interim summary anthropoid linguistic ability linguist 51467 18 dec 1994 posted following query douglas h chadwick review kanzi ape brink human mind sue savage rumbaugh roger lewin nytimes book review dec 11 1994 pp 1519 says goes long way toward countering complaint language using apes merely responding cues researchers best learning rote behavior get rewards without really comprehending meaning words employ part problem authors playing rules laid critics rene descartes fashioned longstanding paradigm animals automatons sic incapable anything mindlessly responding whatever forces impinge descartes insisted animals even feel real pain pleasure much less understand remember experience era tradition carried linguistics experts equally intent preserving language rea son exclusive use humans time ape demonstrates ei ther ability linguists set redefining language reason complex confusing ways erecting yet artificial barriers primates hurdle excuse something missed seven years grad school subsequent four years professional activity linguistics deliberately engaged dastardly plot deny anthropoid cou sins birthright psycholinguistics never one fortes certainly nt remember anything introductory survey cour ses taken developed teach others anything much hinting priori assumption field linguistics language exclusive prerogative homo sapiens important part package defines species remember enthusiastically inflated claims made back 50 forseeable progress computer technology predictions quickly would get computers could converse us real time given human language default english whop human chess well ai researchers know soon became clear predictions based part oversimplified notion constituted language remember correctly premises level edgar rice burroughs endowing heroes pectacular ability master alien languages consisted ability memorize dictionary understand many claims ape language rebuttals community linguists similar levels seems quite different scenario academic linguist threatened physical anthropologist mutters hmm far felt safe definition linguistic competence chimp mastered change definition want avoid miscege nation apparently chadwick envisioning daresay may individual linguists react way previous eras scientists would time time redefine standards constituted full humanity civi lization maintain claim whatever native peoples africa western hemisphere nt certainly nt aware colleagues insist sectional headline nyt book review keeping language reason humans alone also little mused conflation language reason language never struck entirely rational process much less chadwick derivation said headline imply professional class unanimous considering writing letter editor complain anybody else already done please let know really want know current general consensus one field subject claims savage rumbaugh lewin book anent kanzi linguistic ability valid clari fication order researchers area perhaps understandable chip shoulder real conflict theoretical linguists one hand physical thropologists primatologists subject first david pesetsky write letter new york times published dec 25 issue times book review refer interested parties reason cant find copy moment secondly like thank following scholars got touch holidays discuss issue discussion summarized john h chalmers non12 cyber net dick hudson uclrah ucl ac uk massimo piattelli palmarini piattem dipsco hsr tom j pulju pulju ricevm1 rice edu harold schiffman haroldfs u washington edu discussion proceeded along two logically distinct questions 1 currently accurate assessment linguistic performance inference linguistic ability anthropoids 2 people gardners savage rumbaugh chadwick etc irritated us first question respondents well david pesetsky seem agreed impressive linguistic performance chimps gorillas reported literature level roughly equi valent human child approximately two years age anthropoids seem unable develop beyond stage particular show evidence syntactic structure ability distance temporally spatially referents statements received statements following successful apes managed reach less level children twoword utterance stage size lexi con combinatory ability apes master refined system communication capable abstract thinking lack fundamentals human language recursiveness structuredependency parsing constituents etc chimps mostly lexicon rudimentary syntax lets distinguish actor patient chimps morphology speak b cant use displacement message e cant talk past future something happens ed another location venture would guess cant handle contrafactuals either claimed ape utterances lack grammaticality syntax apes make correct symbolic associations sense grammatical patterning two three word sentences order elements variable element maybe repeated number times order independently rest sequences like give banana give kanzi kanzi banana kanzi give etc one respondents partly basis hanns occasionally frus trating experiences resulting geographical proximity insti tution presumably devoted tudy anthropoid language made critical statements scientific methodology research particular referring hockett 16 esign fea tures language hann remarks proponents claim chimps cultural transmission washo taught son nt bear much scrutiny washo rewarded learn every sign son learned many passed chimp see chimps learned equivalent pidgin creoliza tion never took place implies 1 anthropoid language ac tually corresponds skinnerian model refuted chomsky fa mous review regards human language 2 sufficiently natural anthropoids feel motivated transmit successfully respondents addressed wider theoretical metho dological issues relevant linguistics implicit discussion one opined dismissal ape language research partly unconsciously motivated turfprotection instinct alrea dy uneasy fact certain subfields linguistics whose importance acknowledge personally terribly wellversed think many theoretical linguists breathed sigh relief terrace announced chimp nim nt really learned human language meant nt worry mo difying theories fit ape language data another said linguists nt really care least consciously whether apes learn language care deeply whether lan guage sui generis innate far linguists concerned divided chomsky claim language geneti callyprogrammed module rather area knowledge han dled general cognition apes cant learn language supports chomskyan view presumably involves cataclysmic mutation say 100 000 years ago least since split primates learn evidence ge neral cognition apes presumably less well endowed us expect partial success discussion agreed argument held accept trong version relevant dichotomy implicit innateness hypothesis according human linguistic ability overwhelmingly completely independent general human cognition pointed even chimps demonstrably distinct us genetic level still share 98 dna even share linguistic ability might mean also share distinc tive genetic endowment provides effective test would cetaceans pachyderms nowhere nearly related us chimps appear roughly comparable cognitive levels also share certain amount linguistic ability would indicate least amount probably dependent general cognitive ability specific genetic endowment chimps dolphins elephants whatever cant master human language modes communication isomorphic comparable com plexity flexibility would give us opportunity stu dy much human language necessary general phenomenon language much incidental relevance species might also enable us talk innateness human linguistic ability terms would offputting geneticists second question basis irritation towards academic lin guists part proponents anthropoid language consensus working overly simplistic concep tion constitutes language offended refused share typical following remarks proponents animal language continuity hu man language assume human natural languages simply result communication use basic design human languages dictated use easily conceive species would possess radically different design language would communicate well better gardners et al extremely elementary grasp real language think lexicon bare syntax argument apes real sign lan guage also pitiful approach trivializes oral languages sign languages however acknowledgment blame state affairs belongs doorstep trivialization men tioned claimed due least part inadequacies state ments linguists 50 60 one respondent particular pointed inveterate tendency try identify single defining characteristic sine qua non human linguistic ability rather accepting fact important distinctions often proper ly made basis mosaics characteristics particular much research anthropoid language apparently focussed ability chimps gorillas coin novel expressions unanticipated human teachers handlers basis finite number memorized lexemes basic combinatorial principles effort suppo sedly motivated early assertions academic linguists distinguishes human language forms animal communication creative ability gardners etc demonstrate apes capable similar creativity say nice language understandably miffed response think necessary greater tact humility honesty parts need admit front predecessors oversimplified past give credit ape researchers helping elucidate issues need make clear chimps gorillas twoyear old humans share sense rudimentary linguistic ability equivalent adult humans short need increase everybody awareness inherent rich ness complexity human linguistic behaviour mind means need devote time energy introductory courses general linguistics harold schiffman reports encouraging success direction course linguistic anthropology university washington discussion issues raised welcome either perso nal communication general discussion list hope distant able post short list references published literature subject best steven dr steven schaufele 712 west washington urbana il 61801 217344 8240 fcosws prairienet org syntagmata linguarum liberemini humanarum nihil vestris privari nisi obicibus potestis