On Formality of Animal Language
A "formal language" requires a communication with a syntax as well as semantics. It is not sufficient for one to communicate information or even use symbols to communicate ideas. It has yet to be demonstrated that any animal species has developed a formal language, or been able to learn a formal language.
Researchers have attempted to teach great apes (Gorillas, Chimpanzees, and Bonobos) spoken language with poor results, and sign language with significantly better results. However, even the best communicating great ape has shown an inability to grasp the idea of syntax and grammar, instead communicating at best at the same level as a pidgin language in Humans. They are expressive and communicative, but lack the formality that remains unique to human speech.
Modern research shows that the key difference is the animal's lack of asking questions and that formal syntax is merely a superficial detail. There are other differences as well, including poor precision, as shown by Kanzi the bonobo used the lexigram for chase interchangeably with that for get. Research supports the idea that the linguistic limitations in animals are due to limited general brainpower (as opposed to lack of a specific module), and that words are created by breaking down sentences into pieces, making grammar more basic than semantics. The statement that syntax is the key difference between human and animal language is dubious.
Read more about this topic: Talking Animal
Famous quotes containing the words formality, animal and/or language:
“Foolish, whenever you take the meanness and formality of that thing you do, instead of converting it into the obedient spiracle of your character and aims.”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)
“Power is, in nature, the essential measure of right. Nature suffers nothing to remain in her kingdoms which cannot help itself. The genesis and maturation of a planet, its poise and orbit, the bended tree recovering itself from the strong wind, the vital resources of every animal and vegetable, are demonstrations of the self-sufficing and therefore self-relying soul.”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)
“Whether we regard the Women’s Liberation movement as a serious threat, a passing convulsion, or a fashionable idiocy, it is a movement that mounts an attack on practically everything that women value today and introduces the language and sentiments of political confrontation into the area of personal relationships.”
—Arianna Stassinopoulos (b. 1950)