dr. Jensvold said, they have evolved to a specific ecological, sociological\”political” environment. Let’s not forget that about 7 million years separate us from them. They are not capable of language and complex expression of what they think. But they have other abilities, such as best memory when doing the tactile screen number test (where the chimps must memorise the numbers in order in not even a second from a flashing screen). The humans fails miserably compared to the chimps on this taks. This is one example of how chimps are DIFFERENT from us in terms of cognition, which doesn’t mean that are not as smart as us. Obviously, I lack a lot of knoledge to argue that they are as smart as us.
ReplyDeleteThat was not a quick comment after all.
My point is more about language than about chimps (and has nothing to do with modality: oral or gestural).
ReplyDeleteEvery existing language (and almost certainly also every past language) can say anything and everything that can be said in any other language: You can express any subject/predicate proposition. You can say anything that can be said.
So the question is, if chimps have (gestural) language, why don't they use it?
If by gestural you mean sign language, then chimps do use sign language between them. A chimp can and will sign to another chimp is this one is for example in the way and if that other chimp do use sign language as well. A chimpanzee will stop signing to a non-signing chimp after a few tries, realizing that this mode of communication doesn’t work with that specific individual. But, chimps will always use their body language all the time between them as well as with us. I think we can compare that to someone trying to speak to a deaf person. Even though articulated language is more easy to use and is the norm, with this individual it doesn’t work, so we will adapt to it (using body language ourselves or sign language if we know it). So chimps do use language apropriate to the situation in my opinion, whether we are speaking of body or sign language. In the case of articulated language, they do not have the physilogical apparatus to say articulated words as we do, so we should not expect that from them, and we should not lower their cognitive capacites in comparison to us because of that.
DeleteStevan - I am so confused by what you mean that they don't use it. The research is so well documented in the ways that they use it. eg.
DeleteJensvold, M.L., Wilding, L., Schulze, S.M. (2014). Signs of Communication in Chimpanzees. In G. Witzany (Ed.), Biocommunication of animals (pp. 7-19). Dordrecht: Springer.
Jensvold, M.L. (2014). Experimental Conversations: Sign Language Studies with Chimpanzees. In N. Gontier & O. Pombo (Eds.), The evolution of social communication in primates – a multidisciplinary approach (pp. 63-82). Switzerland: Springer.
Leeds, C.A., Jensvold, M.L. (2013). The communicative functions of five signing chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Pragmatics & Cognition.
Leitten, L., Jensvold, M.L., Fouts, R., & Wallin, J. (2012). Contingency in requests of signing chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Interaction Studies.
Jensvold, M.L.A., & Gardner, R.A. (2000). Interactive use of sign language by cross-fostered chimpanzees. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 114, 335-346.
Gardner, R. Allen, Beatrix T. Gardner, and Thomas E. Van Cantfort, eds. Teaching sign language to chimpanzees . Suny Press, 1989.
Gardner, R. Allen, and Beatrix T. Gardner. "A vocabulary test for chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)." Journal of Comparative Psychology 98.4 (1984): 381.
Bodamer, Mark D., and R. Allen Gardner. "How cross-fostered chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) initiate and maintain conversations." Journal of Comparative Psychology 116.1 (2002): 12.
Chalcraft, Valerie J., and R. Allen Gardner. "Cross-fostered chimpanzees modulate signs of American Sign Language." Gesture 5.1 (2005): 107-132.
Hi Mary Lee! Thanks for replying.
DeleteThere is no doubt that chimps can communicate, with one another and with us. They also communicate with the signs they have learned.
Whether chimps are communicating nonverbally or using signs, humans can usually "translate" what they are communicating into a sentence in English.
When it is French that is being translated into English it is safe to assume that the French speaker really meant what the translation says. And that the French-speaker could have said anything else that can be said in English. The same is true of sign language -- when it is spoken by a human sign-language speaker.
Is all this likewise true of what chimps can and do say and mean in sign language?
(It is not the communication, or the chimps' intention and knowledge that I wonder about. Not the message but the medium. There is no human language in which you can say this, but not that. And in principle, in any language, you can get from any this to that, if you can say this at all. Is this true in chimps? And if not, why not? Could it be that our linguistic translations -- though not our interpretations of what is being communivated -- are somehow misleading?)
I'm not sure either to understand exactly. Even if I'm not fully convince that "There is no human language in which you can say this, but not that", I can still give you this assumption as a starting point. However, when you ask why chimps don't use their gestural language, suggesting that if they have it and "can say this" they should be able to "get from any this to that", I'm not sure tu understand your idea behind this question. I mean, even if I conceid that in "any [human] language, you can get from any this to that", that does not mean that every human who can have some use of his language can indeed "say anything and everything that can be said in any other language". So, not only "our linguistic translations [...] are [or could be] somehow misleading" or inapropriate, but even if chimps don’t use their gestural language to "express any subject/predicate proposition" and "say anything that can be said", it does not imply that no possible chimps could be able to do it with his language.
DeleteThe question I asked Ms. Jensvold was if she observed a syntactic structure in the use of sign language by primates and if some of them ever used grammatical signs, as “for” or “but”.
ReplyDeleteIn his article “the mood of a worm”, Emmons (2012) reviews the litterature on nematocin, a peptide present in nematodes that have behavioral effects similar to those of oxytocin and vasopressin in humans (sexual behaviors and water/salt balance). In humans, those two hormones are often associated with certain emotions wich translate in observable behavior. Nematodes that are nematocin-defficient don’t avoid raw salt like the nematocin-regular ones, putting them at serious risk of dehydration and possible death. If a normal nematode learns to avoid raw salt because of the harm that it does him, is this proof that it feels something (i.e. it is sentient)?
ReplyDeleteJe n'avais aucune idée que les chimpanzés pouvaient utiliser le langage des signes. Une question a été posée concernant ce qu'ils exprimaient à l'aide des signes et j'ai trouvé très surprenant de savoir qu'ils parlaient de leur journée, de leurs 'sentiments'. Je dois avouer que la question sur le fait qu'ils n'utilisent pas ce langage pour dire n'importe quoi (tout) m'a également rendue un peu confuse. Il est vrai que cela s'apparente plutôt à un mode de communication. Or, le fait que l'être humain ait cette capacité cognitive dite 'supérieure' ne devrait pas justifier leur supériorité, de la même façon que la géolocation des chauves-souris ne justifierait pas leur supériorité par rapport aux autres espèces, y compris l'humain.
ReplyDelete