Chimpanzee Language Controversy May Be More Complex Than It Appears

In “Ape-Language Controversy Flares Up,” Jean L. Marx highlights some of the key issues in the controversy over language in chimpanzees. Marx begins by noting the complexity of language and how in turn this makes it difficult to determine what constitutes human language. However, despite disagreements over what defines language, he mentions that there is an agreement “that the words or signs be symbols for something and be recognized as such by the user. And…that the words be combined with one another to form novel phrases or sentences that are nonetheless understandable by others.” Perhaps I can look at symbolism and syntax in the cases surrounding this issue in order to answer the broader question about whether or not chimpanzees are capable of language.

Marx also illustrates the two ways in which the chimpanzee language controversy is dealt with. Chimpanzees can be taught American Sign Language in a more “natural” setting and then their progress can be compared with children. However, Marx asserts that such a method can be criticized for being “uncontrolled” and “anecdotal.” On the other hand, some researchers develop and teach “artificial languages” such as lexigrams. This method is also subject to criticism as it may be seen as too “artificial” and devoid of any “spontaneity” and “freedom.”

Further, Marx suggests that there is a chance that some of the evidence we see for language in chimpanzees can be the result of the Clever Hans effect. For those of you not familiar with Clever Hans, he was a horse thought to be capable of solving basic math problems. His trainer would give him a math problem to solve and then Clever Hans would proceed by tapping out the answer with his hoof. Unfortunately, it was soon discovered that the horse’s trainer had subconsciously been providing cues that allowed Clever Hans to determine when to stop tapping his hoof. So, could some of the trainers be providing chimpanzees with cues as to what to “say”?

Finally, Marx illustrates the implications that arise with differences in training. Nim was a chimpanzee that was taught to use sign language by Herbert Terrace. Unlike previously trained chimpanzees, Nim did not demonstrate any evidence of spontaneity but rather showed several signs of imitation. Some critics suggested that this was the result of training Nim in such a way that any correct response produced a reward (otherwise known as operant conditioning). This is just one of the many ways in which the way a chimpanzee is trained can effect the results of a study.

In general, this article has made me more aware of how complex this issue is. Marx stresses the significance of methodology, cuing, and training. Whether a chimpanzee is taught sign language or lexigram may not seem to be of any importance, but as Marx points out, this choice can bring about different implications. As I evaluate the well-known cases in this area, it will be important to look at the entire context of a situation.