Bilingual speakers often mix the two languages that they know, as we have discussed extensively in class. This phenomenon has been noticed by Welsh speakers who often times slip English into their speech. Language purists claim that this mixture of Welsh and English is “watering down” the Welsh language and Welsh speakers who talk in Welglish (which is an entirely made up word) sometimes feel guilty for diluting their native language. This belief that mixing languages weakens them seems to be fairly common among language purists across cultures. I remember having an analogous conversation about Spanglish earlier in this quarter. However, in Wales, many language campaigners and academics believe that by slipping English into their speech, people are actually helping sustain the Welsh language and are in fact sustaining it. They maintain that the usage of English words in Welsh is merely a natural change in the language and “the fact that a language was constantly changing proved it was alive.”
I thought that this perspective has some really interesting consequences and raises some really intriguing questions. What about languages which haven’t changed in centuries, like Icelandic? Are they still alive? Do the language purists have any merit in opposing mixing languages? Is this mixing of languages just another example of the hegemony of the English language? And then at the root of this issue, is it actually beneficial to have English slowly seeping into Welsh, or any other language for that matter?
The first question posed above challenges the claim that live languages must be dynamic and adaptive to the times. In other words, they must change to be alive. The most immediate counterexample that I could think of was the Icelandic language, which I wrote about nearly a month and a half ago. Not a single word from the oldest preserved Icelandic texts written around 1100 CE has changed. Nonetheless people continue to speak Icelandic and it’s the primary language of Iceland and so it’s almost definitely alive. However, although it seems to be a static language, I think it is changing and evolving. Although the words from 1100 CE are all the same and grammatical constructions are the same, today there are some new words in Icelandic to describe new languages. The government either uses old words or coins new words based upon Icelandic roots to describe new concepts, like the Internet or a telephone. They just don’t use other languages whatsoever. So, although Icelandic entirely resists foreign influence, it slowly adds new words and concepts. Similarly, I think that all live languages must change by necessity simply because people and societies and cultures change. By our nature, we create and innovate, and these creations and innovations often cannot be described by current constructions and vocabulary. So, languages must develop new constructions. Otherwise, the language will become obsolete, which is basically a polite way of saying that it will die. Therefore, I think that mutability is a legitimate criterion for deeming a language alive.
What about the language purists? I think because of our recognition of the importance of diversity, we tend to instinctively scoff at language purists who try to protect languages from outside influences (at least I know I do). However, they do have some valid points and concerns. Languages are an integral part of their cultures and the use of English threatens to slowly erode languages, and thereby erode their cultures. Although the use of English seems innocuous and this destructive process may be a long and gradual, it still poses a threat. Although diversity is great and commendable, it shouldn’t come at the cost of severely crippling a culture. So, the language purists have some justification in their attempts to protect their native language from foreign languages and particularly from English. After all, English has regularly been a hegemonic influence in the past because of colonial history and its widespread use.
So, the question remains, is this hegemonic influence a good thing? It certainly has benefits and costs. But do the benefits outweigh the costs? By hegemonic influence, I mean that English seeps into other languages and sometimes replaces them entirely. As for benefits, by having elements of English in a wider group of people, or just by having a wider group of people speaking English, international and intercultural communication becomes that much easier, which is tremendously important in our ever-globalizing world. Also, many would argue that this process of incorporating foreign languages is a natural one. I don’t think that this is necessarily a benefit as it’s a fallacy of logic (Argumentum ad naturam) to claim that something is good simply because it’s natural. As for costs, we have the language purists’ concerns that the introduction of English into another language diminishes that language’s integrity. By diluting the language, the introduction of English effectively dilutes the native culture as well. So I think this is the trade-off that the Welsh face by mixing English and their native language: Increased intercultural communication in exchange for giving up some amount of cultural identity.
However, I think that they can control just how much of their cultural identity they will lose by using English. As long as they are prudent about maintaining the usage of Welsh, they will retain the important parts of their Welsh identity. They just need to be careful that English doesn’t overrun their native language. If the Welsh act accordingly, as I think they will, I’m fairly sure that they will reap the benefits of using English without giving up anything significant. So, although the language purists may still not be enthralled, I think that the academics and language campaigners referenced in this article are on the right track. After all, languages do change and the world doesn’t fall apart every time that they do.
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/wales-news/2007/11/24/how-a-few-english-words-can-help-to-keep-our-welsh-language-alive-91466-20153846/
Monday, November 26, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
Blog 14 - BKA (Better Known As)...
In the new computer age, young people are beginning to develop and cultivate a new form of language: so called “net-lingo.” To all the e-mailers and IMers reading this, you all know the meanings of various abbreviations like lol, btw, and rofl among many, many others. These shorthand methods using abbreviations seem to have risen out of a desire to be more efficient at the computer and spend less time typing to convey a message. These abbreviations and the choppy language seem to leaking into more formal writing. Even in schools, some people have begun to notice “more of these abbreviations creeping into students’ answer sheets” and into formal writing. However, people who aren’t acquainted with this “net-lingo” seem perturbed by this unconscious and instinctive use of casual abbreviation. As with everything, there is a time and place for “net-lingo” and there’s also a time and place for more formal language and constructions.
Which leads to the interesting fact that people talk differently when they talk to different people. I find myself doing this often. When I talk to friends from within the city of Boston, I relax my language immensely and let the beast of my Boston accent out of its cage. However, when I talk to friends of mine from the suburbs, I retighten my language, and speak without a discernable accent (I think/hope). This shift is entirely subconscious and instinctive. I’m not trying to speak differently; I just do. I notice my mom doing similar things. My mother knows more than 5 languages, 3 of which are Indian languages and Hindi is her native tongue. When she speaks English to Americans she speaks without almost any accent, only occasionally using British-English intonations and pronunciations (for example, she says Aah-loo-min-ium instead of Ah-loo-min-um). But, when she talks to other Indians, she speaks English with a massive Indian accent, which you might expect Apu to use on the Simpsons. I asked her about that shift once, and she was actually unaware of it. People do the same thing by switching between languages automatically. When I talk to my parents in Hindi, I don’t do so consciously. I think several people in class have mentioned encountering this phenomenon in their own experiences. But I guess a lot of people haven’t yet developed the skills or instinct to use more formal language when it’s appropriate. Instead, because some people are so accustomed to typing without capital letters or with crazy abbreviations, they type accordingly in all messages that they write on the computer, whether they’re writing an email to their friends or to their teachers.
I think another interesting aspect to this new “net-lingo” is that in some ways, people are reshaping English by their use of the Internet. There are even dictionaries for all of the abbreviations used in emails and messages (including one’s which I’ve never heard of and would never use, like GSYJDWYMH, which apparently means Good Seeing You, Just Don’t Wear Your Monkey Hat; I don’t get it either). There’s currently a fairly standardized set of abbreviations and abbreviating techniques, but on the Internet the youth is revolutionizing these techniques and processes. Fortunately, as the Hindu article notes, “The language [of English] is unlikely to ‘lose’ anything by the new changes, though. ‘The resilience and adaptability of English is its strength.”
http://www.hindu.com/2007/11/11/stories/2007111150890200.htm
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/abbreviations.htm
http://www.netlingo.com/emailsh.cfm
Which leads to the interesting fact that people talk differently when they talk to different people. I find myself doing this often. When I talk to friends from within the city of Boston, I relax my language immensely and let the beast of my Boston accent out of its cage. However, when I talk to friends of mine from the suburbs, I retighten my language, and speak without a discernable accent (I think/hope). This shift is entirely subconscious and instinctive. I’m not trying to speak differently; I just do. I notice my mom doing similar things. My mother knows more than 5 languages, 3 of which are Indian languages and Hindi is her native tongue. When she speaks English to Americans she speaks without almost any accent, only occasionally using British-English intonations and pronunciations (for example, she says Aah-loo-min-ium instead of Ah-loo-min-um). But, when she talks to other Indians, she speaks English with a massive Indian accent, which you might expect Apu to use on the Simpsons. I asked her about that shift once, and she was actually unaware of it. People do the same thing by switching between languages automatically. When I talk to my parents in Hindi, I don’t do so consciously. I think several people in class have mentioned encountering this phenomenon in their own experiences. But I guess a lot of people haven’t yet developed the skills or instinct to use more formal language when it’s appropriate. Instead, because some people are so accustomed to typing without capital letters or with crazy abbreviations, they type accordingly in all messages that they write on the computer, whether they’re writing an email to their friends or to their teachers.
I think another interesting aspect to this new “net-lingo” is that in some ways, people are reshaping English by their use of the Internet. There are even dictionaries for all of the abbreviations used in emails and messages (including one’s which I’ve never heard of and would never use, like GSYJDWYMH, which apparently means Good Seeing You, Just Don’t Wear Your Monkey Hat; I don’t get it either). There’s currently a fairly standardized set of abbreviations and abbreviating techniques, but on the Internet the youth is revolutionizing these techniques and processes. Fortunately, as the Hindu article notes, “The language [of English] is unlikely to ‘lose’ anything by the new changes, though. ‘The resilience and adaptability of English is its strength.”
http://www.hindu.com/2007/11/11/stories/2007111150890200.htm
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/abbreviations.htm
http://www.netlingo.com/emailsh.cfm
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Blog 13 - Whale Songs
In keeping with the discussion of non-human species that use forms of language, I thought it would be interesting to check out an article about the methods that whales use to communicate. Researchers from the University of Queensland’s Humpback Whale Research Collaboration (HARC) project claim that they have discovered at least 34 different types of whale calls. The researchers recorded the whales’ sounds by attaching underwater microphones to buoys about 1 kilometer off of the coast of Queensland. Because sight and smell are relatively limited underwater, the scientists postulate that marine animals depend upon sounds far more than land-based relatives. They expected to find about 10 different vocalizations. However, because the whales’ calls apparently vary both in length and in sound, they have a fairly larger repertoire. Their calls range from less than a second to over 10 seconds. The whales also produced high-pitched squeaks, shrieks, cries, purrs, groans, low yaps, and wops. Although only male humpback whales are famed for their “whale songs,” females and calves also communicate through these sorts of sounds.
Interestingly, the researchers think that they have been able to decode some of the whales’ communication. For instance, low purring by males seems to be an attempt to woo desirable females. High frequency screams seem to be associated with disagreements, especially as males try to escort females during migration. The wop sounds seem to be used by mothers and calves to identify their locations to one another. Although Dr. Rebecca Dunlop, one of the main researchers tied to the project, “stopped short of defining the whale communication as language,” she still noted that their communication shared some commonalities with human conversation. Which leads to the question of how long ago was the concept of communication in the form of some primitive set of verbal symbols developed in the brain? Also, the researchers’ investigation into the whales’ communicative abilities opens up the question of whether or not the skills of communication and language are evolved.
Scientists currently believe that whales’ and humans’ share common ancestors from 50-60 million years ago. I can then think of two possible reasons why whales and humans share some communicative abilities. Either a) mental constructs existed in our ancestors’ minds 50-60 million years ago or b) whales’ and humans’ ancestors developed these constructs independently. This second theory seems rather far fetched, because the random generation through evolution of two complicated and similar mental constructs seems fairly unlikely. So again, some species other than humans seem to share our capacity for communication. Nonetheless, it still seems to be an issue of degree. The researchers for HARC seemed amazed by the whales’ “vocabulary” of 34 vocalizations, but humans easily accumulate vocabularies of over tens of thousands of words. So perhaps the only thing separating our communication from the whales’ is the complexity of our language. But if it’s a question of degree, where do we draw the line? Where does animalistic communication end and human language start?
Pranav
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSSYD59010
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-11-07-voa15.cfm
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22714366-2,00.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html
Interestingly, the researchers think that they have been able to decode some of the whales’ communication. For instance, low purring by males seems to be an attempt to woo desirable females. High frequency screams seem to be associated with disagreements, especially as males try to escort females during migration. The wop sounds seem to be used by mothers and calves to identify their locations to one another. Although Dr. Rebecca Dunlop, one of the main researchers tied to the project, “stopped short of defining the whale communication as language,” she still noted that their communication shared some commonalities with human conversation. Which leads to the question of how long ago was the concept of communication in the form of some primitive set of verbal symbols developed in the brain? Also, the researchers’ investigation into the whales’ communicative abilities opens up the question of whether or not the skills of communication and language are evolved.
Scientists currently believe that whales’ and humans’ share common ancestors from 50-60 million years ago. I can then think of two possible reasons why whales and humans share some communicative abilities. Either a) mental constructs existed in our ancestors’ minds 50-60 million years ago or b) whales’ and humans’ ancestors developed these constructs independently. This second theory seems rather far fetched, because the random generation through evolution of two complicated and similar mental constructs seems fairly unlikely. So again, some species other than humans seem to share our capacity for communication. Nonetheless, it still seems to be an issue of degree. The researchers for HARC seemed amazed by the whales’ “vocabulary” of 34 vocalizations, but humans easily accumulate vocabularies of over tens of thousands of words. So perhaps the only thing separating our communication from the whales’ is the complexity of our language. But if it’s a question of degree, where do we draw the line? Where does animalistic communication end and human language start?
Pranav
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSSYD59010
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-11-07-voa15.cfm
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22714366-2,00.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html
Monday, November 5, 2007
Blog 12 - Who Needs Government? Belgium Doesn't...
Belgium is currently entrenched in its worst political crisis in its 177-year existence. Due to spats between Francophone and Dutch-Speaking politicians, the winners of the spring election have been unable to form a governmental coalition. So essentially, for the past 149 days, the nation of Belgium has been operating without a government. The dispute arises from longstanding tensions within the country caused by its linguistic “fault-lines.” The country was split into three linguistically based federated regions in the 1980s: the richer Dutch speaking northern region of Flanders, the poorer Francophone southern region of Wallonia, and the officially bilingual but mostly Francophone capital of Brussels. About 60% of the country speaks Dutch and about the remaining 40% speak French.
Within the two monolingual regions, people who speak the non-preferred languages often feel like “second class citizens,” particularly in Flanders where the Flemish have become increasing assertive about the use of Dutch language. For instance, in Flanders, Francophone associations don’t receive subsidies, and they cannot hold meetings on the premises of the city council. The government has even banned the use of French on playgrounds in local school. Particularly in Flanders, civil servants only speak the official language. The linguistic tensions between the northern and southern region has caused Flemish politicians to demand more freedom for self-rule, now beginning to suggest splitting Belgium into two countries with Brussels as a sort of independent “‘European’ capital.” Yet people in Wallonia would suffer from this separation, because of the regions high unemployment, post-industrial decay, and weak regional identity. As a Flemish engineer said, “The differences are too big now. The two sides will never get along. The future is two countries.” So, at this crucial juncture in Belgian history, the nation is in a state of crisis
One suggestion by a mayor of a small town in Flanders is simply that Francophones in Belgium ought to learn Dutch. He says, “If I moved to Paris, I would find it normal to learn French.” He raises a fairly basic question: When moving to a foreign country, must you learn the dominant language in this country? This question has come up a couple times in class, and it’s definitely a tough one to tackle. Learning the dominant language of a country that you’re coming to certainly has its perks, but people don’t HAVE to learn it. It’s a choice with positives and negatives. The government can be oriented towards one language over another, but restricting certain basic rights, such as the right to assembly on public property, is simply excessive. By infringing upon these rights, the government doesn’t achieve anything and it unnecessarily and unfairly limits freedoms.
However, I think this story has to do with an even more fundamental question: Can an officially bilingual state exist? The case of Belgium seems to suggest that eventually such states devolve and disputes arise that cannot be resolved. In the end, the effort required to keep a bilingual state intact is simply not worth it. According to a Belgium graphic designer, “If we all spoke both languages [which is unfeasible in a large nation] Belgium would have a future for sure, but we don’t.” I don’t think this line of reasoning is entirely valid. A bilingual state definitely poses challenges, but I think it is a possibility, as long as the government is scrupulous in offering opportunities and services in both languages. Problems will almost certainly occur but they can be solved and crises can be averted (See Canada for an example). Now is it beneficial to have a bilingual state? If a nation has significant population of two societies with different languages, then I think it certainly is beneficial because languages are synonymous with cultures and by promoting both languages, both cultures are preserved and enhanced. So I hope that Belgium remains intact and solves this crisis. The people of Flanders and Wallonia will both be better off for it.
A-a
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/be.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=2NPCKSNCA3QYFQFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/08/05/wbelgium105.xml
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/273175
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/04/europe/EU-GEN-EU-Government-Talks.php
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJEtuppvEPtbl1GhR98F_zZKbp0A
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/06/wbelg106.xml
Within the two monolingual regions, people who speak the non-preferred languages often feel like “second class citizens,” particularly in Flanders where the Flemish have become increasing assertive about the use of Dutch language. For instance, in Flanders, Francophone associations don’t receive subsidies, and they cannot hold meetings on the premises of the city council. The government has even banned the use of French on playgrounds in local school. Particularly in Flanders, civil servants only speak the official language. The linguistic tensions between the northern and southern region has caused Flemish politicians to demand more freedom for self-rule, now beginning to suggest splitting Belgium into two countries with Brussels as a sort of independent “‘European’ capital.” Yet people in Wallonia would suffer from this separation, because of the regions high unemployment, post-industrial decay, and weak regional identity. As a Flemish engineer said, “The differences are too big now. The two sides will never get along. The future is two countries.” So, at this crucial juncture in Belgian history, the nation is in a state of crisis
One suggestion by a mayor of a small town in Flanders is simply that Francophones in Belgium ought to learn Dutch. He says, “If I moved to Paris, I would find it normal to learn French.” He raises a fairly basic question: When moving to a foreign country, must you learn the dominant language in this country? This question has come up a couple times in class, and it’s definitely a tough one to tackle. Learning the dominant language of a country that you’re coming to certainly has its perks, but people don’t HAVE to learn it. It’s a choice with positives and negatives. The government can be oriented towards one language over another, but restricting certain basic rights, such as the right to assembly on public property, is simply excessive. By infringing upon these rights, the government doesn’t achieve anything and it unnecessarily and unfairly limits freedoms.
However, I think this story has to do with an even more fundamental question: Can an officially bilingual state exist? The case of Belgium seems to suggest that eventually such states devolve and disputes arise that cannot be resolved. In the end, the effort required to keep a bilingual state intact is simply not worth it. According to a Belgium graphic designer, “If we all spoke both languages [which is unfeasible in a large nation] Belgium would have a future for sure, but we don’t.” I don’t think this line of reasoning is entirely valid. A bilingual state definitely poses challenges, but I think it is a possibility, as long as the government is scrupulous in offering opportunities and services in both languages. Problems will almost certainly occur but they can be solved and crises can be averted (See Canada for an example). Now is it beneficial to have a bilingual state? If a nation has significant population of two societies with different languages, then I think it certainly is beneficial because languages are synonymous with cultures and by promoting both languages, both cultures are preserved and enhanced. So I hope that Belgium remains intact and solves this crisis. The people of Flanders and Wallonia will both be better off for it.
A-a
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/be.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=2NPCKSNCA3QYFQFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/08/05/wbelgium105.xml
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/273175
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/04/europe/EU-GEN-EU-Government-Talks.php
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJEtuppvEPtbl1GhR98F_zZKbp0A
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/06/wbelg106.xml
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Blog 11 - How Special are We?
I’m afraid that in today’s blog, I’m essentially writing an obituary of sorts. On Tuesday night, Washoe, a chimpanzee, died of natural causes at age 42. Through her life, Washoe was no ordinary chimp. Born and captured in West Africa, Washoe was originally used for research done by the US Air Force. She was soon adopted by psychologists Beatrix and R. Allen Gardner, who treated her like a deaf human child. Washoe started learning American Sign Language that year. According to many scientists, she was the first non-human primate to learn sign language.
This event of teaching a non-human a human language challenged some of the fundamental theories of language, especially the basic assertion that language is core to the human experience. However, if other species can learn language as well, what makes us so special? Is it a question of degree and that we can learn and use language far better than any other species? Or perhaps then language simply isn’t central to our humanity. To resolve these questions and protect their theories, scientists began to question the scientific validity of the Washoe’s acquisition of ASL.
On first glance, Washoe seemed to clearly have a grasp of language. She could reliably use 132 signs. For Washoe, reliability meant that a sign had to be used appropriately and seen by 3 observers on 3 spontaneous instances. It then had to be seen 15 days in a row. So, her vocabulary was fairly extensive. Also, Washoe could combine signs meaningfully. According to Wikipedia (so this might be a little dubious, but it seemed pretty cool anyway), although scientists termed toilets and refrigerators “Potty Chairs” and “Cold Boxes” respectively, Washoe called them “Dirty Goods” and “Open Food Drinks.” So she also showed the capacity to manipulate signs to generate meaning. She apparently also signed “Water Bird” spontaneously after seeing a swan, although this claim seems to be fairly unsubstantiated. According to one of the researchers, Washoe was even able to teach a fellow chimp, Loulis, some ASL without human guidance, and these two chimps could apparently converse at a basic level.
Despite all of these seemingly clear examples of the usage of language, many scientists doubt that Washoe was truly using language. Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker have suggested that Washoe was merely imitating her human handlers and that she wasn’t independently using language. Several other researchers have attempted to teach chimpanzees language in more scientific settings, most notably Herbert Terrace, who tried to teach a chimp named Nim Chimpsky (incidentally, I think this is the best name of all time) ASL. Terrace found that Nim Chimpsky couldn’t spontaneously sign. Rather, he learned an elaborate system to beg for food and rewards.
So the question remains: Exactly how much “language” did Washoe learn? Or did she learn language at all? If she did learn language, and if other chimps are also therefore capable of acquiring language, then we’ll either have to revise the definition of “language” or we’ll have to accept that something beyond simply language and communication defines our humanity. And this statement then begs the question, what does define humanity? What makes us so special?
I think that this question is so central and core to our lives that I almost certainly can’t do it justice. But I can still try, right? I think it is a matter of degree. Yes, Washoe could learn 132 signs. But the average person has tens of thousands of words in his or her vocabulary. We also have such ingrained and complex understandings of grammar which no other species has ever exhibited to our knowledge. All of this allows us to communicate our thoughts articulately and extensively. Concurrently, because of the precision of a symbolic system like language, I think that we can think more precisely and deeply than any other species. I think therein lies the core of our human-ness.
I don’t think my rambling is complete by any means, but I think it’s indicative of how intriguing that little chimp Washoe was.
Pdot N
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/11/rip-washoe-chim.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003986892_washoe01m.html
http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/53815/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washoe_(chimpanzee)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/science/01chimp.html?ex=1351569600&en=2395249fcfe98fa3&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
This event of teaching a non-human a human language challenged some of the fundamental theories of language, especially the basic assertion that language is core to the human experience. However, if other species can learn language as well, what makes us so special? Is it a question of degree and that we can learn and use language far better than any other species? Or perhaps then language simply isn’t central to our humanity. To resolve these questions and protect their theories, scientists began to question the scientific validity of the Washoe’s acquisition of ASL.
On first glance, Washoe seemed to clearly have a grasp of language. She could reliably use 132 signs. For Washoe, reliability meant that a sign had to be used appropriately and seen by 3 observers on 3 spontaneous instances. It then had to be seen 15 days in a row. So, her vocabulary was fairly extensive. Also, Washoe could combine signs meaningfully. According to Wikipedia (so this might be a little dubious, but it seemed pretty cool anyway), although scientists termed toilets and refrigerators “Potty Chairs” and “Cold Boxes” respectively, Washoe called them “Dirty Goods” and “Open Food Drinks.” So she also showed the capacity to manipulate signs to generate meaning. She apparently also signed “Water Bird” spontaneously after seeing a swan, although this claim seems to be fairly unsubstantiated. According to one of the researchers, Washoe was even able to teach a fellow chimp, Loulis, some ASL without human guidance, and these two chimps could apparently converse at a basic level.
Despite all of these seemingly clear examples of the usage of language, many scientists doubt that Washoe was truly using language. Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker have suggested that Washoe was merely imitating her human handlers and that she wasn’t independently using language. Several other researchers have attempted to teach chimpanzees language in more scientific settings, most notably Herbert Terrace, who tried to teach a chimp named Nim Chimpsky (incidentally, I think this is the best name of all time) ASL. Terrace found that Nim Chimpsky couldn’t spontaneously sign. Rather, he learned an elaborate system to beg for food and rewards.
So the question remains: Exactly how much “language” did Washoe learn? Or did she learn language at all? If she did learn language, and if other chimps are also therefore capable of acquiring language, then we’ll either have to revise the definition of “language” or we’ll have to accept that something beyond simply language and communication defines our humanity. And this statement then begs the question, what does define humanity? What makes us so special?
I think that this question is so central and core to our lives that I almost certainly can’t do it justice. But I can still try, right? I think it is a matter of degree. Yes, Washoe could learn 132 signs. But the average person has tens of thousands of words in his or her vocabulary. We also have such ingrained and complex understandings of grammar which no other species has ever exhibited to our knowledge. All of this allows us to communicate our thoughts articulately and extensively. Concurrently, because of the precision of a symbolic system like language, I think that we can think more precisely and deeply than any other species. I think therein lies the core of our human-ness.
I don’t think my rambling is complete by any means, but I think it’s indicative of how intriguing that little chimp Washoe was.
Pdot N
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/11/rip-washoe-chim.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003986892_washoe01m.html
http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/53815/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washoe_(chimpanzee)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/science/01chimp.html?ex=1351569600&en=2395249fcfe98fa3&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
