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)
“Most men would feel shame if caught preparing with their own hands precisely such a dinner, whether of animal or vegetable food, as is every day prepared for them by others. Yet till this is otherwise we are not civilized, and, if gentlemen and ladies, are not true men and women. This certainly suggests what change is to be made.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
“The reader uses his eyes as well as or instead of his ears and is in every way encouraged to take a more abstract view of the language he sees. The written or printed sentence lends itself to structural analysis as the spoken does not because the reader’s eye can play back and forth over the words, giving him time to divide the sentence into visually appreciated parts and to reflect on the grammatical function.”
—J. David Bolter (b. 1951)