There have been several attempts to teach animals language in the past. What we’ve learned is that some animals may actually have the capacity for language… but none have the speech capabilities that humans have. In humans, the larynx descends around the age of 2. This doesn’t happen with other primates. In the 1950s a chimpanzee (Vicky) was taught to speak, but she could only speak 4 words (Mama, Papa, cup, up) and they all sounded pretty much the same. Researchers finally realized that maybe it wasn’t stupidity that prevented animals from speaking languages – it was a physical barrier (the high larynx).

Koko is a lowland gorilla raised by Penny Patterson. Patterson was a graduate student at Stanford when she met and began to work with Koko. Koko is one of the only non-human primates who can "speak" decent Ameslan (American Sign Language). She’s part of the Gorilla Language Project; the project is the longest running inter-species communication project ever conducted.

If you believe the results (I do), they give us some incredible information about the intelligence of non-human primates. Koko can use at least 500 signs, and understands at least 1,000 signs. She can understand about 2,000 words of spoken English. Some people say that Koko is just signing for treats; however, all evidence seems to suggest that she actually understands what she is signing.

There are a few key things to note about Koko’s language ability. She has the ability to do object naming. This means she could create phrases for objects if she didn’t know their names. A lighter was a "bottle match", and her pet kitten was "All Ball". All Ball was a present for Koko – unfortunately, All Ball was killed by a car just a few months after Koko got her. Koko was devastated, and understood when Patterson relayed what had happened. She cried when she was alone.

Koko can lie. She can also use displacement (speaking about the past or the future – what has happened, what might happen). These are both really important in determining whether a creature truly has the capacity for language.

Patterson brought in another gorilla, Michael, to be Koko’s mate. It didn’t work. Their relationship was that of siblings, not sweethearts. In fact, Koko’s nickname for Michael was "stinky devil" – certainly not an intimate nickname. Michael passed away in 2000 (Koko is still going strong; she was born in 1971).

Koko’s IQ has been estimated at anywhere between 70-95. Considering the fact that the average human IQ is 100, these results are quite shocking. One of the questions that Koko got wrong on the test was this: Where do you go when it rains? The correct answer was supposed to be house. Koko picked a tree… Now – is that really wrong? The fact that she can do so well on a very culturally biased IQ test (biased towards humans) is so surprising to me.

Have you heard of Koko? What do you think about non-human primates and language? Do you think they can really understand and use it? Or are they just faking to please their teachers?

In the wild, animals can communicate with different sounds and movement. Honeybees even have a way to convey where the best flowers and pollen are. Dogs can learn their names, and so can some cats. I think my cats know their names (Couscous and Bo), but they like to annoy me so they pretend not to. They certainly listen and come when I tap on the food can.

What would a human life be like if we were limited to such basic communication? What if all of our correspondence was so simple that we could only express a few emotions and a few basic wants and needs (food, water, shelter)? This is probably how our language started out thousands (millions?) of years ago.

Today there are somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000 different languages spoken in the world. There are many more that are now extinct. Every single language (ever!) has been based on a limited number of sounds that all humans are capable of making. Now, an interesting thing to note is that after a certain age (usually around 2 years), it’s harder for the brain to develop synapses that will recognize certain sounds. In other words, if you aren’t exposed to certain sounds regularly by the time you’re 2 years old, you might lose the ability (or just make it really really hard to learn) to make certain sounds or even distinguish between certain sounds (example – for native Japanese speakers, the distinction between <l> and <r> is really hard).

So linguistics is a subfield of anthropology. It’s a way of studying cultures and exploring how culture is learned and taught. Without language, we would have trouble communicating our culture and passing us on – this is part of what makes us human. Language, culture, communication… I find it fascinating to study what really sets humans apart from the animals that share most of our DNA.

I wrote a post here about how cooking has influenced humans & how it has helped to define and impact our evolution. If you liked this post you’d probably enjoy that, too!

Did you ever read George Orwell’s book, 1984? In Orwell’s dystopian society, the people speak a language called “newspeak.”  It is supposedly devoid of words that condone revolutionary thought and is meant to keep the people from rebelling against the government.  This claim is supported well (or, at least as well as possible considering 1984 was a work of fiction, not a real experiment) through his characters’ actions and interactions.  The citizens of Airstrip One (formerly England) cannot break free from their language.  Each day their vocabulary gets more and more condensed and each day there is less and less rebellion.  Occasionally there is a ‘bad egg’, such as Winston, the main character, but they are usually silenced discreetly.  The story of 1984 would be an excellent case to prove the idea that language can keep you from exercising certain thoughts and in turn influences thought. If only it were a true story, eh?

Well, recently there was a study done on a South American tribe called the Piraha.  Their language doesn’t have words for quantities other than one, two, and many.  The study analyzes the effect this has on their thought.  Basically, the results showed that it does indeed have a large influence.  They have trouble remembering quantities larger than three or so.  An article in the economist says that the lack of number words prevents them from thinking in quantities.  However, it’s more likely that the connection is less concrete.

It’s not that their language keeps them from being able to comprehend that, “yes, there are nine of them,” but that they don’t know how to say it and they lack proper training.  Their language keeps them from practicing counting, so it essentially limits the way they see quantities.  If they had enough practice, they could learn to count (we hope!).  However, they don’t have experience doing so, so they can’t.  This example solidly proves that language affects the way we think about abstract things.  Counting might not seem abstract, but in higher numbers it is – it’s much easier to remember that there were nine batteries (if you know numbers) than to memorize visually what an arrangement of nine batteries looks like.

It would seem that language has little to no impact on the way we see the physical things of our world.   Everyone sees the world the same way.  A blue mug is always going to be a blue mug no matter what it’s called or what it symbolizes.  Something like “freedom” is different. If a language lacks a word for freedom, its speakers cannot contemplate the idea of freedom; they don’t know such a concept exists.

Thus, when language keeps one from practicing thinking about something, it’s affecting the way one thinks.

Going back to our example – in 1984, the people didn’t have the words to think about freedom, so they couldn’t really talk about it.  Maybe the thought would pass through their heads occasionally, but they wouldn’t have a good way to say it because they didn’t have the words.  The words they were limited to kept them from being able to eloquently express this idea.  When an idea is presented poorly, it doesn’t have as much of an impact.  And, if they can’t express it, they probably won’t remember it, so the language definitely could keep that kind of thought from advancing.

Sometimes if I really need to remember something but I don’t have a piece of paper to write it down I’ll close my eyes and visualize writing down the word.  Strangely enough, I’ll be able to remember it later because I “wrote” it down in my head.  I think in words quite often, actually.  Sometimes when I think my thoughts come in sentences.  It can get annoying when I want to get to the end of my thought but I have to sort of fast forward through the phrase in my head.  This definitely means that language affects the way I think – my thoughts are coming prepackaged in words.

Do you think in words? Does it affect the way you think? Would you even be able to know?