The chunnel was meant to connect ___________

The Study of Language This best-selling textbook provides an engaging and user-friendly introduction to

the study of language. Assuming no prior knowledge of the subject, Yule presents

information in bite-sized sections, clearly explaining the major concepts in linguistics –

from how children learn language to why men and women speak differently, through

all the key elements of language. This fifth edition has been revised and updated

with new figures and tables, additional topics, and numerous new examples using

languages from across the world. To increase student engagement, and to foster

problem-solving and critical-thinking skills, the book includes thirty new tasks. An

expanded and revised online study guide provides students with further resources,

including answers and tutorials for all tasks, while encouraging lively and proactive

learning. This is the most fundamental and easy-to-use introduction to the study

of language.

George Yule has taught Linguistics at the universities of Edinburgh, Hawai‘i,

Louisiana State and Minnesota.

The Study of Language FIFTH EDITION

George Yule

University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom

Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York

Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge.

It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of

education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence.

www.cambridge.org

Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107658172

First and second editions © Cambridge University Press 1985, 1996 Third, fourth and fifth editions © George Yule 2006, 2010, 2014

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception

and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,

no reproduction of any part may take place without the written

permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 1985

Second edition 1996

Third edition 2006

Fourth edition 2010

Fifth edition 2014

Printed in the United Kingdom by MPG Printgroup Ltd, Cambridge

A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Yule, George, 1947–

The study of language / George Yule. – 5th ed.

pages cm

Previous ed.: 2010.

ISBN 978-1-107-04419-7 (Hardback) – ISBN 978-1-107-65817-2 (Paperback)

1. Language and languages. 2. Linguistics. I. Title.

P107.Y85 2014

400–dc23 2013028557

ISBN 978-1-107-04419-7 Hardback

ISBN 978-1-107-65817-2 Paperback

Additional resources for this publication at www.cambridge.org/XXXXXXXXX

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of

URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication,

and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain,

accurate or appropriate.

http://www.cambridge.org/XXXXXXXXX
http://www.cambridge.org/9781107658172
http://www.cambridge.org
Contents

Preface xi

l1 The origins of language The divine source 2 The natural sound source 2

The “bow-wow” theory 3 The “pooh-pooh” theory 3

The social interaction source 3 The physical adaptation source 4

Teeth and lips 4 Mouth and tongue 5 Larynx and pharynx 5

The tool-making source 5 The human brain 6

The genetic source 6 Study questions 8 Tasks 8 Discussion topics/projects 9 Further reading 9

l2 Animals and human language Communication 12 Properties of human language 12

Displacement 13 Arbitrariness 13 Productivity 14 Cultural transmission 15 Duality 16

Talking to animals 16 Chimpanzees and language 17

Washoe 17 Sarah 18 Lana 19 The controversy 19 Kanzi 20

Using language 20 Study questions 22 Tasks 22 Discussion topics/projects 23 Further reading 24

l3 The sounds of language Phonetics 27 Voiced and voiceless sounds 27 Place of articulation 27 Consonants 28

Familiar symbols 28 Unfamiliar symbols 29

Consonants: manner of articulation 29

Stops 29 Fricatives 30 Affricates 30 Nasals 31 Liquids 31 Glides 31

A consonant chart 31 Glottal stops and flaps 31

Vowels 32 Diphthongs 33 Subtle individual variation 34 Study questions 35 Tasks 35 Discussion topics/projects 37 Further reading 37

l4 The sound patterns of language Phonology 40 Phonemes 40

Natural classes 41 Phones and allophones 41 Minimal pairs and sets 42 Phonotactics 43 Syllables 43

Consonant clusters 44 Coarticulation effects 44

Assimilation 45 Nasalization 45 Elision 46 Normal speech 46

Study questions 47 Tasks 47 Discussion topics/projects 48 Bob Belviso translated 49 Further reading 49

l5 Word formation Neologisms 51 Etymology 51 Borrowing 52

Loan-translation 52 Compounding 53

Blending 53 Clipping 54

Hypocorisms 54 Backformation 54

Conversion 55 Coinage 56

Acronyms 56 Derivation 57

Prefixes and suffixes 57 Infixes 57

Multiple processes 58 Study questions 59 Tasks 60 Discussion topics/projects 62 Further reading 63

l6 Morphology Morphology 66 Morphemes 66 Free and bound morphemes 66

Lexical and functional morphemes 67 Derivational morphemes 67 Inflectional morphemes 68

Morphological description 68 Problems in morphological description 69

Morphs and allomorphs 69 Other languages 70

Kanuri 70 Ganda 71 Ilocano 71 Tagalog 71

Study questions 73 Tasks 73 Discussion topics/projects 76 Further reading 78

l7 Grammar English grammar 80 Traditional grammar 80

The parts of speech 80 Agreement 81 Grammatical gender 82 Traditional analysis 83

The prescriptive approach 83 Captain Kirk’s infinitive 84

The descriptive approach 84 Structural analysis 85 Constituent analysis 85 Labeled and bracketed sentences 86 Hierarchical organization 87 A Gaelic sentence 87 Why study grammar? 88

Study questions 89 Tasks 89 Discussion topics/projects 92 Further reading 93

l8 Syntax Syntactic rules 95

A generative grammar 95 Deep and surface structure 96

Structural ambiguity 96 Tree diagrams 97

Tree diagram of an English sentence 97

Symbols used in syntactic analysis 98 Phrase structure rules 99 Lexical rules 100 Movement rules 101 Study questions 103 Tasks 104 Discussion topics/projects 106 Further reading 108

vi Contents

l9 Semantics Meaning 110 Semantic features 110

Words as containers of meaning 111

Semantic roles 112 Agent and theme 112 Instrument and experiencer 112 Location, source and goal 113

Lexical relations 113 Synonymy 113 Antonymy 114 Hyponymy 115 Prototypes 116 Homophones and homonyms 116 Polysemy 117 Word play 117 Metonymy 118

Collocation 118 Study questions 120 Tasks 120 Discussion topics/projects 123 Further reading 123

l10 Pragmatics Pragmatics 126 Context 127

Deixis 128 Reference 128

Inference 129 Anaphora 129 Presupposition 130

Speech acts 131 Direct and indirect speech acts 131

Politeness 132 Negative and positive face 133

Study questions 134 Tasks 134 Discussion topics/projects 136 Further reading 138

l11 Discourse analysis Discourse 140

Interpreting discourse 140 Cohesion 141 Coherence 142 Speech events 142

Conversation analysis 143 Turn-taking 143

The co-operative principle 144 Hedges 145 Implicatures 146

Background knowledge 146 Schemas and scripts 147

Study questions 149 Tasks 149 Discussion topics/projects 151 Further reading 152

l12 Language and the brain Neurolinguistics 155 Language areas in the brain 155

Broca’s area 156 Wernicke’s area 156 The motor cortex and the arcuate fasciculus 157 The localization view 157

Tongue tips and slips 158 The tip of the tongue phenomenon 158 Slips of the tongue 158 Slips of the brain 159 Slips of the ear 159

Aphasia 160 Broca’s aphasia 160 Wernicke’s aphasia 160 Conduction aphasia 161

Dichotic listening 161 Left brain, right brain 162

The critical period 163 Genie 163

Study questions 165 Tasks 165 Discussion topics/projects 166 Further reading 167

Contents vii

l13 First language acquisition Acquisition 170

Input 170 Caregiver speech 171

The acquisition schedule 171 Cooing 172 Babbling 172 The one-word stage 173 The two-word stage 173 Telegraphic speech 174

The acquisition process 174 Learning through imitation? 175 Learning through correction? 175

Developing morphology 176 Developing syntax 177

Forming questions 177 Forming negatives 178

Developing semantics 178 Later developments 179

Study questions 181 Tasks 181 Discussion topics/projects 183 Further reading 184

l14 Second language acquisition/learning Second language learning 187

Acquisition and learning 187 Acquisition barriers 187 The age factor 188 Affective factors 188

Focus on teaching method 189 The grammar–translation method 189 The audiolingual method 190 Communicative approaches 190

Focus on the learner 190 Transfer 191 Interlanguage 191 Motivation 192 Input and output 192 Task-based learning 193

Communicative competence 194 Applied linguistics 194 Study questions 196 Tasks 196 Discussion topics/projects 198 Further reading 198

l15 Gestures and sign languages Gestures 201

Iconics 201 Deictics 201 Beats 202

Types of sign languages 202 Oralism 203 Signed English 203 Origins of ASL 204 The structure of signs 204

Shape and orientation 205 Location 205 Movement 205 Primes 205 Facial expressions and finger-spelling 206

The meaning of signs 206 Representing signs 207 ASL as a natural language 208 Study questions 209 Tasks 209 Discussion topics/projects 210 Further reading 210

l16 Written language Writing 213

Pictograms 213 Ideograms 213 Logograms 214

Phonographic writing 215 The rebus principle 216

Syllabic writing 216 Alphabetic writing 217 Written English 218

English orthography 219 Study questions 221 Tasks 221 Discussion topics/projects 223 Further reading 224

viii Contents

l17 Language history and change Family trees 227 Indo-European 227

Cognates 228 Comparative reconstruction 228

General principles 229 Sound reconstruction 229 Word reconstruction 230

The history of English 230 Old English 231 Middle English 231

Sound changes 232 Metathesis 233 Epenthesis 233 Prothesis 234

Syntactic changes 234 Loss of inflections 234

Semantic changes 235 Broadening of meaning 235 Narrowing of meaning 235

Diachronic and synchronic variation 236 Study questions 237 Tasks 237 Discussion topics/projects 239 Further reading 240

l18 Regional variation in language The standard language 243 Accent and dialect 243

Variation in grammar 244 Dialectology 244

Regional dialects 244 Isoglosses and dialect boundaries 245 The dialect continuum 246

Bilingualism 247 Diglossia 248

Language planning 249 Pidgins 250 Creoles 251

The post-creole continuum 251

Study questions 252 Tasks 252

Discussion topics/projects 254 Further reading 254

l19 Social variation in language Sociolinguistics 257

Social dialects 257 Education and occupation 257 Social markers 259

Speech style and style-shifting 259 Prestige 260

Speech accommodation 261 Convergence 261 Divergence 261

Register 261 Jargon 262

Slang 262 Taboo terms 263

African American English 263 Vernacular language 263 The sounds of a vernacular 264 The grammar of a vernacular 264

Study questions 266 Tasks 266 Discussion topics/projects 268 Further reading 268

l20 Language and culture Culture 271 Categories 271

Kinship terms 272 Time concepts 272

Linguistic relativity 273 The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis 273 Against the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis 274 Snow 274 Non-lexicalized categories 275

Cognitive categories 275 Classifiers 276

Social categories 276 Address terms 277

Gender 278 Gendered words 278

Contents ix

Gendered structures 279 Gendered speech 279 Same-gender talk 280 Gendered interaction 280

Study questions 281 Tasks 281

Discussion topics/projects 284 Further reading 284

Glossary 286 References 300 Index 312

x Contents

Preface

In this new edition

For all their advice and suggestions for improvements to the fifth edition of this book,

I’d like to thank the reviewers, instructors, students and researchers who have

commented on earlier versions. I have made a number of revisions in the internal

organization of all the chapters, with a clearer division into major topics and subsec-

tions. Additional section headings have been included to make the material more

accessible and a number of extra examples from everyday language use are offered

to make some of the points clearer. There are also more substantial revisions in

Chapters 3 (Phonetics), 4 (Phonology), 5 (Word formation) and 8 (Syntax) that

should make these units more manageable. I hope these revisions will make the book

more informative, easier to read, and overall more user-friendly.

In addition, there are thirty new tasks. The majority of these are data-based and

designed to foster problem-solving and critical-thinking skills. New examples from

languages as diverse as German, Hawaiian, Hungarian, Lakhota, Proto-Polynesian,

Quechua, Spanish and Tamasheq provide an opportunity to explore further aspects of

languages other than English. Additional topics explored in the study of the English

language include adjective order, adverb position in sentences, American and British

differences, compounds, general extenders, the presuppositions of jokes, recasts,

stylistics, synecdoche and vague language. An expanded and revised Study Guide

providing answers and tutorials for all the tasks can be found on the book’s website:

www.cambridge.org/yule.

To the student

In The Study of Language, I have tried to present a comprehensive survey of what is

known about language and also of the methods used by linguists in arriving at that

knowledge. There have been many interesting developments in the study of language

over the past two decades, but it is still a fact that any individual speaker of a language

has a more comprehensive “unconscious” knowledge of how language works than any

linguist has yet been able to describe. Consequently, as you read each of the following

chapters, take a critical view of the effectiveness of the descriptions, the analyses, and

the generalizations by measuring them against your own intuitions about how your

language works. By the end of the book, you should feel that you do know quite a lot

http://www.cambridge.org/yule
about both the internal structure of language (its form) and the varied uses of language

in human life (its function), and also that you are ready to ask more of the kinds of

questions that professional linguists ask when they conduct their research.

At the end of each chapter, there is a section where you can test and apply what

you have learned. This section contains:

� Study questions that you can use to check if you have understood some of the main points and important terms introduced during that chapter

� Tasks that extend the topics covered in the book, mostly through data analysis, with examples from English and a wide range of other languages

� Discussion topics/projects that offer opportunities to consider some of the more general, sometimes controversial, language-related topics and to develop your own

opinions on issues involving language

� Further reading suggestions provided to help you find more detailed treatments of all the topics covered in that chapter

The origins of this book can be traced to introductory courses on language taught at

the University of Edinburgh, the University of Minnesota and Louisiana State Univer-

sity, and to the suggestions and criticisms of hundreds of students who forced me to

present what I had to say in a way they could understand. An early version of the

written material was developed for Independent Study students at the University of

Minnesota. Later versions have had the benefit of expert advice from a lot of teachers

working with diverse groups in different situations. I am particularly indebted to

Professor Hugh Buckingham, Louisiana State University, for sharing his expertise

and enthusiasm over many years as a colleague and friend.

For feedback and advice in the preparation of recent editions of the book, I would

like to thank Jean Aitchison (University of Oxford), Linda Blanton (University of New

Orleans), Karen Currie (Federal University of Espı́ritu Santo), Mary Anna Dimitrako-

poulos (Indiana University, South Bend), Thomas Field (University of Maryland,

Baltimore), Anthony Fox (University of Leeds), Agustinus Gianto (Pontifical Biblical

Institute), Gordon Gibson (University of Paisley), Katinka Hammerich (University of

Hawai‘i), Raymond Hickey (University of Duisburg–Essen), Daniel Hieber (Rosetta

Stone), Richard Hirsch (Linköping University), Fiona Joseph (University of Wolver-

hampton), Eliza Kitis (Aristotle University), Terrie Mathis (California State University,

Northridge), Stephen Matthews (University of Hong Kong), Robyn Najar (Flinders

University), Eric Nelson (University of Minnesota), Jens Reinke (Christian Albrecht

University Kiel), Philip Riley (University of Nancy 2), Rick Santos (Fresno City

College), Joanne Scheibman (Old Dominion University), Royal Skousen (Brigham

Young University), Michael Stubbs (University of Trier), Mary Talbot (University of

Sunderland) and Sherman Wilcox (University of New Mexico).

For my own introductory course, I remain indebted to Willie and Annie Yule, and,

for my continuing enlightenment, to Maryann Overstreet.

xii Preface

CHAPTER 1

The origins of language

The suspicion does not appear improbable that the progenitors of man, either the males

or females, or both sexes, before they had acquired the power of expressing their mutual love

in articulate language, endeavoured to charm each other with musical notes and rhythm.

Darwin (1871)

In Charles Darwin’s vision of the origins of language, early humans had already

developed musical ability prior to language and were using it “to charm each other.”

This may not match the typical image that most of us have of our early ancestors as

rather rough characters wearing animal skins and not very charming, but it is an

interesting speculation about how language may have originated. It remains,

however, a speculation.

We simply don’t know how language originated. We do know that the ability

to produce sound and simple vocal patterning (a hum versus a grunt, for example)

appears to be in an ancient part of the brain that we share with all vertebrates,

including fish, frogs, birds and other mammals. But that isn’t human language. We

suspect that some type of spoken languagemust have developed between 100,000 and

50,000 years ago, well before written language (about 5,000 years ago). Yet, among

the traces of earlier periods of life on earth, we never find any direct evidence or

artifacts relating to the speech of our distant ancestors that might tell us how language

was back in the early stages. Perhaps because of this absence of direct physical evidence,

there has been no shortage of speculation about the origins of human speech.

The divine source

In the biblical tradition, as described in the book of Genesis, God created Adam and

“whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.”Alternatively,

following a Hindu tradition, language came from Sarasvati, wife of Brahma, creator of the

universe. In most religions, there appears to be a divine source who provides humans

with language. In an attempt to rediscover this original divine language, a fewexperiments

have been carried out, with rather conflicting results. The basic hypothesis seems to have

been that, if human infantswere allowed to growupwithout hearing any language around

them, then they would spontaneously begin using the original God-given language.

The Greek writer Herodotus reported the story of an Egyptian pharaoh named

Psammetichus (or Psamtik) who tried the experiment with two newborn babies more

than 2,500 years ago. After two years of isolation except for the company of goats and a

mute shepherd, the children were reported to have spontaneously uttered, not an

Egyptian word, but something that was identified as the Phrygian word bekos, meaning

“bread.” The pharaoh concluded that Phrygian, an older language spoken in part ofwhat

is modern Turkey, must be the original language. That seems very unlikely. The children

may not have picked up this “word” from any human source, but as several commen-

tators have pointed out, they must have heard what the goats were saying. (First remove

the -kos ending,whichwas added in theGreek version of the story, then pronounce be- as

you would the English word bed without -d at the end. Can you hear a goat?)

King James the Fourth of Scotland carried out a similar experiment around the

year 1500 and the children were reported to have spontaneously started speaking

Hebrew, confirming the king’s belief that Hebrew had indeed been the language of the

Garden of Eden. It is unfortunate that all other cases of children who have been

discovered living in isolation, without coming into contact with human speech, tend

not to confirm the results of these types of divine-source experiments. Very young

children living without access to human language in their early years grow up with no

language at all. This was true of Victor, the wild boy of Aveyron in France, discovered

near the end of the eighteenth century, and also of Genie, an American child whose

special life circumstances came to light in the 1970s (see Chapter 12). From this type

of evidence, there is no “spontaneous” language. If human language did emanate

from a divine source, we have no way of reconstructing that original language,

especially given the events in a place called Babel, “because the Lord did there

confound the language of all the earth,” as described in Genesis (11: 9).

The natural sound source

A quite different view of the beginnings of language is based on the concept of natural

sounds. The human auditory system is already functioning before birth (at around

2 The Study of Language

seven months). That early processing capacity develops into an ability to identify

sounds in the environment, allowing humans to make a connection between a sound

and the thing producing that sound. This leads to the idea that primitive words derive

from imitations of the natural sounds that early men and women heard around them.

Among several nicknames that he invented to talk about the origins of speech,

Jespersen (1922) called this idea the “bow-wow” theory.

The “bow-wow” theory

In this scenario, when different objects flew by, making a Caw-Caw or Coo-Coo

sound, the early human tried to imitate the sounds and then used them to refer to

those objects even when they weren’t present. The fact that all modern languages

have some words with pronunciations that seem to echo naturally occurring sounds

could be used to support this theory. In English, in addition to cuckoo, we have splash,

bang, boom, rattle, buzz, hiss, screech, and of course bow-wow.

Words that sound similar to the noises they describe are examples of

onomatopeia. While it is true that a number of words in any language are onomato-

poeic, it is hard to see how most of the soundless things (e.g. “low branch”) as well as

abstract concepts (e.g. “truth”) could have been referred to in a language that simply

echoed natural sounds. We might also be rather skeptical about a view that seems to

assume that a language is only a set of words used as “names” for things.

The “pooh-pooh” theory

Another of Jespersen’s nicknames was the “pooh-pooh” theory, which proposed that

speech developed from the instinctive sounds people make in emotional circum-

stances. That is, the original sounds of language may have come from natural cries

of emotion such as pain, anger and joy. By this route, presumably, Ouch! came to have

its painful connotations. But Ouch! and other interjections such as Ah!, Ooh!, Phew!,

Wow! or Yuck! are usually produced with sudden intakes of breath, which is the

opposite of ordinary talk. We normally produce spoken language as we breath out, so

we speak while we exhale, not inhale. In other words, the expressive noises people

make in emotional reactions contain sounds that are not otherwise used in speech

production and consequently would seem to be rather unlikely candidates as source

sounds for language.

The social interaction source

Another proposal involving natural sounds was nicknamed the “yo-he-ho” theory.

The idea is that the sounds of a person involved in physical effort could be the source

of our language, especially when that physical effort involved several people and the

The origins of language 3

interaction had to be coordinated. So, a group of early humans might develop a set of

hums, grunts, groans and curses that were used when they were lifting and carrying

large bits of trees or lifeless hairy mammoths.

The appeal of this proposal is that it places the development of human language in

a social context. Early people must have lived in groups, if only because larger groups

offered better protection from attack. Groups are necessarily social organizations and,

to maintain those organizations, some form of communication is required, even if it is

just grunts and curses. So, human sounds, however they were produced, must have

had some principled use within the life and social interaction of early human groups.

This is an important idea that may relate to the uses of humanly produced sounds. It

does not, however, answer our question regarding the origins of the sounds produced.

Apes and other primates live in social groups and use grunts and social calls, but they

do not seem to have developed the capacity for speech.

The physical adaptation source

Instead of looking at types of sounds as the source of human speech, we can look at

the types of physical features humans possess, especially those that are distinct from

other creatures, which may have been able to support speech production. We can start

with the observation that, at some early stage, our ancestors made a very significant

transition to an upright posture, with bi-pedal (on two feet) locomotion, and a revised

role for the front limbs.

Some effects of this type of change can be seen in physical differences between the

skull of a gorilla and that of a Neanderthal man from around 60,000 years ago. The

reconstructed vocal tract of a Neanderthal suggests that some consonant-like sound

distinctions would have been possible. We have to wait until about 35,000 years ago

for features in reconstructions of fossilized skeletal structures that begin to resemble

those of modern humans. In the study of evolutionary development, there are certain

physical features, best thought of as partial adaptations, which appear to be relevant

for speech. They are streamlined versions of features found in other primates. By

themselves, such features wouldn’t guarantee speech, but they are good clues that a

creature with such features probably has the capacity for speech.

Teeth and lips

Human teeth are upright, not slanting outwards like those of apes, and they are

roughly even in height. Such characteristics are not very useful for ripping or tearing

food and seem better adapted for grinding and chewing. They are also very helpful in

making sounds such as f or v. Human lips have much more intricate muscle inter-

lacing than is found in other primates and their resulting flexibility certainly helps in

making sounds like p, b and m. In fact, the b and m sounds are the most widely

4 The Study of Language

attested in the vocalizations made by human infants during their first year, no matter

which language their parents are using.

Mouth and tongue

The human mouth is relatively small compared to other primates and can be opened

and closed rapidly. It is also part of an extended vocal tract that has much more of an

L-shape than the fairly straight path from front to back in other mammals. In contrast

to the fairly thin flat tongue of other large primates, humans have a shorter, thicker

and more muscular tongue that can be used to shape a wide variety of sounds inside

the oral cavity. In addition, unlike other primates, humans can close off the airway

through the nose to create more air pressure in the mouth. The overall effect of these

small differences taken together is a face with more intricate muscle interlacing in the

lips and mouth, capable of a wider range of shapes and a more rapid and powerful

delivery of sounds produced through these different shapes.

Larynx and pharynx

The human larynx or “voice box” (containing the vocal folds or vocal cords) differs

significantly in position from the larynx of other primates such as monkeys. In the

course of human physical development, the assumption of an upright posture moved

the head more directly above the spinal column and the larynx dropped to a lower

position. This created a longer cavity called the pharynx, above the vocal folds,

which acts as a resonator for increased range and clarity of the sounds produced via

the larynx and the vocal tract. Other primates have almost no pharynx. One unfortu-

nate consequence of this development is that the lower position of the human larynx

makes it much more possible for the human to choke on pieces of food. Monkeys

may not be able to use their larynx to produce speech sounds, but they do not suffer

from the problem of getting food stuck in their windpipe. In evolutionary terms, there

must have been a big advantage in getting this extra vocal power (i.e. a larger range

of sounds) to outweigh the potential disadvantage from an increased risk of choking

to death.

The tool-making source

In the physical adaptation view, one function (producing speech sounds) must have

been superimposed on existing anatomical features (teeth, lips) previously used for

other purposes (chewing, sucking). A similar development is believed to have taken

place with human hands and some believe that manual gestures may have been a

precursor of language. By about two million years ago, there is evidence that humans

had developed preferential right-handedness and had become capable of making

The origins of language 5

stone tools. Wood tools and composite tools eventually followed. Tool-making, or the

outcome of manipulating objects and changing them using both hands, is evidence of

a brain at work.

The human brain

The human brain is not only large relative to human body size, it is also lateralized,

that is, it has specialized functions in each of the two hemispheres. (More details are

presented in Chapter 12.) Those functions that control the motor movements involved

in complex vocalization (speaking) and object manipulation (making or using tools)

are very close to each other in the left hemisphere of the brain. That is, the area of the

motor cortex that controls the muscles of the arms and hands is next to the articulatory

muscles of the face, jaw and tongue. It may be that there was an evolutionary connec-

tion between the language-using and tool-using abilities of humans and that both were

involved in the development of the speaking brain. Most of the other speculative

proposals concerning the origins of speech seem to be based on a picture of humans

producing single noises to indicate objects in their environment. This activity may

indeed have been a crucial stage in the development of language, but what it lacks is

any structural organization. All languages, including sign language, require the organ-

izing and combining of sounds or signs in specific arrangements. We seem to have

developed a part of our brain that specializes in making these arrangements.

If we think in terms of the most basic process involved in primitive tool-making, it

is not enough to be able to grasp one rock (make one sound); the human must also be

able to bring another rock (other sounds) into proper contact with the first in order to

develop a tool. In terms of language structure, the human may have first developed a

naming ability by producing a specific and consistent noise (e.g. beer) for a specific

object. The crucial additional step was to bring another specific noise (e.g. good) into

combination with the first to build a complex message (beer good). Several thousand

years of development later, humans have honed this message-building capacity to a

point where, on Saturdays, watching a football game, they can drink a sustaining

beverage and proclaim This beer is good. As far as we know, other primates are not

doing this.

The genetic source

We can think of the human baby in its first few years as a living example of some of

these physical changes taking place. At birth, the baby’s brain is only a quarter of its

eventual weight and the larynx is much higher in the throat, allowing babies, like

chimpanzees, to breathe and drink at the same time. In a relatively short period of

time, the larynx descends, the brain develops, the child assumes an upright posture

and starts walking and talking.

6 The Study of Language

This almost automatic set of developments and the complexity of the young

child’s language have led some scholars to look for something more powerful than

small physical adaptations of the species over time as the source of language. Even

children who are born deaf (and do not develop speech) become fluent sign language

users, given appropriate circumstances, very early in life. This seems to indicate that

human offspring are born with a special capacity for language. It is innate, no other

creature seems to have it, and it isn’t tied to a specific variety of language. Is it

possible that this language capacity is genetically hard-wired in the newborn human?

As a solution to the puzzle of the origins of language, this innateness hypothesis

would seem to point to something in human genetics, possibly a crucial mutation, as

the source. This would not have been a gradual change, but something that happened

rather quickly. We are not sure when this proposed genetic change might have taken

place or how it might relate to the physical adaptations described earlier. However, as

we consider this hypothesis, we find our speculations about the origins of language

moving away from fossil evidence or the physical source of basic human sounds

toward analogies with how computers work (e.g. being pre-programmed or hard-

wired) and concepts taken from the study of genetics. The investigation of the origins

of language then turns into a search for the special “language gene” that only humans

possess.

If we are indeed the only creatures with this special capacity for language, then

will it be completely impossible for any other creature to produce or understand

language? We’ll try to answer that question in Chapter 2.

The origins of language 7

STUDY QUESTIONS

1 Why are interjections such as Ooh! or Yuck! considered to be unlikely sources of

human speech sounds?

2 What is the basic idea behind the “bow-wow” theory of language origin?

3 Why is it difficult to agree with Psammetichus that Phrygian must have been the

original human language?

4 Where is the pharynx and how did it become an important part of human sound

production?

5 Why do you think that young deaf children who become fluent in sign language

would be cited in support of the innateness hypothesis?

6 With which of the six “sources” would you associate this quotation?

Chewing, licking and sucking are extremely widespread mammalian activities,

which, in terms of casual observation, have obvious similarities with speech.

(MacNeilage, 1998)

TASKS

A What is the connection between the Heimlich maneuver and the development of

human speech?

B What exactly happened at Babel and why is it used in explanations of language

origins?

C What are the arguments for and against a teleological explanation of the origins of

human language?

D The idea that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” was first proposed

by Ernst Haeckel in 1866 and is still frequently used in discussions of

language origins. Can you find a simpler or less technical way to express

this idea?

E The Danish linguist Otto Jespersen, who gave us the terms “bow-wow” and “pooh-

pooh” for theories about language origins, dismissed both of these ideas in favor of

another theory. What explanation did Jespersen (1922, chapter 21) favor as the

likely origin of early speech?

F In his analysis of the beginnings of human language, William Foley comes to the

conclusion that “language as we understand it was born about 200,000 years ago”

(1997: 73). This is substantially earlier than the dates (between 100,000 and 50,000

years ago) that other scholars have proposed. What kinds of evidence and

arguments are typically presented in order to choose a particular date “when

language was born”?

8 The Study of Language

G What is the connection between the innateness hypothesis, as described in this

chapter, and the idea of a Universal Grammar?

H When it was first identified, the FOXP2 gene was hailed as the “language gene.”

What was the basis of this claim and how has it been modified?

DISCUSSION TOPICS/PROJECTS

I In this chapter we didn’t address the issue of whether language has developed as

part of our general cognitive abilities or whether it has evolved as a separate

component that can exist independently (and is unrelated to intelligence, for

example). What kind of evidence do you think would be needed to resolve this

question?

(For background reading, see chapter 4 of Aitchison, 2000.)

II A connection has been proposed between language, tool-using and right-

handedness in the majority of humans. Is it possible that freedom to use the hands,

after assuming an upright bipedal posture, resulted in certain skills that led to the

development of language? Why did we assume an upright posture? What kind of

changes must have taken place in our hands?

(For background reading, see Beaken, 2011.)

FURTHER READING

Basic treatments

Aitchison, J. (2000) The Seeds of Speech (Canto edition) Cambridge University Press

Kenneally, C. (2007) The First Word Viking Press

More detailed treatments

Beaken, M. (2011) The Making of Language (2nd edition) Dunedin Academic Press

McMahon, A. and R. McMahon (2013) Evolutionary Linguistics Cambridge

University Press

Music before language

Mithen, S. (2006) The Singing Neanderthals Harvard University Press

A hum versus a grunt

Bass, A., E. Gilland and R. Baker (2008) “Evolutionary origins for social vocalization in a

vertebrate hindbrain-spinal compartment” Science 321 (July 18): 417–421

Victor and Genie

Lane, H. (1976) The Wild Boy of Aveyron Harvard University Press

Rymer, R. (1993) Genie HarperCollins

“Bow-wow” theory, etc.

Jespersen, O. (1922) Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin George Allen & Unwin

The early sounds made by infants

Locke, J. (1983) Phonological Acquisition and Change Academic Press

The origins of language 9

Social interaction

Burling, R. (2005) The Talking Ape Oxford University Press

Physical development

Lieberman, P. (1998) Eve Spoke: Human Language and Human Evolution W. W. Norton

Gesture

Corballis, M. (2002) From Hand to Mouth Princeton University Press

McNeill, D. (2012) How Language Began: Gesture and Speech in Human Evolution Cambridge

University Press

Brain development

Loritz, D. (1999) How the Brain Evolved Language Oxford University Press

Tool-making

Gibson, K. and T. Ingold (eds.) (1993) Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evolution

Cambridge University Press

Innateness

Pinker, S. (1994) The Language Instinct William Morrow

Against innateness

Sampson, G. (2005) The “Language Instinct” Debate (revised edition) Continuum

Other references

Foley, W. (1997) Anthropological Linguistics Blackwell

MacNeilage, P. (1998) “The frame/content theory of evolution of speech production”

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21: 499–546

10 The Study of Language

CHAPTER 2

Animals and human language

One evening in the mid-1980s my wife and I were returning from an evening cruise around

Boston Harbor and decided to take a waterfront stroll. We were passing in front of the Boston

Aquarium when a gravelly voice yelled out, “Hey! Hey! Get outa there!” Thinking we had

mistakenly wandered somewhere we were not allowed, we stopped and looked around for a

security guard or some other official, but saw no one, and no warning signs. Again the voice

boomed, “Hey! Hey you!” As we tracked the voice we found ourselves approaching a large,

glass-fenced pool in front of the aquarium where four harbor seals were lounging on display.

Incredulous, I traced the source of the command to a large seal reclining vertically in the water,

with his head extended back and up, his mouth slightly open, rotating slowly. A seal was

talking, not to me, but to the air, and incidentally to anyone within earshot who cared to listen.

Deacon (1997)

There are a lot of stories about creatures that can talk. We usually assume that

they are fantasy or fiction or that they involve birds or animals simply imitating

something they have heard humans say (as Terrence Deacon discovered was the case

with the loud seal in Boston Aquarium). Yet we think that creatures are capable of

communicating, certainly with other members of their own species. Is it possible that

a creature could learn to communicate with humans using language? Or does human

language have properties that make it so unique that it is quite unlike any other

communication system and hence unlearnable by any other creature? To answer

these questions, we first look at some special properties of human language, then

review a number of experiments in communication involving humans and animals.

Communication

We should first distinguish between specifically communicative signals and those

which may be unintentionally informative signals. Someone listening to you may

become informed about you through a number of signals that you have not intention-

ally sent. She may note that you have a cold (you sneezed), that you aren’t at ease

(you shifted around in your seat), that you are disorganized (non-matching socks)

and that you are from somewhere else (you have a strange accent). However, when

you use language to tell this person, I’m one of the applicants for the vacant position of

senior brain surgeon at the hospital, you are normally considered to be intentionally

communicating something.

Humans are capable of producing sounds and syllables in a stream of speech

that appears to have no communicative purpose, as in glossolalia, or “speaking in

tongues,” which is associated with the religious practices of Pentecostal churches.

These outpourings sound like language, but with no speaker control, it isn’t inten-

tional communication. We might say the same thing about some of the chirping and

singing produced by birds. We also don’t assume that the blackbird is communi-

cating anything by having black feathers, sitting on a branch and looking down at

the ground. However, the bird is considered to be sending a communicative signal

with the loud squawking that is produced when a cat appears on the scene.

So, when we talk about distinctions between human language and animal

communication, we are considering both in terms of their potential as a means of

intentional communication.

Properties of human language

While we tend to think of communication as the primary function of human language,

it is not a distinguishing feature. All creatures communicate in some way, even if it’s

not through vocalization. However, we suspect that other creatures are not reflecting

on the way they create their communicative messages or reviewing how they work (or

not). That is, one barking dog is probably not offering advice to another barking dog

along the lines of “Hey, you should lower your bark to make it sound more men-

acing.” They’re not barking about barking. Humans are clearly able to reflect on

language and its uses (e.g. “I wish he wouldn’t use so many technical terms”). This is

reflexivity. The property of reflexivity (or “reflexiveness”) accounts for the fact that

we can use language to think and talk about language itself, making it one of the

distinguishing features of human language. Indeed, without this general ability, we

wouldn’t be able to reflect on or identify any of the other distinct properties of human

language. We’ll look in detail at another five of them: displacement, arbitrariness,

productivity, cultural transmission and duality.

12 The Study of Language

Displacement

When your pet cat comes home and stands at your feet callingmeow, you are likely to

understand this message as relating to that immediate time and place. If you ask your

cat what it’s been up to, you’ll probably get the same meow response. Animal

communication seems to be designed exclusively for this moment, here and now. It

isn’t used to relate events that are far removed in time and place. When your dog says

GRRR, it means GRRR, right now, because dogs aren’t capable of communicating

GRRR, last night, over in the park. In contrast, human language users are normally

capable of producing messages equivalent to GRRR, last night, over in the park, and

then going on to say In fact, I’ll be going back tomorrow for some more. Humans can

refer to past and future time. This property of human language is called

displacement. It allows language users to talk about things and events not present

in the immediate environment. Indeed, displacement allows us to talk about things

and places (e.g. angels, fairies, Santa Claus, Superman, heaven, hell) whose existence

we cannot even be sure of.

We could look at bee communication as a small exception because it seems to

have some version of displacement. When a honeybee finds a source of nectar

and returns to the beehive, it can perform a dance routine to communicate to the

other bees the location of this nectar. Depending on the type of dance (round

dance for nearby and tail-wagging dance, with variable tempo, for further away

and how far), the other bees can work out where this newly discovered feast can

be found. Doesn’t this ability of the bee to indicate a location some distance away

mean that bee communication has at least some degree of displacement as a

feature? Yes, but it is displacement of a very limited type. It just doesn’t have

the range of possibilities found in human language. Certainly, the bee can direct

other bees to a food source. However, it must be the most recent food source.

It cannot be that delicious rose bush on the other side of town that we visited

last weekend, nor can it be, as far as we know, possible future nectar in

bee heaven.

Arbitrariness

It is generally the case that there is no “natural” connection between a linguistic form

and its meaning. The connection is quite arbitrary. We can’t just look at the Arabic

word کلب and, from its shape, for example, determine that it has a natural and

obvious meaning any more than we can with its English translation form dog. The

linguistic form has no natural or “iconic” relationship with that hairy four-legged

barking object out in the world. This aspect of the relationship between words and

objects is described as arbitrariness. It is possible, as in a child’s game, to make

words appear to “fit” the idea or activity they indicate, as shown in Figure 2.1.

Animals and human language 13

However, this type of game only emphasizes the arbitrariness of the connection that

normally exists between a word and its meaning.

There are some words in language with sounds that seem to “echo” the sounds of

objects or activities and hence seem to have a less arbitrary connection. English

examples are cuckoo, crash, slurp, squelch or whirr. However, these onomatopoeic

words are relatively rare in human language.

For the majority of animal signals, there does appear to be a clear connection

between the conveyed message and the signal used to convey it. This impression may

be closely connected to the fact that, for any animal, the set of signals used in

communication is finite. Each variety of animal communication consists of a limited

set of vocal or gestural forms. Many of these forms are only used in specific situations

(to establish territory) or at particular times (to find a mate).

Productivity

Humans are continually creating new expressions by manipulating their linguistic

resources to describe new objects and situations. This property is described as

productivity (or “creativity” or “open-endedness”) and essentially means that the

potential number of utterances in any human language is infinite.

The communication systems of other creatures are not like that. Cicadas have

four signals to choose from and vervet monkeys have thirty-six vocal calls. Nor

does it seem possible for creatures to produce new signals to communicate novel

experiences or events. The honeybee, normally able to communicate the location of

a nectar source to other bees, will fail to do so if the location is really “new.” In one

experiment, a hive of bees was placed at the foot of a radio tower and a food source

placed at the top. Ten bees were taken to the top, given a taste of the delicious food,

and sent off to tell the rest of the hive about their find. The message was conveyed

via a bee dance and the whole gang buzzed off to get the free food. They flew

around in all directions, but couldn’t locate the food. (It’s probably one way to

make bees really mad.) The problem seems to be that bee communication has a

fixed set of signals for communicating location and they all relate to horizontal

distance. The bee cannot manipulate its communication system to create a “new”

message indicating vertical distance. According to Karl von Frisch, who conducted

the experiment, “the bees have no word for up in their language” and they can’t

invent one.

Figure 2.1

14 The Study of Language

This lack of productivity in animal communication can be described in terms of

fixed reference. Each signal in the communication system of other creatures seems to

be fixed in terms of relating to a particular occasion or purpose. This is particularly

true of scent-based signaling, as in the pheromones (a chemical substance) released

by insects such as female moths as they try to contact a mate. It’s a case of one scent,

one meaning.

Among our closer relatives, there are lemurs (similar to small monkeys) in

Madagascar that have only three basic calls, each tied to one type of dangerous or

threatening situation. In the vervet monkey’s repertoire, there is one danger signal

CHUTTER, which is used when a snake is around, and another RRAUP, used when an

eagle is spotted nearby. These signals are fixed in terms of their reference and cannot

be manipulated. What might be presented as evidence of productivity in the monkey’s

communication system would be an utterance of something like CHUTT-RRAUP when

a flying creature that looked like a snake came by. Despite a lot of research involving

snakes suddenly appearing in the air above them (among other unusual and terrifying

experiences), the vervet monkeys didn’t produce a new danger signal. The human,

given similar circumstances, is quite capable of creating a “new” signal, after initial

surprise perhaps, by saying something never said before, as in Hey! Watch out for that

flying snake!

Cultural transmission

While we may inherit physical features such as brown eyes and dark hair from our

parents, we do not inherit their language. We acquire a language in a culture with

other speakers and not from parental genes. An infant born to Korean parents in

Korea, but adopted and brought up from birth by English speakers in the United

States, will have physical characteristics inherited from his or her natural parents, but

will inevitably speak English. A kitten, given comparable early experiences, will

produce meow regardless.

This process whereby a language is passed on from one generation to the next is

described as cultural transmission. It is clear that humans are born with some kind

of predisposition to acquire language in a general sense. However, we are not born

with the ability to produce utterances in a specific language such as English. We

acquire our first language as children in a culture.

The general pattern in animal communication is that creatures are born with a set

of specific signals that are produced instinctively. There is some evidence from studies

of birds as they develop their songs that instinct has to combine with learning (or

exposure) in order for the right song to be produced. If those birds spend their first

seven weeks without hearing other birds, they will instinctively produce songs or

calls, but those songs will be abnormal in some way. Human infants, growing up in

isolation, produce no “instinctive” language.

Animals and human language 15

Duality

Human language is organized at two levels or layers simultaneously. This property is

called duality (or “double articulation”). When we speak, we have a physical level at

which we produce individual sounds, like n, b and i. As individual sounds, none of

these discrete forms has any intrinsic meaning. In a particular combination such as

bin, we have another level producing a meaning that is different from the meaning of

the combination in nib. So, at one level, we have distinct sounds, and, at another

level, we have distinct meanings. This duality of levels is one of the most economical

features of human language because, with a limited set of discrete sounds, we are

capable of producing a very large number of sound combinations (e.g. words) that are

distinct in meaning.

Among other creatures, each communicative signal appears to be a single fixed

form that cannot be broken down into separate parts. Although your dog may be able

to produce woof (“I’m happy to see you”), it does not seem to do so on the basis of a

distinct level of production combining the separate elements of w þ oo þ f. If the dog was operating with the double level (i.e. duality), then we might expect to hear

different combinations with different meanings, such as oowf (“I’m hungry”) and

foow (“I’m really bored”).

Talking to animals

If these properties make human language such a unique communication system, then

it would seem extremely unlikely that other creatures would be able to understand it.

Some humans, however, do not behave as if this is the case. There is a lot of spoken

language directed by humans to animals, apparently under the impression that the

animal follows what is being said. Riders can say Whoa to horses and they stop, we

can say Heel to dogs and they will follow at heel (well, sometimes), and a variety of

circus animals go Up, Down and Roll over in response to spoken commands. Should

we treat these examples as evidence that non-humans can understand human lan-

guage? Probably not. The standard explanation is that the animal produces a particu-

lar behavior in response to a particular sound stimulus, but does not actually

“understand” what the words in the noise mean.

If it seems difficult to conceive of animals understanding human language,

then it appears to be even less likely that an animal would be capable of produ-

cing human language. After all, we do not generally observe animals of one

species learning to produce the signals of another species. You could keep your

horse in a field of cows for years, but it still won’t say Moo. And, in some homes,

a new baby and a puppy may arrive at the same time. Baby and puppy grow up in

the same environment, hearing the same things, but two years later, the baby is

16 The Study of Language

making lots of human speech sounds and the puppy is not. Perhaps a puppy is a

poor example. Wouldn’t it be better to work with a closer relative such as a

chimpanzee?

Chimpanzees and language

The idea of raising a chimp and a child together may seem like a nightmare, but this is

basically what was done in an early attempt to teach a chimpanzee to use human

language. In the 1930s, two scientists (Luella and Winthrop Kellogg) reported on their

experience of raising an infant chimpanzee together with their baby son. The chim-

panzee, called Gua, was reported to be able to understand about a hundred words, but

did not “say” any of them. In the 1940s, a chimpanzee named Viki was reared by

another scientist couple (Catherine and Keith Hayes) in their own home, exactly as if

she was a human child. These foster parents spent five years attempting to get Viki to

“say” English words by trying to shape her mouth as she produced sounds. Viki

eventually managed to produce some words, rather poorly articulated versions of

mama, papa and cup. In retrospect, this was a remarkable achievement since it has

become clear that non-human primates do not actually have a physically structured

vocal tract which is suitable for articulating the sounds used in speech. Apes and

gorillas can, like chimpanzees, communicate with a wide range of vocal calls, but

they just can’t make human speech sounds.

Washoe

Recognizing that a chimpanzee was not likely to learn spoken language,

another scientist couple (Beatrix and Allen Gardner) set out to teach a female

chimpanzee called Washoe to use a version of American Sign Language. As

described later in Chapter 15, this sign language has all the essential properties

of human language and is learned by many congenitally deaf children as their

natural first language.

From the beginning, the Gardners and their research assistants raised Washoe like

a human child in a comfortable domestic environment. Sign language was always

used when Washoe was around and she was encouraged to use signs, even her own

incomplete “baby-versions” of the signs used by adults. In a period of three and a half

years, Washoe came to use signs for more than a hundred words, ranging from

airplane, baby and banana through to window, woman and you. Even more impres-

sive was Washoe’s ability to take these forms and combine them to produce “sen-

tences” of the type gimme tickle, more fruit and open food drink (to get someone to

open the refrigerator). Some of the forms appear to have been inventions by Washoe,

as in her novel sign for bib and in the combination water bird (referring to a swan),

Animals and human language 17

which would seem to indicate that her communication system had the potential for

productivity. Washoe also demonstrated understanding of a much larger number of

signs than she produced and was capable of holding rudimentary conversations,

mainly in the form of question–answer sequences. A similar ability with sign

language was reported by Francine Patterson working with a gorilla named Koko

not long after.

Sarah

At the same time as Washoe was learning sign language, another chimpanzee was

being taught (by Ann and David Premack) to use a set of plastic shapes for the

purpose of communicating with humans. These plastic shapes represented “words”

that could be arranged in sequence to build “sentences” (Sarah preferred a vertical

order, as shown in Figure 2.2). The basic approach was quite different from that of

the Gardners. Sarah was systematically trained to associate these shapes with

objects or actions. She remained an animal in a cage, being trained with food

rewards to manipulate a set of symbols. Once she had learned to use a large number

of these plastic shapes, Sarah was capable of getting an apple by selecting the correct

plastic shape (a blue triangle) from a large array. Notice that this symbol is arbitrary

since it would be hard to argue for any natural connection between an apple and a

blue plastic triangle. Sarah was also capable of producing “sentences” such as Mary

give chocolate Sarah and had the impressive capacity to understand complex struc-

tures such as If Sarah put red on green, Mary give Sarah chocolate. Sarah got the

chocolate.

MARY

GIVE

CHOCOLATE

SARAH

Figure 2.2

18 The Study of Language

Lana

A similar training technique with another artificial language was used (by Duane

Rumbaugh) to train a chimpanzee called Lana. The language she learned was called

Yerkish and consisted of a set of symbols on a large keyboard linked to a computer.

When Lana wanted some water, she had to find and press four symbols to produce the

message please machine give water, as illustrated in Figure 2.3.

Both Sarah and Lana demonstrated an ability to use what look like word symbols

and basic structures in ways that superficially resemble the use of language. There is,

however, a lot of skepticism regarding these apparent linguistic skills. It has been

pointed out that when Lana used the symbol for “please,” she did not have to

understand the meaning of the English word please. The symbol for “please” on the

computer keyboard might simply be the equivalent of a button on a vending machine

and, so the argument goes, we could learn to operate vending machines without

necessarily knowing language. This is only one of the many arguments that have been

presented against the idea that the use of signs and symbols by these chimpanzees is

similar to the use of language.

The controversy

On the basis of his work with another chimpanzee called Nim, the psychologist

Herbert Terrace argued that chimpanzees simply produce signs in response to the

demands of people and tend to repeat signs those people use, yet they are treated (by

naive researchers) as if they are taking part in a “conversation.” As in many critical

studies of animal learning, the chimpanzees’ behavior is viewed as a type of condi-

tioned response to cues provided (often unwittingly) by human trainers. Herbert’s

conclusion was that chimpanzees are clever creatures who learn to produce a certain

type of behavior (signing or symbol selection) in order to get rewards and are

essentially performing sophisticated “tricks.”

In response, the Gardners argued that they were not animal trainers, nor were

they inculcating and then eliciting conditioned responses from Washoe. In complex

experiments, designed to eliminate any possible provision of cues by humans, they

showed that in the absence of any human, Washoe could produce correct signs to

identify objects in pictures. They also emphasize a major difference between the

experiences of Washoe and Nim. While Nim was a research animal in a complex

Figure 2.3

Animals and human language 19

environment, having to deal with a lot of different research assistants who were often

not fluent in American Sign Language, Washoe lived in a more limited domestic

environment with a lot of opportunity for imaginative play and interaction with fluent

signers who were also using sign language with each other. They also report that

another group of younger chimpanzees not only learned sign language, but also

occasionally used signs with each other and with Washoe, even when there were no

humans present.

Kanzi

In a more recent set of studies, an interesting development relevant to this controversy

came about almost by accident. While Sue Savage-Rumbaugh was attempting to train

a bonobo (a pygmy chimpanzee) called Matata how to use the symbols of Yerkish,

Matata’s adopted baby, Kanzi, was always with her. Although Matata did not do very

well, her son Kanzi spontaneously started using the symbol system with great ease.

He had learned not by being taught, but by being exposed to, and observing, a kind of

language in use at a very early age. Kanzi eventually developed a large symbol

vocabulary (over 250 forms). By the age of eight, he was reported to be able to

demonstrate understanding of spoken English at a level comparable to a two-and-a-

half-year-old human child. There was also evidence that he was using a consistently

distinct set of “gentle noises” as words to refer to things such as bananas, grapes and

juice. He had also become capable of using his symbol system to ask to watch his

favorite movies, Quest for Fire (about primitive humans) and Greystoke (about the

Tarzan legend).

Using language

Important lessons have been learned from attempts to teach chimpanzees how to use

forms of language. We have answered some questions. Were Washoe and Kanzi

capable of taking part in interaction with humans by using a symbol system chosen

by humans and not chimpanzees? The answer is clearly “Yes.” Did Washoe and Kanzi

go on to perform linguistically on a level comparable to a human child about to begin

pre-school? The answer is just as clearly “No.” In arriving at these answers, we’ve had

to face the fact that, even with a list of key properties, we still don’t seem to have a

non-controversial definition of what “using language” means.

One solution might be to stop thinking of language, at least in the phrase “using

language,” as a single thing that one can either have or not have. We could then say

there are (at least) two ways of thinking about what “using language” means. In a

very broad sense, language serves as a type of communication system that can

be observed in different situations. In one situation, we look at the behavior of a

two-year-old human child interacting with a caregiver as an example of “using

20 The Study of Language

language.” In another situation, we observe very similar behavior from chimpanzees

and bonobos when they are interacting with humans they know. It has to be fair to say

that, in both cases, we observe the participants “using language.”

However, there is a difference. Underlying the two-year-old’s communicative

activity is the capacity to develop a complex system of sounds and structures, plus

computational procedures, that will allow the child to produce extended discourse

containing a potentially infinite number of novel utterances. No other creature has

been observed “using language” in this sense. It is in this more comprehensive and

productive sense that we say that language is uniquely human.

Animals and human language 21

STUDY QUESTIONS

1 What is the difference between a communication system with productivity and one

with fixed reference?

2 Why is reflexivity considered to be a special property of human language?

3 What kind of evidence is used to support the idea that language is culturally

transmitted?

4 How did the Gardners try to show that Washoe was not simply repeating signs

made by interacting humans?

5 If Sarah could use a gray plastic shape to convey the meaning of the word red,

which property does her “language” seem to have?

6 What was considered to be the key element in Kanzi’s language learning?

TASKS

A In studies of communication involving animals and humans, there is

sometimes a reference to “the Clever Hans phenomenon.” Who or what was

Clever Hans, why was he/she/it famous and what exactly is the

“phenomenon”?

B We recognized a distinction early in the chapter between communicative and

informative signals. How would “body language” be characterized? Also, what

kind of signaling is involved in “distance zones”? What about “eye contact” and

“eyebrow flashes”?

C What is meant by “sound symbolism” and how does it relate to the property of

arbitrariness?

D (i) In the study of animal communication, what are “playback experiments”?

(ii) Which forms of animal communication described in this chapter were

discovered as a result of playback experiments?

E What was the significance of the name given to the chimpanzee in the research

conducted by the psychologist Herbert Terrace (1979)?

F We reviewed studies involving chimpanzees and bonobos learning to

communicate with humans. Can only African apes accomplish this task? Are there

any studies involving the Asian great ape, the orangutan, learning how to use a

human communication system?

G Consider these statements about the symbol-using abilities of chimpanzees in

animal language studies and decide if they are correct or not. What evidence can be

used to argue for or against the accuracy of these statements?

22 The Study of Language

(1) They can create combinations of signs that look like the telegraphic speech

produced by young children.

(2) They can invent new sign combinations.

(3) They can understand structures with complex word order, such as conditionals

(i.e. if X, then Y).

(4) They overgeneralize the references of signs, using one sign for many different

things, just as human children do in the early stages.

(5) They don’t use signs spontaneously and only produce them in response to

humans.

(6) They have complex concepts such as time because they produce sign

combinations such as time eat.

(7) They use signs to interact with each other, just as three-year-old children do

with speech.

(8) They steadily increase the length of their utterances, so that their average

utterance length of 3.0 is equivalent to that of a three-and-a-half-year-old child.

H It has been claimed that “recursion” is a key property of human language, and

of human cognition in general. What is recursion? Could it still be a universal

property of human language if one language was discovered that had no evidence

of recursion in its structure?

DISCUSSION TOPICS/PROJECTS

I Listed below are six other properties (or “design features”) that are often discussed

when human language is compared to other communication systems.

vocal–auditory channel use (language signals are sent using the vocal organs and

received by the ears)

specialization (language signals do not serve any other type of purpose such as

breathing or feeding)

non-directionality (language signals have no inherent direction and can be picked

up by anyone within hearing, even unseen)

rapid fade (language signals are produced and disappear quickly)

reciprocity (any sender of a language signal can also be a receiver)

prevarication (language signals can be false or used to lie or deceive)

(i) Are these properties found in all forms of human communication via

language?

(ii) Are these special properties of human language or can they be found in the

communication systems of other creatures?

(For background reading, see chapter 18 of O’Grady et al., 2009)

Animals and human language 23

II Themost persistent criticism of the chimpanzee language-learning projects is that the

chimpanzees are simply making responses like trained animals for rewards and are

consequently not using language to express anything. Read over the following reports

and try to decide how the different behaviors of these chimpanzees (Dar,Washoe and

Moja) should be characterized. Signs are represented by words in capital letters.

After her nap, Washoe signed OUT. I was hoping for Washoe to potty herself and

did not comply. ThenWashoe took my hands and put them together to make OUT

and then signed OUT with her own hands to show me how.

Greg was hooting and making other sounds, to prevent Dar from falling asleep.

Dar put his fist to Greg’s lips and made kissing sounds. Greg asked WHAT

WANT? and Dar replied QUIET, placing the sign on Greg’s lips.

Moja signed DOG on Ron and me and looked at our faces, waiting for us to

“woof.” After several rounds I made a “meeow” instead. Moja signed DOG again,

I repeated “meeow” again, and Moja slapped my leg harder. This went on. Finally

I woofed and Moja leapt on me and hugged me.

Moja stares longingly at Dairy Queen as we drive by. Then for a minute or more

signs NO ICE CREAM many times, by shaking her head while holding fist to

mouth, index edge up.

(For background reading, see Rimpau et al., 1989, which is the source of these

examples. There is also a film with the title Project Nim (Lionsgate), that describes

the unfortunate experiences of the chimpanzee Nim.)

FURTHER READING

Basic treatments

Aitchison, J. (2011) The Articulate Mammal (chapter 2) Routledge Classics

Friend, T. (2005) Animal Talk Simon and Schuster

More detailed treatments

Anderson, S. (2004) Doctor Doolittle’s Delusion Yale University Press

Rogers, L. and G. Kaplan (2000) Songs, Roars and Rituals Harvard University Press

General properties of language

Hockett, C. (1960) “The origin of speech” Scientific American 203: 89–96

Glossolalia

Newberg, A., N. Wintering, D. Morgan and M. Waldman (2006). “The measurement of regional

cerebral blood flow during glossolalia: a preliminary SPECT study” Psychiatry Research:

Neuroimaging 148: 67–71

Samarin,W. (1972)TonguesofMenandAngels:TheReligiousLanguageof PentecostalismMacmillan

Animal communication and consciousness

Griffin, D. (2001) Animal Minds University of Chicago Press

Hauser, M. (1996) The Evolution of Communication MIT Press

24 The Study of Language

Bee communication

von Frisch, K. (1993) The Dance Language and Orientation of Bees Harvard University Press

Lemur and vervet monkey communication

Cheney, D. and R. Seyfarth (1990) How Monkeys See the World University of Chicago Press

Jolly, A. (1966) Lemur Behavior University of Chicago Press

Individual chimpanzees, gorillas and bonobos

(Gua) Kellogg, W. and L. Kellog (1933) The Ape and the Child McGraw-Hill

(Viki) Hayes, C. (1951) The Ape in Our House Harper

(Washoe) Gardner, R., B. Gardner and T. van Cantfort (eds.) (1989) Teaching Sign Language

to Chimpanzees State University of New York Press

(Koko) Patterson, F. and E. Linden (1981) The Education of Koko Holt

(Sarah) Premack, A. and D. Premack (1991) “Teaching language to an ape” In W. Wang (ed.)

The Emergence of Language (16–27) W. H. Freeman

(Lana) Rumbaugh, D. (ed.) (1977) Language Learning by a Chimpanzee: The LANA Project

Academic Press

(Nim) Hess, E. (2008) Nim Chimpsky: The Chimp Who Would Be Human Bantam Books

(Kanzi) Savage-Rumbaugh, S. and R. Lewin (1994) Kanzi: The Ape at the Brink of the Human

Mind John Wiley

Other references

O’Grady, W., J. Archibald, M. Aronoff and J. Rees-Miller (2009) Contemporary Linguistics (6th

edition) Bedford/St. Martins Press

Rimpau, J., R. Gardner and B. Gardner (1989) “Expression of person, place and instrument in

ASL utterances of children and chimpanzees” In R. Gardner, B. Gardner and T. van Cantfort

(eds.) Teaching Sign Language to Chimpanzees (240–268) State University of New York

Press

Terrace, H. (1979) Nim: A Chimpanzee Who Learned Sign Language Knopf

Animals and human language 25

CHAPTER 3

The sounds of language

I take it you already know

Of tough and bough and cough and dough?

Others may stumble but not you

On hiccough, thorough, lough and through.

Well done! And now you wish, perhaps,

To learn of less familiar traps?

Beware of heard, a dreadful word,

That looks like beard and sounds like bird.

And dead: it's said like bed, not bead -

For goodness sake don't call it “deed”!

Watch out for meat and great and threat

(They rhyme with suite and straight and debt).

T.S.W. quoted in Mackay (1970)

In Chapter 1, we noted some of the basic features of the human vocal tract and

the intricate muscle interlacing in and around the mouth that give humans the ability

to produce a wide range of sounds with great speed. Yet, as they chatter away,

humans do not simply produce a random selection of these sounds. Only certain

sounds are selected on a regular basis as significant for communicative activity. In

order to identify and describe those sounds, we have to slow down the chatter of

everyday talk and focus on each individual sound segment within the stream of

speech. This may seem straightforward, but it is not an easy task.

Phonetics

Fortunately, there is an already established analytic framework for the study of speech

segments that has been developed and refined for over a hundred years and is known

as the International Phonetic Alphabet, or IPA. In this chapter, we will look at how

the symbols of this alphabet can be used to represent both the consonant and vowel

sounds of English words and what physical aspects of the human vocal tract are

involved in the production of those sounds.

The general study of the characteristics of speech sounds is called phonetics. Our

main interest will be in articulatory phonetics, which is the study of how speech sounds

are made, or articulated. Other areas of study are acoustic phonetics, which deals with

the physical properties of speech as sound waves in the air, and auditory phonetics (or

perceptual phonetics), which deals with the perception, via the ear, of speech sounds.

Voiced and voiceless sounds

In articulatory phonetics, we investigate how speech sounds are produced using the

fairly complex oral equipment we have. We start with the air pushed out by the lungs

up through the trachea (or windpipe) to the larynx. Inside the larynx are your vocal

folds (or vocal cords), which take two basic positions.

1 When the vocal folds are spread apart, the air from the lungs passes between them

unimpeded. Sounds produced in this way are described as voiceless.

2 When the vocal folds are drawn together, the air from the lungs repeatedly pushes

them apart as it passes through, creating a vibration effect. Sounds produced in this

way are described as voiced.

The distinction can be felt physically if you place a fingertip gently on the top of your

Adam’s apple (i.e. that part of your larynx you can feel in your neck below your chin),

then produce sounds such as Z-Z-Z-Z or V-V-V-V. Because these are voiced sounds, you

should be able to feel some vibration. Keeping your fingertip in the same position, now

make the sounds S-S-S-S or F-F-F-F. Because these are voiceless sounds, there should

be no vibration. Another trick is to put a finger in each ear, not too far, and produce the

voiced sounds (e.g. Z-Z-Z-Z) to hear and feel some vibration, whereas no vibration

will be heard or felt if you make voiceless sounds (e.g. S-S-S-S) in the same way.

Place of articulation

Once the air has passed through the larynx, it comes up and out through the mouth

and/or the nose. Most consonant sounds are produced by using the tongue and other

parts of the mouth to constrict, in some way, the shape of the oral cavity through

which the air is passing. The terms used to describe many sounds are those that

The sounds of language 27

denote the place of articulation of the sound: that is, the location inside the mouth at

which the constriction takes place.

What we need is a slice of head. If you crack a head right down the middle, you

will be able to see those parts of the oral cavity that are crucially involved in speech

production. In Figure 3.1, in addition to lips and teeth, a number of other physical

features are identified. To describe the place of articulation of most consonant sounds,

we can start at the front of the mouth and work back. We can also keep the voiced–

voiceless distinction in mind and begin using the symbols of the IPA for specific

sounds. These symbols will be enclosed within square brackets [].

Consonants

Familiar symbols

Many of the symbols used to describe consonant sounds will be familiar. We use [p]

for the consonant in pop, [b] in Bob, and [m] in mom. These are bilabial consonants,

made with both lips. We use [f] and [v] for the labiodentals (using upper teeth and

lower lip) at the beginning and end of five. Behind the upper teeth is a rough area (the

alveolar ridge) where we make the alveolar sounds of [t] in tot, [d] in dad, [s] and [z]

in size, and [n] in nun.

Of course, there isn’t always a match between written letters and phonetic

symbols, as in the pronunciation of the sound at the beginning of photo and the end

nasal cavity

palate

velum

uvula

pharynx

larynx vocal folds

tongue

alveolar ridge

Figure 3.1

28 The Study of Language

of enough. In both cases, we would represent the sound with [f]. More tricky are the

final sounds in the pairs face versus phase and race versus raise: if you listen carefully,

you will hear [s] in the first word of each pair and [z] in the second.

Unfamiliar symbols

Other symbols are much less familiar, as in the two ways of representing the “th”

sounds in English. We use [θ], called “theta,” for the voiceless version, as in three,

wrath. We use [ð], called “eth,” for the voiced version, as in thus, loathe. Because the

teeth are involved in the production of these sounds, they are called dentals, or in

those cases where the tongue tip is between (¼ inter) the teeth, they may be described as interdentals.

There are some special symbols used for the sounds made in the middle area of

the mouth, involving the tongue and the palate (the roof of the mouth). We use [ʃ] for

the “sh” sound, as in shout, shoe-brush, and [ʧ] for the “ch” sound, as in child, church.

These are voiceless.

Their voiced counterparts are [ʒ] for the sound in treasure, rouge, and [ʤ] for the

sound in judge, George. Another voiced sound made in this area is [j], which typically

represents the “y” sound, as in yes, yoyo. Because the palate area is involved in these

sounds, they are described as palatals.

The sounds produced toward the back of the mouth, involving the velum,

are represented by the velars [k], as in kick, and [ɡ], as in gag. Note that phonetic

[ɡ] is different from typewritten “g.” We often use [k] to represent the sound of words

beginning with “c,” as well as some other letters, as in cat, character and queue.

One other consonant produced in this area is [ŋ], called “angma,” as in thong, ringing. Be careful not to be misled by the spelling because both bang and tongue end

with [ŋ] only. There is no [ɡ] sound at the end of these words. Adescription of the place of articulation for each consonant is presented in Table 3.1.

Consonants: manner of articulation

In Table 3.1, there is a detailed analysis of the place of articulation for consonants. From

this we can see that [t] and [s] are similar in that they are both voiceless alveolars. But

they’re clearly different. The difference is in how they are pronounced, or their manner

of articulation. The [t] sound is a “stop” consonant and the [s] sound is a “fricative.”

Stops

In producing a stop consonant, we block the airflow briefly, then let it go abruptly.

The voiceless stops are [p], [t], [k] and the voiced stops are [b], [d], [ɡ]. So, the word

pet begins and ends with voiceless stops and bed with voiced stops.

The sounds of language 29

Fricatives

To produce a fricative, we almost block the airflow and force it through a narrow gap,

creating a type of friction. The voiceless forms are [f], [θ], [s], [ʃ], [h], so that the word

fish begins and ends with voiceless fricatives. The voiced versions are [v], [ð], [z], [ʒ],

so the word those begins and ends with voiced fricatives.