Free-Photos at Pixabay
– Rev José Mario O Mandía
A long time back, we spoke about the relationship between reality, knowledge and language (Bite-Size Philosophy 4). We feel the natural need, even when we were babies, to communicate. At that stage, we could only cry or laugh. Eventually, we learn to express our thoughts to others.
It seems that animals also have language. Can animals talk? Experiments have been conducted on apes to see whether they can speak the way man speaks. The results of those experiments point out differences between human language and the “language” of other primates. Is there any similarity between the sounds men and apes make? Yes. They are both signs of something else.
The differences, however, are greater. Below are some of those differences.
1. One of the differences scientists have observed is that the same species of apes emit the same kinds of sounds wherever they are found. Dogs — whether they be in America, Russia or China — bark in the same way when they are wounded. Human beings, however, differ in the sounds they use for the same thing. “Koira,” “perro,” “chó,” “mbwa” all refer to the same reality (“dog” in English) in different places (Finland, Spain, Vietnam and Kenya, respectively).
This leads us to think that the sounds that apes emit are inborn, instinctive and involuntary. For human beings the capacity to make sounds is inborn, but the signs that men use are not: they are learned from others or are invented. Hence, they are voluntary, are arbitrary and thus have great flexibility, in contrast with ape sounds which are limited and fixed.
The sounds that animals use are determined biologically, while human language is a cultural product and is transmitted socially.
2. Ape language only expresses emotions, sensations, or reactions to stimuli: they do not represent things. Human language refers not only to material things but also to abstract concepts (e.g. justice, love).
Moreover, animals have to be directly in contact (see, hear, smell, taste, feel) with the stimulus to emit the sounds. Humans can speak even in the absence of the thing they are speaking of (yes, humans gossip, animals don’t).
3. Moreover, human beings can reflect on their language. This, of course, is possible because of man’s intellect.
Western Washington University professor of linguistics Edward Vajda summarizes the differences in six key points:
1. In animals the signs are inborn. In humans, the capacity to be creative with signs is inborn, but the signs (words) themselves are acquired culturally.
2. Animals communicate through fixed or predetermined responses to stimuli. In humans, communication is not predetermined or fixed.
3. Among animals each sign has one and only one function; each meaning can be expressed only in one way. For human beings, signs often have multiple functions; one meaning can be expressed in many ways.
4. In animals, the meanings of the signs used do not change. Humans, on the other hand, are creative, and can adapt language to new situations.
5. Animals have a limited inventory of signs. Human beings can coin new terms and grammar (rules of syntax) allows a virtually unlimited number of messages to be constructed
6. Change of signs among animals is extremely slow. In humans, the change can be rapid.
Follow
