The Study of Language (2017) by George Yule - PDF

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 through all the key elem...

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 through all the key elements of language. This sixth edition has been revised and updated throughout, with substantial changes to the chapters on phonetics, grammar and syntax, and eighty new study questions. To increase student engagement and to foster problem-solving and critical- thinking skills, the book includes twenty 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 University of Edinburgh, the University of Hawai‘i, the University of Minnesota and Louisiana State University. 2 “A genuinely introductory linguistics text, well suited for undergraduates who have little prior experience thinking descriptively about language. Yule’s crisp and thought-provoking presentation of key issues works well for a wide range of students.” Elise Morse-Gagne, Tougaloo College “The Study of Language is one of the most accessible and entertaining introductions to linguistics available. Newly updated with a wealth of material for practice and discussion, it will continue to inspire new generations of students.” Stephen Matthews, University of Hong Kong “Its strength is in providing a general survey of mainstream linguistics in palatable, easily manageable and logically organized chunks. The chapter divisions allow for considerable flexibility, which has proved particularly important after recently restructuring our courses and reorganizing the order in which to cover the topics.” Nigel Musk, University of Linköping “Perfect for the beginners’ level introductory linguistics course, both in style and content.” Hugh Buckingham, Professor of Linguistics, Louisiana State University “Very clear and easy to read for beginners; user-friendly and non-threatening …; chapters are in absorbable bite-size chunks.” Jean Aitchison, Professor of Language and Communication, University of Oxford “An impressive breadth of coverage … clear presentation, lucid style and accessibility … a solid foundation for further study in linguistics as well as being a pleasure to read in its own right.” Alan Smith, Web Journal of Modern Language Linguistics “Comprehensive, concise and compelling, this updated and highly accessible textbook is the obvious choice for the beginner language student.” Torill Hestetræet, University of Bergen “This textbook is an excellent overview of the central topics in linguistics and how linguists study language.” Daniel W. Hieber, Rosetta Stone, eLanguage.net 3 “… provides a clear and concise introduction to linguistics suitable for beginners.” Dr. Jeffrey Gil, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia 4 THE STUDY OF LANGUAGE Sixth Edition George Yule 5  University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom 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/9781316606759 First and second editions © Cambridge University Press 1985, 1996 Third, fourth and fifth editions © George Yule 2006, 2010, 2014 Sixth edition © George Yule 2017 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 Sixth edition 2017 Printed in the United Kingdom by Clays, St Ives plc A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data Yule, George, 1947– author. The study of language / George Yule. Sixth edition. | Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press, 2016. | Previous ed.: 2014. LCCN 2016010371 | ISBN 9781107152991 (hardback) LCSH: Language and languages. | Linguistics. LCC P107.Y85 2016 | DDC 401–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016010371 ISBN 978-1-107-15299-1 Hardback 6  ISBN 978-1-316-60675-9 Paperback Additional resources for this publication at www.cambridge.org/yule6 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. Every effort has been made to secure necessary permissions to reproduce copyright material in this work, though in some cases it has proved impossible to trace copyright holders. If any omissions are brought to our notice, we will be happy to include appropriate acknowledgements on reprinting, or in any subsequent edition. 7  Contents Preface 1 The Origins of Language The Divine Source The Natural Sound Source The “Bow-Wow” Theory The “Pooh-Pooh” Theory The Social Interaction Source The Physical Adaptation Source Teeth and Lips Mouth and Tongue Larynx and Pharynx The Tool-Making Source The Human Brain The Genetic Source The Innateness Hypothesis Study Questions Tasks Discussion Topics/Projects Further Reading 2 Animals and Human Language Communication Properties of Human Language Displacement Arbitrariness Cultural Transmission Productivity Duality Talking to Animals Chimpanzees and Language Washoe 8  Sarah and Lana The Controversy Kanzi Using Language Study Questions Tasks Discussion Topics/Projects Further Reading 3 The Sounds of Language Phonetics Consonants Voiced and Voiceless Sounds Place of Articulation Familiar Symbols Unfamiliar Symbols Transcribing Sounds (Not Letters) Manner of Articulation A Consonant Chart Glottal Stops and Flaps Vowels Diphthongs American and British Diphthongs Subtle Individual Variation Study Questions Tasks Discussion Topics/Projects Further Reading 4 The Sound Patterns of Language Phonology Phonemes Natural Classes Phones and Allophones Complementary Distribution Minimal Pairs and Sets 9  Phonotactics Syllables Consonant Clusters Coarticulation Effects Assimilation Nasalization Elision Normal Speech Study Questions Tasks Discussion Topics/Projects Bob Belviso Translated Further Reading 5 Word Formation Neologisms Etymology Borrowing Loan-Translation Compounding Blending Clipping Hypocorisms Backformation Conversion Coinage Acronyms Derivation Prefixes and Suffixes Infixes Multiple Processes Study Questions Tasks Discussion Topics/Projects Further Reading 10 6 Morphology Morphology Morphemes Free and Bound Morphemes Lexical and Functional Morphemes Derivational Morphemes Inflectional Morphemes Morphological Description Morphs, Allomorphs and Special Cases Other Languages Kanuri Ganda Ilocano Tagalog Study Questions Tasks Discussion Topics/Projects Further Reading 7 Grammar English Grammar Traditional Grammar The Parts of Speech Agreement Grammatical Gender Traditional Analysis The Prescriptive Approach Captain Kirk’s Infinitive The Descriptive Approach Structural Analysis Constituent Analysis Subjects and Objects Word Order Language Typology Why Study Grammar? 11  Study Questions Tasks Discussion Topics/Projects Further Reading 8 Syntax Syntactic Rules A Generative Grammar Deep and Surface Structure Structural Ambiguity Syntactic Analysis Phrase Structure Rules Lexical Rules Tree Diagrams Tree Diagrams of English Sentences Just Scratching The Surface Study Questions Tasks Discussion Topics/Projects Further Reading 9 Semantics Meaning Semantic Features Words as Containers of Meaning Semantic Roles Agent and Theme Instrument and Experiencer Location, Source and Goal Lexical relations Synonymy Antonymy Hyponymy Prototypes Homophones and Homonyms Polysemy 12  Word Play Metonymy Collocation Study Questions Tasks Discussion Topics/Projects Further Reading 10 Pragmatics Invisible Meaning Context Deixis Reference Inference Anaphora Presupposition Pragmatic Markers Politeness Negative and Positive Face Speech Acts Direct and Indirect Speech Acts Study Questions Tasks Discussion Topics/Projects Further Reading 11 Discourse Analysis Discourse Interpreting Discourse Cohesion Coherence Conversation analysis Turn-Taking Pauses and Filled Pauses Adjacency Pairs Insertion Sequences 13  The Co-operative Principle Hedges Implicatures Background Knowledge Schemas and Scripts Study Questions Tasks Discussion Topics/Projects Further Reading 12 Language and the Brain Neurolinguistics Language Areas in the Brain Broca’s Area Wernicke’s Area The Motor Cortex and the Arcuate Fasciculus The Localization View Tongue Tips and Slips The Tip of the Tongue Phenomenon Slips of the Tongue Slips of the Brain Slips of the Ear Aphasia Broca’s Aphasia Wernicke’s Aphasia Conduction Aphasia Dichotic Listening Left Brain, Right Brain The Critical Period Genie Study Questions Tasks Discussion Topics/Projects Further Reading 13 First Language Acquisition 14  Acquisition Input Caregiver Speech The Acquisition Schedule Cooing Babbling The One-Word Stage The Two-Word Stage Telegraphic Speech The Acquisition Process Learning through Imitation? Learning through Correction? Developing Morphology Developing Syntax Forming Questions Forming Negatives Developing Semantics Later Developments Study Questions Tasks Discussion Topics/Projects Further Reading 14 Second Language Acquisition/Learning Second Language Learning Acquisition and Learning Acquisition Barriers The Age Factor Affective Factors Focus on Teaching Method The Grammar–Translation Method The Audiolingual Method Communicative Approaches Focus on the Learner Transfer 15  Interlanguage Motivation Input and Output Task-Based Learning Communicative Competence Study Questions Tasks Discussion Topics/Projects Further Reading 15 Gestures and Sign Languages Gestures Iconics Deictics Beats Types of Sign Languages Oralism Signed English Origins of ASL The Structure of Signs Shape and Orientation Location Movement Primes Facial Expressions and Finger-Spelling Representing Signs The Meaning of Signs ASL as a Natural Language Study Questions Tasks Discussion Topics/Projects Further Reading 16 Written Language Writing Pictograms 16  Ideograms Logograms Phonographic Writing The Rebus Principle Syllabic Writing Alphabetic Writing Written English English Orthography Study Questions Tasks Discussion Topics/Projects Further Reading 17 Language History and Change Family Trees Indo-European Cognates Comparative Reconstruction Comparing Cognates Sound Reconstruction Word Reconstruction The History of English Old English Middle English Sound Changes Metathesis Epenthesis Prothesis Syntactic Changes Loss of Inflections Semantic Changes Broadening of Meaning Narrowing of Meaning Diachronic and Synchronic Variation Study Questions 17  Tasks Discussion Topics/Projects Further Reading 18 Regional Variation in Language The Standard Language Accent and Dialect Variation in Grammar Dialectology Regional Dialects Isoglosses Dialect Boundaries The Dialect Continuum Bilingualism Diglossia Language Planning Pidgins Creoles The Post-Creole Continuum Study Questions Tasks Discussion Topics/Projects Further Reading 19 Social Variation in Language Sociolinguistics Social Dialects Education and Occupation Social Markers Speech Style and Style-Shifting Prestige Speech Accommodation Convergence Divergence Register Jargon 18  Slang Taboo Terms African American English Vernacular Language The Sounds of a Vernacular The Grammar of a Vernacular Study Questions Tasks Discussion Topics/Projects Further Reading 20 Language and Culture Culture Categories Kinship Terms Time Concepts Linguistic Relativity The Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis Against the Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis Snow Non-lexicalized Categories Cognitive Categories Classifiers Social Categories Address Terms Gender Gendered Words Gendered Structures Gendered Speech Same-Gender Talk Gendered Interaction Study Questions Tasks Discussion Topics/Projects Further Reading 19 Glossary References Index 20 Preface 21  In This New Edition Thanks to a comprehensive survey of instructors familiar with earlier editions, I received a lot of good advice and suggestions for improvements to this new edition. As a result, a number of revisions have been made to the internal organization of all chapters, with more than thirty new figures and tables. There are also substantial revisions in Chapters 3 (Phonetics), 7 (Grammar) and 8 (Syntax), plus additional material on adjacency pairs, brain development, coherence, complementary distribution, diphthongs, emotional deixis, human breathing while speaking, insertion sequences, language typology, morpheme acquisition, pragmatic markers, referential meaning, slips of the tongue, stone tool use, subjects, objects and word order. I hope these revisions and additions will make the book more informative, easier to read and overall more user-friendly. In addition, there are eighty new study questions and twenty new tasks. The majority of the tasks are data-based and designed to foster analytic, problem-solving and critical- thinking skills. There are new examples from languages as diverse as Bislama, Cree, Lolovoli, Japanese, Malagasy, Manambu and Rotokas. Additional topics explored in the study of English include adjacency pairs, American versus British spelling, auxiliary movement, children’s slips, English as a lingua franca, genitives, lenition, long and short vowels, mateship, morphophonology, prepositions and semantic roles, and the trochaic stress pattern. 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/yule6. 22  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 continue to be interesting developments in the study of language, but it is still the case that any mature 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 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 chapter, mostly through exercises in 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 University, 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 23 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 Espíritu Santo), Mary Anna Dimitrakopoulos (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 (Essen University), Richard Hirsch (Linköping University), Fiona Joseph (University of Wolverhampton), Eliza Kitis (Aristotle University), Mairead MacLeod, Terrie Mathis (California State University, Northridge), Megan Melançon (Georgia College), Stephen Matthews (University of Hong Kong), Robyn Najar (Flinders University), Eric Nelson (University of Minnesota), Jens Reinke (Christian Albrechts Universität zu Kiel), Philip Riley (Université de Nancy 2), Rick Santos (Fresno City College), Joanne Scheibman (Old Dominion University), Robert Sinclair, Royal Skousen (Brigham Young University), Michael Stubbs (Universität Trier), Mary Talbot (University of Sunderland), Sherman Wilcox (University of New Mexico) and Jay Yule. For my own introductory course, I remain indebted to Willie and Annie Yule, and, for my continuing enlightenment, to Maryann Overstreet. 24  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.” 25 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 language must 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. 26  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, it is Sarasvati, wife of Brahma, who is credited with bringing language to humanity. 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 few experiments have been carried out, with rather conflicting results. The basic hypothesis seems to have been that, if human infants were allowed to grow up without 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 of what 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 commentators have pointed out, they must have heard what the goats were saying. (First remove the -kos ending, which was added in the Greek 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. About a century later, the Mogul emperor Akbar the Great also arranged for newborn babies to be raised in silence, only to find that the children produced no speech at all. It is unfortunate that Akbar’s result is more in line with the real-world outcome for children who have been discovered living in isolation, without coming into contact with human speech. 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 27 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). 28  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 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. 29  The “Bow-Wow” Theory In this scenario, when different objects flew by, making a C AW - C AW 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 a number of words in any language are onomatopoeic, 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. 30  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 circumstances. 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 breathe 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. 31  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 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. Sounds, then, would have some principled use in the social interaction of early human groups. This is an important idea involving the uses of humanly produced sounds. It does not, however, reveal the origins of the sounds produced. Apes and other primates live in social groups and use grunts and social calls, but they have not developed the capacity for speech. 32  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 may have supported speech production. We can start with the observation that, at an early stage, our ancestors made a major transition to an upright posture, with bi-pedal (on two feet) locomotion. This really changed how we breathe. Among four-legged creatures, the rhythm of breathing is closely linked to the rhythm of walking, resulting in a one pace – one breath relationship. Among two-legged creatures, the rhythm of breathing is not tied to the rhythm of walking, allowing long articulations on outgoing breath, with short in-breaths. It has been calculated that “human breathing while speaking is about 90% exhalation with only about 10% of time saved for quick in-breaths” (Hurford, 2014: 83). Other physical changes have been found. The reconstructed vocal tract of a Neanderthal man from around 60,000 years ago suggests that some consonant-like sound distinctions were possible. Around 35,000 years ago we start to find features in fossilized skeletal structures that resemble those of modern humans. In the study of evolutionary development, there are certain physical features that are streamlined versions of features found in other primates. By themselves, such features would not guarantee speech, but they are good clues that a creature with such features probably has the capacity for speech. 33  Teeth and Lips Human teeth are upright, not slanting outwards like those of apes, and they are roughly even in height. They are also much smaller. 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 interlacing 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 attested in the vocalizations made by human infants during their first year, no matter which language their parents are using. 34  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 more of an L-shape than the 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. 35  Larynx and Pharynx The human larynx or “voice box” (containing the vocal folds) 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. Other primates have almost no pharynx. One unfortunate 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. 36  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 stone tools. Tool making, or the outcome of manipulating objects and changing them using both hands, is evidence of a brain at work. 37  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 connection between the language- using and tool-using abilities of humans and that both were involved in the development of the speaking brain. A recent study kept track of specific activity in the brains of experienced stonecutters as they crafted a stone tool, using a technique known to have existed for 500,000 years. The researchers also measured the brain activity of the same individuals when they were asked to think (silently) of particular words. The patterns of blood flow to specific parts of the brain were very similar, suggesting that aspects of the structure of language may have developed through the same brain circuits established earlier for two-handed stone tool creation. 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 bring another rock (other sounds) into 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 consistently using one type of noise (e.g. bE E r). The crucial additional step was to bring another specific noise (e.g. gO O d) into combination with the first to build a complex message (bE E r gO O d). 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. 38  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. 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 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 is not tied to a specific variety of language. Is it possible that this language capacity is genetically hard- wired in the newborn human? 39  The Innateness Hypothesis As a solution to the puzzle of the origins of language, the innateness hypothesis would seem to point to something in human genetics, possibly a crucial mutation or two, as the source. In the study of human development, a number of gene mutations have been identified that relate to changes in the human diet, especially those resulting in an increase in calorie intake, possibly tied to the ability to digest starch in food and a substantial increase in glucose production. These changes are believed to have enhanced blood flow in the brain, creating the conditions for a bigger and more complex brain to develop. We are not sure when these genetic changes might have taken place or how they 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 biology and genetics. The investigation of the origins of language then turns into a search for the special “language gene” that only humans possess. In one of the tasks at the end of this chapter (Task G on page 9), you can investigate the background to the discovery of one particular gene (FOXP2) that is thought to have a role in language production. 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 will try to answer that question in Chapter 2. 40  Study Questions 1 When did written language develop? 2 When can we say the human auditory system has begun working? 3 What percentage of human breathing while speaking normally consists of in-breaths? 4 What is the difference between the position of the larynx in humans and other primates? 5 Why are interjections such as Ooh! or Yuck! considered to be unlikely sources of human speech sounds? 6 What is the basic idea behind the “bow-wow” theory of language origin? 7 Why is it difficult to agree with Psammetichus that Phrygian must have been the original human language? 8 Where is the pharynx and how did it become an important part of human sound production? 9 Why do you think that young deaf children who become fluent in sign language would be cited in support of the innateness hypothesis? 10 With which of the six “sources” would you associate the following quotation? Chewing, licking and sucking are extremely widespread mammalian activities, which, in terms of casual observation, have obvious similarities with speech. (MacNeilage, 1998) 41  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 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? E In the study of the relationship between brain, tools and language in human development, two distinct types of stone tools are typically mentioned. They are described as Oldowan tools and Acheulean tools. What is the difference between them, when were they used, and which of them was investigated in the recent study involving blood flow in the brain, as described in the chapter? F 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? G 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? H 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”? I What is the connection between the innateness hypothesis, as described in this chapter, and the idea of a Universal Grammar? 42  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.) 43 Further Reading 44  Basic Treatments Aitchison, J. (2000) The Seeds of Speech (Canto edition) Cambridge University Press Hurford, J. (2014) The Origins of Language Oxford University Press Kenneally, C. (2007) The First Word Viking Press 45  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 46  Human Physical Development Harari, Y. (2015) Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind Harper Collins 47  Music before Language Mithen, S. (2006) The Singing Neanderthals Harvard University Press 48  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 49  Victor, Genie and Feral Children Lane, H. (1976) The Wild Boy of Aveyron Harvard University Press Newton, M. (2002) Savage Girls and Wild Boys: A History of Feral Children Picador Rymer, R. (1993) Genie HarperCollins 50  “Bow-Wow” Theory, etc. Jespersen, O. (1922) Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin George Allen & Unwin 51  The Early Sounds Made by Infants Locke, J. (1983) Phonological Acquisition and Change Academic Press 52  Social Interaction Burling, R. (2005) The Talking Ape Oxford University Press 53  Physical Development Lieberman, P. (1998) Eve Spoke: Human Language and Human Evolution Norton 54  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 55  Brain Development Loritz, D. (1999) How the Brain Evolved Language Oxford University Press 56  Stone Tools Balter, M. (2013) “Striking patterns: skill for forming tools and words evolved together” Science/AAAS/News (August 30, 2013) and news.sciencemag.org Uomini, N. and G. Meyer (2013) “Shared brain lateralization patterns in language and Acheulean stone tool production: a functional transcranial Doppler ultrasound study” PLoS ONE 8(8): e72693 57  Innateness Pinker, S. (1994) The Language Instinct William Morrow 58  Against Innateness Sampson, G. (2005) The “Language Instinct” Debate (revised edition) Continuum 59  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 60  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 61 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 believe that creatures can communicate, 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. 62  Communication We should first distinguish between specifically communicative signals and those that may be unintentionally informative signals. Someone listening to you may become informed about you through a number of signals that you have not intentionally sent. She may note that you have a cold (you sneezed), that you are not 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 is not intentional 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 communicating anything by having black feathers and sitting on a branch. However, the bird is considered to be sending a communicative signal with the loud squawking 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 for intentional communication. 63  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 is 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 menacing.” 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 willl look in detail at another five of them: displacement, arbitrariness, productivity, cultural transmission and duality. 64  Displacement When your pet cat comes up to you calling meow, you are likely to understand this message as relating to that immediate time and place. If you ask your cat what it has been up to, you will probably get the same meow response. Animal communication seems to be designed exclusively for the here and now. It isn’t used to relate events that are 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 not present in the immediate environment. 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 for further away), 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. 65  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 and from its shape 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 to make words “fit” the concept they indicate, as in Figure 2.1, but this type of game only emphasizes the arbitrariness of the connection that normally exists between a word and its meaning. Figure 2.1 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). 66  Cultural Transmission While we 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. 67  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 for 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. 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 for 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. 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. 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 count 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 laboratory research involving snakes suddenly appearing in the air above them (among other weird experiences), the vervet monkeys didn’t produce a new danger signal. The human, given 68 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! 69  Duality Human language is organized at two levels 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 combination such as bin, we have another level with 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 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 + oo + 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”). 70  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. 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 language? Probably not. The standard explanation is that the animal produces a particular behavior in response to a sound stimulus, but does not actually “understand” what the noise means. 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 producing 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 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? 71  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 chimpanzee, 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, 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 that 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. 72  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 impressive was Washoe’s ability to take these forms and combine them to produce “sentences” 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), 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. 73  Sarah and Lana 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.” This chimpanzee was called Sarah and she preferred to arrange the shapes into a vertical order, as shown in Figure 2.2. The basic approach was quite different from that of the Gardners. Sarah was not treated like a human child in a domestic environment. To begin with, she was over five years old when the training began. She was systematically trained to associate the plastic 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 the 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 structures such as If Sarah put red on green, Mary give Sarah chocolate. Sarah would get the chocolate. 74 75  Figure 2.2 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. Figure 2.3 76  The Controversy 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. 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 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 conditioned response to cues provided (often unwittingly) by human trainers. Herbert’s conclusion was that chimpanzees are clever creatures who learn a certain type of behavior (signing) 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 eliciting conditioned responses from Washoe. In complex experiments, designed to eliminate any visual cues, 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 Washoe and Nim. While Nim was a research animal in a complex environment, dealing with a lot of different researchers who were often not fluent signers, 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 learned sign language and occasionally used signs with each other and with Washoe, even when there were no humans present. 77  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 Yerkish to ask for his favorite movies, Quest for Fire and Greystoke (about the Tarzan legend). 78  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 like a human child about to begin pre-school? The answer is just as clearly “No.” Yet, even as we arrive at these answers, 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 “using language.” In a broad sense, language serves as a type of communication system 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 language.” In another situation, we observe very similar behavior from chimpanzees when they are interacting with humans. 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. 79  Study Questions 1 What is displacement? 2 What is the difference between a communication system with productivity and one with fixed reference? 3 Why is reflexivity considered to be a special property of human language? 4 What kind of evidence is used to support the idea that language is culturally transmitted? 5 Which English words was Viki reported to be able to say? 6 What property did Washoe’s language seem to have when she used an expression such as “water bird” to refer to a swan? 7 How did the Gardners try to show that Washoe was not simply repeating signs made by interacting humans? 8 If Sarah could use a gray plastic shape to convey the meaning of the word red, which property does her “language” seem to have? 9 What was the name of the “language” that Lana learned? 10 What was considered to be the key element in Kanzi’s language learning? 80  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”? How does it relate to 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 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? 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 What was the significance of the name given to the chimpanzee in the research conducted by the psychologist Herbert Terrace (1979)? H 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? (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). 81 (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. 82  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 (language signals are sent using the vocal organs and received by the channel use ears) specialization (language signals do not serve any other type of purpose such as breathing or feeding) non- (language signals have no inherent direction and can be picked up by directionality 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.) II The most 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. Then Washoe 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. 83  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.) 84 Further Reading 85  Basic Treatments Aitchison, J. (2011) The Articulate Mammal (chapter 2) Routledge Classics Friend, T. (2005) Animal Talk Simon and Schuster 86  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 87  General Properties of Language Hockett, C. (1960) “The origin of speech” Scientific American 203: 89–96 88  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) Tongues of Men and Angels: The Religious Language of Pentecostalism Macmillan 89  Animal Communication and Consciousness Griffin, D. (2001) Animal Minds University of Chicago Press Hauser, M. (1996) The Evolution of Communication MIT Press 90  Bee Communication von Frisch, K. (1993) The Dance Language and Orientation of Bees Harvard University Press 91  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 92  Chimpanzee Gestures Hobaiter, C. and R. Byrne (2014) “The meaning of chimpanzee gestures” Current Biology 24: 1596–1600 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.05.066 93  Individual Chimpanzees 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 (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 94  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 95  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 96 (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. 97  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 some of the symbols of this alphabet can be used to represent the sounds of English words and what physical aspects of the human vocal tract are involved in the production of those sounds. The full IPA chart can be found at internationalphoneticalphabet.org. 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. 98  Consonants We are not generally aware of how we produce speech sounds and it takes a certain amount of concentration on what we are doing with our mouths to become capable of describing the individual sounds produced. We will begin with the consonants. When we describe the articulation of a consonant, we focus on three features: the voiced/voiceless distinction, the place of articulation and the manner of articulation. 99  Voiced and Voiceless Sounds To make a consonant sound, 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 with no obstruction, producing voiceless sounds. 2 When the vocal folds are drawn together, the air from the lungs repeatedly pushes them apart as it passes through, with a vibration effect, producing voiced sounds. 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. 100  Place of Articulation Once the air has passed through the larynx, it enters the vocal tract and comes up via the pharynx, an extended tube shape about five inches (13 centimeters) long. It is then pushed out through the mouth (the oral tract) and/or the nose (the nasal tract). As noted in Chapter 1, we typically produce speech as we are breathing out and generally find it quite difficult to do very much talking while breathing in. 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 tract through which the air is passing. The terms used to describe many sounds are those that 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 we crack a head right down the middle, we 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 [ ]. 101 Figure 3.1 102  Familiar Symbols Many of the symbols used in phonetics to describe consonant sounds will be familiar. We use [p] for the voiceless consonant in pop. We use [b] in Bob, [m] in mom and [w] in wet for the voiced versions. These are bilabial consonants, made with both lips. We use [f] and [v] for the labiodentals, which are formed using the upper front teeth and the lower lip at the beginning of fat and vat. The voiceless [f] is at the beginning and the voiced [v] is at the end of the pronunciation of five. Behind the upper teeth is a rough area called the alveolar ridge. We raise the front of the tongue to this area when we make the alveolar sounds of [t] in tot, [d] in dad, [s], [z] in size, [r], [l] in rail and [n] in nun; [t] and [s] are voiceless, [d], [z], [r], [l] and [n] are voiced. 103  Unfamiliar Symbols Other symbols may be 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 thin and wrath, and at the beginning and end of the phrase three teeth. We use [ð], called “eth,” for the voiced version, as in thus, then, feather and loathe. Because the teeth are involved in creating these sounds, they are called dentals. If these sounds are made with the tongue tip between (= inter) the teeth, they are 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 and shoe-brush, and [ʧ] for the “ch” sound, as in child and church. These are voiceless consonants. Their voiced counterparts are [ʒ] for the sound in treasure and rouge, and [ʤ] for the sound in judge and George. Because they are produced in an area where the alveolar ridge meets the palate, these sounds ([ʃ], [ʧ], [ʒ], [ʤ]) are sometimes described as “post-alveolar” or “palato-alveolar,” but we will just refer to them as palatals. Another palatal is the voiced sound [j], which often represents the sound of the written letter “y,” as in yes, yoyo and lawyer. The sounds produced toward the back of the mouth, involving the velum, are represented by the velars [k], as in kick (voiceless), and [ɡ], as in gag (voiced). Note that phonetic [ɡ] is different from typewritten “g.” Another velar consonant is [ŋ], called “angma,” as in thong and ringing. There is no [ɡ] sound at the end of these words. There is one consonant sound produced without the active use of the tongue. It is the [h] sound in have and hold, and the first sound in who and whose. This sound is described as a voiceless glottal. The “glottis” is the space between the vocal folds in the larynx. When the glottis is open, as in the production of other voiceless sounds, and there is no manipulation of the air passing out of the mouth, the sound produced is [h]. A summary of the place of articulation for each consonant is presented in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Consonants Voiceless Voiced Place of articulation Bilabials [p] [b], [m], [w] both (=bi) lips (=labia) pet, tape bet, met, wet Labiodentals [f] [v] upper teeth with lower lip 104  fat, safe vat, save Dentals [θ] [ð] tongue tip behind upper teeth thin, bath then, bathe Alveolars [t], [s] [d], [z], [n], [l], tongue tip to alveolar ridge [r] top, sit dog, zoo, nut, lap, rap Palatals [ʃ], [ʧ] [ʒ], [ʤ], [j] tongue and palate ship, chip casual, gem, yet Velars [k] [g], [ŋ] back of tongue and velum cat, back gun, bang Glottals [h] space between vocal folds hat, who 105  Transcribing Sounds (Not Letters) It is important to remember that written English is often a poor guide to pronunciation. We have already seen that words such as bang and tongue end with [ŋ] only, and there is no [ɡ] sound despite the spelling. Although they have really different spellings, the first sound in photo and the last sound in enough are the same [f]. Perhaps 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. 106  Manner of Articulation When we focus on the place of articulation for consonants, as in Table 3.1, we can see that [t] and [s] are similar in that they are both voiceless alveolars. But they are clearly different sounds. 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.” An analysis of the manner of articulation of English consonants is presented in Table 3.2. We should note that in some analyses, stops are described as “plosives” and what we call “glides” here may be described as “approximants” or “semi-vowels.” Table 3.2 Consonants Voiceless Voiced Manner of articulation Stops [p], [t], [k] [b], [d], [g] block airflow, let it go abruptly pet, talk bed, dog Fricatives [f], [θ], [s], [v], [ð], [z], [ʒ] almost block airflow, let it escape [ʃ], [h] through a narrow gap faith, house, vase, the, rouge she, Affricates [ʧ] [ʤ] combine a brief stop with a fricative cheap, rich jeep, rage Nasals [m], [n], [ŋ] lower the velum, let air flow out through nose morning, name Liquids [l], [r] raise and curl tongue, let airflow escape round the sides load, light, road, write Glides [w], [j] move tongue to or from a vowel we, want, yes, 107 you 108  A Consonant Chart Having described the most common consonant sounds used by English speakers, we can summarize the information in the following chart (Table 3.3). Along the top are the terms for place of articulation, as well as –V (voiceless) and +V (voiced). On the left-hand side are the terms for manner of articulation. Table 3.3 Bilabial Labiodental Dental Alveolar Palatal Velar Glottal −V +V −V +V −V +V −V +V −V +V −V +V −V Stops p b t d k g Fricatives f v θ ð s z ʃ ʒ h Affricates ʧ ʤ Nasals m n ŋ Liquids lr Glides w j 109  Glottal Stops and Flaps Missing from Table 3.3 are two ways of pronouncing consonants that may also be heard in English, usually in casual speech situations. The glottal stop, represented by the symbol [ʔ], is produced when the space between the vocal folds (the glottis) is closed completely very briefly, then released. Many speakers produce a glottal stop in the middle of Uh-uh (meaning “no”), when they say the name Harry Potter as if it didn’t have the “H” or the “tt,” or in the words bottle or butter without the “tt” part. If, however, you are someone who pronounces the word butter in a way that is close to “budder,” you are making a flap. It is represented by [ɾ]. This sound is produced by the tongue tip tapping th