Is Language Restricted To Humans?

The Explanation

This current chapter examines these topics based on Aitchisons’s (2008)

views in his book, the articulate mammal. First, animal communication systems

are compared with human language to examine whether animal can be considered

to ‘talk’ in any real sense. Second, various attempts to teach language to animals

are put into consideration. The major purpose behind such questions is to examine

whether only humans have the power of speech. Or using Aitchison’s (2008)

question, Are we biologically singled out as ‘articulate mammals’ or not? This

will provide some support for the claim that language is restricted to the human

species. The purppose of this chapter is not only indulging in a neurotic desire to

verify that humans are still superior to other species, but it is more serious. Some

animals, such as dolphins and chimpanzees, have a high level of intelligence. In

spite of this, if we discover that language is beyond their capability, then we may

have found some indication that language is a genetically programmed activity

which is primarily separate from general intelligence. (1) The first problem is this:

are we comparing systems which differ quantitatively or qualitatively? There are

two theories that can be used to answer the questions – continuity and

discontinuity theory. On the one hand, human language may have gradually

evolved from a more primitive animal means of communication in a continuous

line of growth – a viewpoint sometimes known as a ‘continuity’ theory. On the

other hand, human language may be something quite different from our basic

animal heritage, and superimposed on it. This is a ‘discontinuity’ theory.

 2

The Functions

Supporters of continuity theories suggest that (a) language grew out of a

primate call system, like the ones used by apes today. They assume that (b)

humans started out with a simple set of cries in which each one meant something

different, such as, ‘Danger!’ or ‘Folloe me!’ or ‘Don’t touch that female, she’s

mine!’ (c) these cries gradually became more elaborate, and eventually evolved

into language. A possible intermediate stage is seen in the cries of the vervet

monkey (African monkey). This monkey has several alarm calls which distinguish

between different types of danger (struhsaker 1967). After outlining these

fundamental problems (which show only tentative conclusions), now we can

return to our major topic: a comparison of human language and animal

communication. But how many characteristics should be considered? The number

of design features hockett considered important changed over the years. His

longest list contained sixteen (Hockett and Altmann 1968). Aitchison (2008:28)

proposes 11 features to capture the essential nature of human language which

most people would consider, not all of them are mentioned by hockett. These are:

(1) use of the vocal-auditory channel, (2) arbitrariness, (3) semanticity, (4)

cultural transmission, (5) spontaneous usage, (6) turn-taking, (7) duality, (8)

displacement, (9) structure-dependence, (10) creativity, (11) ability to read

intentions. Some of these features are more specialized, but some others are fairly

general and occur widely in the animal world.

The Importance

Our conclusions on these primates can now be summarized as follows. We

need to recognize, that having language is not an ‘all or nothing’ matter. It is

misleading to ‘treat language like virginity-you either have it or you don’t’ (Miles
 3

1983:44). Chomsky may be right, when he points principles of the computational

structure of human language (Chomsky 1980:57). Or, put more simply, ‘we love .

. . presented evidencefor the existence [in child language] of certain general

cognitive processes – falling under two overall headings of intention reading and

pattern-finding – that account for the acquisition process.’ (Tomasello 2003:295).

These cognitive skills seem to be either lacking or incomplete in non-humans. The

final conclusion of this chapter is that the apparent ease with which humans

acquire language, compared with other apes, supports the suggestion that they are

innately programmed to do so.

The Examples

From the explanation above, the example that we can make is language is

restricted to human because human can cope every sound by imitate it. Animal

can cope sounds too ,but only animal from certain classes can do it. The example

that we can make is a child. Child usually imitate what adult said and especially

children imitate their parents like “say mo..mmy” (mother)… “mo..mmy” (her

children).