Copyright Notice

Staff and students of the Institute of Education are reminded that copyright
subsists in this extract and the work from which it is taken. This digital copy
has been made under the terms of a CLA licence which allows you to:

 Access and download a copy:

 Print out a copy

This digital copy and any digital or printed copy supplied to or made by you
under the terms of this licence are for use in connection with this course of
study. You may retain such copies after the end of the course, but strictly for
your own personal use.

All copies (including electronic copies) shall include this Copyright Notice and
shall be destroyed and/or deleted if and when required by the Institute of
Education.

Except as provided for by copyright law, no further copying, storage or

distribution (including by email) is permitted without the consent of the
copyright holder.

The author (which term includes artists and other visual creators) has moral
rights in the work and neither staff nor students may cause, or permit, the
distortion, mutilation or other modification of the work, or any other derogatory
treatment of it, which would be prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the
author.

Course of Study: MA TESOL_ Fundamentals of Second and Foreign

Language Teaching (Distance)

Name of Designated Person authorising scanning: Andrew Welshman

Aitchison, J. (1998) ‘Chapter 2: Animals that try to talk’ in The Articulate

Mammal, (4th ed.) pp.23-34, Oxon: Routledge
 2

ANIMALS THAT TRY TO

TALK
Is language restricted to humans?

An ant who can speak

French, Javanese and Greek
Doesn't exist.
Why ever not?
Robert Desnos

Judging by newspapers and popular books, there appear to be a vast

number of animals which `talk' — talking budgerigars, talking dolphins
— even a talking fish:

Anne, Anne, come quick as you can

There's a fish that talks in the frying pan.
Walter de la Mare

Clearly, the word 'talk' can be used in two totally different

senses. On the one hand, it can mean simply 'to utter words', as in
'Archibald's got a talking parrot which says Damn if you poke it'. On
the other hand, it can mean 'to use language in a meaningful way'. We
already know that animals such as budgerigars can 'talk' in the first
sense of the word. Psycholinguists would like to find out whether
animals can 'talk' in the second sense also. They are interested in this
problem because they want to know the answer to the following
question: are we the only species which possesses language? If so, are
we the only species capable of acquiring it?
These are the topics examined in this chapter. First, animal
communication systems are compared with human language to see if
animals can be said to 'talk' in any real sense. Second, various attempts
to teach language to animals are considered. The overall purpose

23
 THE ARTICULATE MAMMAL ANIMALS THAT TRY TO TALK

behind such inquiries is to find out whether humans alone have the intermediate stage is seen in the cries of the vervet monkey. This
power of speech. Are we biologically singled out as 'articulate monkey has several alarm calls which distinguish between different
mammals' or not? types of danger (Struhsaker 1967). The chutter announces that a puff
Of course, if we discover that animals do talk, then we shall not have adder or cobra is around. The rraup gives warning of an eagle. A chirp
learned anything useful, just as the fact that we can do the breast stroke is used for lions and leopards. A less panic-stricken utterance, the uh!,
does not tell us anything about a frog's innate swimming ability. Or, as signals the presence of a spotted hyena or Masai tribesman. According
three prominent psychologists acidly noted, 'The fact that a dog can to some, it is a very short step from an alarm call warning of a poisonous
be trained to walk on its hind legs does not prejudice the claim that snake to using the chutter as a 'word' symbolizing a poisonous snake.
bipedal gait is genetically coded in humans. The fact that we can learn Another interpretation of these signals is possible. The monkeys
to whistle like a lark does not prejudice the species-specificity of could merely be distinguishing between the intensity of different types
birdsong' (Fodor, Bever and Garrett 1974: 451). If on the other hand, of danger. They may be more frightened of puff adders than eagles —
we find that animals do not talk, this will provide some support for the or vice versa. This plausible explanation has been ruled out by an
claim that language is restricted to the human race. We are not merely experiment in which a concealed loudspeaker played recordings of
indulging in a neurotic desire to verify that humans are still superior the various alarm calls. When they heard a chutter, the vervets stood
to other species, as has sometimes been suggested. The purpose of this on their hind legs and looked around for a snake. At the sound of a
chapter is a more serious one. Some animals, such as dolphins and rraup they dived into the vegetation as if hiding from an eagle. And
chimpanzees, have a high level of intelligence. If, in spite of this, we at the lion-leopard chirp, they hastily climbed up a tree (Seyfarth,
find that language is beyond their capability, then we may have found Cheney and Marler 1980a, 1980b; Seyfarth and Cheney 1986). So the
some indication that language is a genetically-programmed activity monkeys clearly have a special signal for each type of enemy.
which is largely separate from general intelligence. Yet the danger cries of monkeys are still far from human language.
They are a mix of a shriek of fear and a warning to others, and are only
partly a symbol. The huge gulf between these calls and 'real' speech
Do animals talk naturally?
has led many people to argue for a discontinuity theory. Proponents
A first task is to find out whether any animals naturally have a true of discontinuity theories claim that humans still retain their basic
'language'. In order to answer this question, we must compare human set of animal cries, which exist alongside language. Yelps of pain,
language with animal communication. But such a comparison pre- shrieks of fear, and the different types of crying observed in babies
sents a number of perhaps unsolvable problems. Two in particular may be closely related to the call systems of monkeys. If this view
need to be discussed before we can give a coherent reply to the query, is correct then it is fairly difficult to compare human and animal
'Do animals talk naturally?' means of communication. It may be like comparing two things as
The first problem is this: are we comparing systems which differ different as the Chinese language and a set of traffic lights. But a
quantitatively or qualitatively? On the one hand, human language continuity versus discontinuity divide may be oversimple. Language
may have gradually evolved from a more primitive animal means of is a complex mosaic in which some features are continuous, and some
communication in a continuous line of growth — a viewpoint some- discontinuous with ape communication. Exactly which is which is still
times known as a 'continuity' theory. On the other hand, human under discussion.
language may be something quite different from our basic animal The second major problem we face is that it is not always easy to
heritage, and superimposed on it. This is a 'discontinuity' theory. decide what counts as communication in animals. As one researcher
Supporters of continuity theories suggest that language grew out notes:
of a primate call system, like the ones used by apes today. They assume Students of animal behaviour have often noted the extreme
that humans started out with a simple set of cries in which each difficulty of restricting the notion of communication to
one meant something different, such as, 'Danger!' or 'Follow me!' or anything less than every potential interaction between an
'Don't touch that female, she's mine!' These cries gradually became organism and its environment.
more elaborate, and eventually evolved into language. A possible (Marshall 1970: 231)
 THE ARTICULATE MAMMAL ANIMALS THAT TRY TO TALK

So that, at the very least, sticklebacks mating, cats spitting, and rabbits has changed over the years. His longest list contains sixteen (Hockett
thumping their back legs must be taken into consideration — and and Altmann 1968). Perhaps most people would consider that ten
it isn't at all clear where to stop. It is sometimes suggested that features capture the essential nature of language, not all of which are
this problem could be solved by concentrating on examples where mentioned by Hockett. These are: use of the vocal-auditory channel,
the animal is intentionally trying to convey information. But such arbitrariness, semanticity, cultural transmission, spontaneous usage, turn-
distinctions are difficult to draw, both in humans and animals. If a man taking, duality, displacement, structure-dependence, and creativity. Some of
smoothes down his hair when an attractive woman walks into the these features are fairly general, and occur widely in the animal world.
room, is this an unconscious response? Or is he doing it intentionally Others are more specialized, and concern the way in which language
in the hope of catching her attention? In the sea, so-called 'snapping is organized.
shrimps' can produce loud cracks by closing their claws sharply. Since Let us discuss each of these features in turn, and see whether it is
the cracks can upset naval sonar devices, marine biologists have present in animal communication. If any animal naturally possesses all
attempted to discover the circumstances which lead the shrimps to the design features of human language, then clearly that animal can
produce them. But no one has yet discovered the significance of the talk.
snaps. They may be informative — but they may not. There is no way The use of the vocal-auditory channel is perhaps the most obvious
in which we can be sure about making the right decision when it characteristic of language. Sounds are made with the vocal organs, and
comes to interpreting such a phenomenon. a hearing mechanism receives them — a phenomenon which is neither
Having outlined these fundamental problems — which show that rare nor particularly surprising. The use of sound is widespread as a
any conclusions we draw are only tentative — we can now return to means of animal communication. One obvious advantage is that
our main theme: a comparison of human language and animal messages can be sent or received in the dark or in a dense forest. Not
communication. How should we set about this? all sound signals are vocal — woodpeckers tap on wood, and rattle-
A useful first step might be to attempt to define 'language'. This is snakes have a rattle apparatus on their tail. But vocal-auditory signals
not as easy as it sounds. Many definitions found in elementary text- are common and are used by birds, cows, apes and foxes, to name
books are too wide. For example: 'A language is a system of arbitrary just a few. The advantages of this method of producing the sound
vocal symbols by means of which a social group cooperates' (Bloch are that it leaves the body free to carry on other activities at the same
and Trager 1942: 5). This definition might equally well apply to a pack time, and also requires relatively little physical energy. But this design
of wolves howling in chorus. feature is clearly neither unique to humans, nor all-important, since
A promising approach is that suggested by the linguist Charles language can be transferred without loss to visual symbols (as in sign
Hockett. In a series of articles stretching over ten years he attempted language, or writing) and to tactile symbols (as in Braille). Patients
to itemize out the various 'design features' which characterize lan- who have had their vocal cords removed, and communicate mainly
guage. For example: 'Interchangeability: Adult members of any speech by writing, have not lost their language ability. It follows that this
community are interchangeably transmitters and receivers of linguistic characteristic is of little use in an attempt to distinguish animal from
signals'; 'Complete Feedback: The transmitter of a linguistic signal human communication. So let us proceed to the second feature,
himself receives the message' (Hockett 1963: 9). Of course, such an arbitrariness.
approach is not perfect. A list of features may even be misleading, since Arbitrariness means that human languages use neutral symbols.
it represents a random set of observations which do not cohere in any There is no connection between the word DOG and the four-legged
obvious way. To use this list to define language is like trying to define animal it symbolizes. It can equally be called UN CHIEN (French), EIN
a man by noting that he has two arms, two legs, a head, a belly button, HUND (German), or CANIS (Latin). GO, (Turkish) and RHODON
he bleeds if you scratch him and shrieks if you tread on his toe. But (Greek) are equally satisfactory names for a 'rose'. As Juliet notes:
in spite of this, a definition of language based on design features or
`essential characteristics' seems to be fairly useful. What's in a name? that which we call a rose
But how many characteristics should be considered? Two? Ten? A By any other name would smell as sweet.
hundred? The number of design features Hockett considers important Shakespeare
 THE ARTICULATE MAMMAL ANIMALS THAT TRY TO TALK

Onomatopoeic words such as CUCKOO, POP, BANG, SLURP, and The fifth and sixth features are social ones, in that they relate to the
SQUISH are exceptions to this. But there are relatively few of these in way in which language is used. Spontaneous usage indicates that humans
any language. On the other hand, it is normal for animals to have a initiate speech freely. Speaking is not something which they do under
strong link between the message they are sending and the signal they duress, like a dog which will stand on its hind legs only when a biscuit
use to convey it. A crab which wishes to convey extreme aggression is held above its nose. This feature is certainly not restricted to
will extend a large claw. A less angry crab will merely raise a leg: humans, and many animals use their natural communication systems
`Extending a major chaliped is more effective than raising a single freely. The other social feature, turn-taking, means exactly what it
ambulatory leg in causing the second crab to retreat or duck back into says: we take it in turns to speak. In the majority of conversations,
its shell' (Marshall 1970). However, arbitrary symbols are not unique we do not talk while other people are talking, nor do we compete
to humans. Gulls, for example, sometimes indicate aggression by with them. Instead, we politely wait our turn, as shown in a brief
turning away from their opponent and uprooting beakfuls of grass. So conversation between two characters in P. G. Wodehouse's Carry on
we are forced to conclude that arbitrariness cannot be regarded as a Jeeves.
critical distinction between human and animal communication.
Semanticity, the third suggested test for language ability, is the use `What ho!' I said
of symbols to 'mean' or refer to objects and actions. To a human, a `What ho!' said Motty.
CHAIR 'means' a four-legged contraption you can sit on. Humans `What ho! What ho!'
can generalize by applying this name to all types of chairs, not just `What ho! What ho! What ho!'
one in particular. Furthermore, semanticity applies to actions as well
as objects. For example, to JUMP 'means' the act of leaping in the air. As we can see, Motty and the narrator have no idea what to say to
Some writers have claimed that semanticity is exclusively human. one another. Nevertheless, they know that they have to take it in turns
Animals may be able to communicate only about a total situation. A to talk. Such turn-taking begins at a very early age. Even mothers
hen who utters 'danger' cries when a fox is nearby is possibly convey- and babies alternate as they mouth nonsense syllables at each other.
ing the message 'Beware! Beware! There is terrible danger about!' Once again, this is not an exclusively human characteristic, since
rather than using the sound to 'mean' FOX. But, as was shown by the birds sometimes sing duets together. One bird sings a few phrases,
call of the vervet monkey who might mean 'snake' when it chutters, then pauses while the other has its turn, a phenomenon known as
it is difficult to be certain. We must remain agnostic about whether antiphonal singing.
this feature is present in animal communication. The seventh property, duality or double-articulation, means that
Cultural transmission or tradition indicates that human beings hand language is organized into two 'layers': the basic sound units of speech,
their languages down from one generation to another. The role played such as P, I, G, are normally meaningless by themselves. They only
by teaching in animal communication is unclear and varies from animal become meaningful when combined into sequences such as P-I-G
to animal — and even with species. Among birds it is claimed that the PIG. This property is sometimes claimed to be unique to humans.
song-thrush's song is largely innate, but can be slightly modified by But this is not so. Duality is also present in bird song, where each
learning, whereas the skylark's song is almost wholly learned. Birds individual note is itself meaningless — it is the combinations of
such as the chaffinch are particularly interesting: the basic pattern of notes which convey meaningful messages. So once again we have not
the song seems to be innate, but all the finer detail and much of the found a critical difference between animals and humans in their use of
pitch and rhythm have to be acquired by learning (Thorpe 1961, 1963). this feature.
However, although the distinction between humans and animals is not A more important characteristic of language is displacement, the
clear-cut as regards this feature, it seems that a far greater proportion ability to refer to things far removed in time and place. Humans fre-
of communication is genetically inbuilt in animals than in humans. quently say things such as 'My Aunt Matilda, who lives in Australia,
A child brought up in isolation away from human beings, does not cracked her knee-cap last week'. It may be impossible for an animal
acquire language. In contrast, birds reared in isolation sing songs that to convey a similar item of information. However, as in the case
are sometimes recognizable (though almost always abnormal). of other design features, it is sometimes difficult to decide whether
 THE ARTICULATE MAMMAL ANIMALS THAT TRY TO TALK

displacement is present in an animal's communication system. A bird and they can arrange these chunks according to strict rules:
frequently continues to give alarm cries long after the disappearance of
a cat which was stalking it. Is this displacement or not? The answer is A CARROT WAS GIVEN TO THE BY THE OLD LADY
unclear. Definite examples of displacement are hard to find. But it DONKEY WHO WAS WEARING A
is undoubtedly found in bee communication (von Frisch 1950, 1954, WHITE BONNET
1967). When a worker bee finds a source of nectar it returns to the
hive to perform a complex dance which informs the other bees of its
location. It does a 'round dance', which involves turning round in As far as we know, animals do not use structure-dependent operations.
circles if the nectar is close to the hive, and a 'waggle dance' in which We do not know enough about the communication of all animals to
it wiggles its tail from side to side if it is far away. The other bees work be sure, but no definite example has yet been found.
out the distance by noting the tempo of its waggles, and discover Finally, there is one feature that seems to be of overwhelming
what kind of flower to look for by smelling the scent on its body. Bees, importance, and unique to humans — the ability to produce and
incidentally, are not deaf, as was once assumed. As a forager bee understand an indefinite number of novel utterances. This property of
dances, it beats its wings. The bees in a dark hive can hear and inter- language has several different names. Chomsky calls it creativity
pret the wing-beats even when they cannot see the dance (Kirchner (Chapter 1), others call it openness or productivity. Humans can talk
and Towne 1994). about anything they like — even a platypus falling backwards down-
This is an unusual ability — but even this degree of displacement stairs — without causing any linguistic problems to themselves or the
is considerably less than that found in human speech. The bee hearers. They can say what they want when they want. If it thunders,
cannot inform other bees about anything further removed than they do not automatically utter a set phrase, such as 'It's thundering,
the nectar patch it has just visited. It cannot say 'The day before run for cover'. They can say 'Isn't the lightning pretty' or 'Better get
yesterday we visited a lovely clump of flowers, let's go and see if they the dog in' or 'Thunder is two dragons colliding in tin tubs, according
are still there' — it can only say, 'Come to the nectar I have just to a Chinese legend'.
visited'. Nor can it communicate about anything further away in In contrast, most animals have a fixed number of signals which
place. It could not say 'I wonder whether there's good nectar in convey a set number of messages, sent in clearly definable circum-
Siberia'. So displacement in bee communication is strictly limited stances. A North American cicada can give four signals only. It emits
to the number of miles a bee can easily fly, and the time it takes to a 'disturbance squawk' when it is seized, picked up or eaten. A
do this. At last, it seems we may have found a feature which seems `congregation call' seems to mean 'Let's all get together and sing in
to be of importance in human language, and only partially present in chorus!' A preliminary courtship call (an invitation?) is uttered when
non-human communication. a female is several inches away. An advanced courtship call (a buzz
The ninth feature, structure-dependence, was discussed in Chapter 1. of triumph?) occurs when the female is almost within grasp (McNeill
Humans do not just apply simple recognition or counting techniques 1970). Even the impressive vervet monkey has only thirty-six distinct
when they speak to one another. They automatically recognize the vocal sounds in its repertoire. And as this includes sneezing and
patterned nature of language, and manipulate 'structured chunks'. For vomiting, the actual number used for communication is several fewer.
example, they understand that a group of words can sometimes be the Within this range, choice is limited, since circumstances generally
structural equivalent of one: dictate which call to use. An infant separated from its mother gives the
lost rrah cry. A female who wishes to deter an amorous male gives
the 'anti-copulatory squeal-scream' (Struhsaker 1967).
SHE
But perhaps it is unfair to concentrate on cicadas and monkeys.
THE OLD LADY WHO WAS GAVE THE DONKEY A Compared with these, bees, dolphins and birds have extremely
WEARING A WHITE CARROT sophisticated communication systems. Yet researchers have reluctantly
BONNET concluded that even they seem unable to say anything new The bees
were investigated by the famous `bee-man', Karl von Frisch. He noted

30 31
 THE ARTICULATE MAMMAL ANIMALS THAT TRY TO TALK

that worker bees normally give information about the horizontal Light
distance and direction of a source of nectar. If bee communication is
in any sense 'open', then a worker bee should be able to inform the
other bees about vertical distance and direction if necessary. He tested LJ LJ LJ LJ
Paddles Paddles
this idea by placing a hive of bees at the foot of a radio beacon, and a
supply of sugar water at the top. But the bees who were shown the
sugar water were unable to tell the other bees where to find it. They Buzz Doris
duly performed a 'round dance', indicating that a source of nectar
was in the vicinity of the hive — and then for several hours their
comrades flew in all directions except upwards looking for the honey
source. Eventually, they gave up the search. As von Frisch noted, 'The
bees have no words for "up" in their language. There are no flowers
Doris sees Doris tells Buzz Both dolphins Dolphins
in the clouds' (von Frisch 1954: 139). Failure to communicate this light which paddle press paddles get fish
extra item of information means that bee communication cannot to press first in correct order
be regarded as 'open-ended' in the same way that human language is
open-ended.
The dolphin experiments carried out by Dr Jarvis Bastian were So not even dolphins have a 'creative' communication system in
considerably more exciting — though in the long run equally the human sense — even though they make underwater 'clicks' which
disappointing. Bastian tried to teach a male dolphin, Buzz, and a are astonishingly sophisticated (Au 1993; Howlett 1997). Their so-
female, Doris, to communicate across an opaque barrier. called clicks are intermittent bursts of sound, each of which lasts less
First of all, while they were still together, Bastian taught the than a thousandth of a second, in frequencies beyond the range of
dolphins to press paddles when they saw a light. If the light was human hearing. By listening for their echoes, a dolphin can locate a
kept steady, they had to press the right-hand paddle first. If it flashed, tiny eel in a bed of mud, or a fish the size of a ping-pong ball 70
the left-hand one. When they did this correctly they were rewarded metres away. The dolphin first sends out a very general click, then
with fish. progressively modifies it as it gets echoes back, so allowing it to get
As soon as they had learned this manoeuvre, he separated them. more and more accurate information. As far as we know, this is
They could now hear one another, but they could not see one another. restricted to the size and location of shapes — though one interesting
The paddles and light were set up in the same way, except that the possibility is that a progressively modified click might end up being
light which indicated which paddle to press first was seen only by the 'name' for the object finally pinpointed.
Doris. But in order to get fish both dolphins had to press the levers in Finally, we come to birds. They also have failed to give any
the correct order. Doris had to tell Buzz which this was, as only she evidence of creativity. We might expect them to communicate about
could see the light. Amazingly, the dolphins 'demonstrated essentially a multiplicity of situations, since the individual notes of a bird's song
perfect success over thousands of trials at this task' (Evans and Bastian can be combined in an indefinite number of ways. But as far as
1969: 432). It seemed that dolphins could talk! Doris was conveying researchers can judge, bird song deals above all with just two aspects
novel information through an opaque barrier! of life: courting a mate, and the marking of territory (Nottebohm
But it later became clear that the achievement was considerably less 1975; Marler 1991). A bird who appears to humans to be indulging
clever. Even while the dolphins were together Doris had become in an operatic aria on the pleasures of life is more likely to be
accustomed to making certain sounds when the light was flashing and warning other birds not to encroach on its own particular area of
different sounds when it was continuous. When the dolphins were woodland.
separated she continued the habit. And Buzz had, of course, already It seems, then, that animals cannot send truly novel messages,
learnt which sounds of Doris's to associate with which light. Doris was and that Ogden Nash encapsulates a modicum of truth in his
therefore not 'talking creatively'. comment:
 THE ARTICULATE MAMMAL ANIMALS THAT TRY TO TALK

The song of canaries he could label more than thirty objects, such as grape, chair, key,
never varies. carrot; seven colours as such as blue, yellow, purple; and five shapes
such as triangle, square. He could also respond to questions asking
And so does Alice in her complaint about kittens: whether colours and shapes are the same or different (Pepperberg
1991). This is far more than 'bird-brains' were assumed to be capable
It is a very inconvenient habit of kittens that, whatever you of. But even Alex's achievements are low compared with those of apes.
say to them, they always purr. If they would only purr for Over the past fifty or so years, several attempts have been made to
`yes' and mew for 'no', or any rule of that sort, so that one teach human language to chimpanzees. The first experiment was
could keep up a conversation! But how can you talk with a a failure. An animal named Gua was acquired by Professor and Mrs
person if they always say the same thing? Kellogg in 1931, when she was 7 months old (Brown 1958, Kellogg
(Lewis Carroll) and Kellogg 1933). She was brought up as if she was a human baby,
and was fed with a spoon, bathed, pinned up in nappies, and con-
It is now possible to answer the question, can animals talk? If, tinuously exposed to speech. Although she eventually managed to
in order to qualify as 'talkers' they have to utilize all the design charac- understand the meaning of over seventy single words, she never spoke.
teristics of human language 'naturally', the answer is clearly 'no'. Gua showed clearly that it was not just lack of opportunity which
Some animals possess some of the features. Bird song has duality, prevents a chimp from learning language. The Kelloggs' son Donald,
and bee dancing has some degree of displacement. But, as far as we who was brought up alongside Gua, and was approximately the same
know, no animal communication system has duality and displacement. age, grew up speaking normally.
No animal system can be proved to have semanticity or to use structure- A second chimp acquired by Keith and Cathy Hayes in 1947 also
dependent operations. Above all, no animal can communicate proved disappointing (Brown 1958, Hayes 1951). Viki was given inten-
creatively with another animal. sive coaching in English. She eventually learnt four words: PAPA, MAMA,
But although animals do not 'naturally' talk, this does not mean CUP, UP. But these were very unclearly articulated, and remained the
that they are incapable of talking. Perhaps they have just never had sum total of Viki's utterances after three years of hard training.
the chance to learn language. The next section examines the results It is now clear why these attempts failed. Chimps are not physio-
obtained with animals which have had this opportunity. logically capable of uttering human sounds. More recent experiments
have avoided this trap and used other media. Let us consider some
Teaching sign language to apes: of this later research.
From the mid 1960s, teaching language to apes became a popular
Washoe and Nim
pastime among American psychologists. A minor population explo-
In discussing attempts to teach language to animals, mimicry must be sion of 'talking chimps' ensued. Broadly, they can be divided into
distinguished from 'true' language, as already noted. Mynah birds can signers, who were taught sign language, and pointers, who pressed
imitate humans with uncanny accuracy, but like most talking birds, symbols on a keyboard.
they are merely 'parroting' back what they hear. A budgerigar I knew Our discussion will begin with two signers, Washoe and Nim, then
heard a puppy being trained with words such as `Sit!' Naughty boy!' move on to two pointers, Lana and Kanzi.
and used to shriek `Sit!' Naughty boy!' whenever anyone went near Washoe's exact age is unknown. She is a female chimp acquired
its cage, whether or not the dog was present. by Professor and Mrs Gardner in 1966, when she was thought to
Yet some parrots might be capable of more. Nearly half a century be approximately a year old. She has been taught to use modified
ago, a grey parrot could apparently say 'Good morning' and 'Good American sign language (ASL). In this system signs stand for words.
evening' at the right times, and 'Goodbye' when guests left (Brown For example, Washoe's word for 'sweet' is made by putting her finger
1958). More recently, Alex, another grey parrot, has gone much on the top of her tongue, while wagging the tongue. Her word for
further. Alex was bought from a pet store in the Chicago area of `funny' is signalled by pressing the tip of her finger on to her nose, and
America in 1977 when he was 13 months old. After careful training, uttering a snort.