Animal Communication
Throughout this course of study, the concept of language as the demarcation between animals and humans has prevailed. Further, as we have seen in our class readings, many claim that it is through language that our "consciousness" and "cognitive" skills are developed. Accordingly, these skills are necessary for us to interpret and conceptualize our world. What this infers is that because we have these skills and the "brute" animals do not, animals do not possess the ability to analyze or think about their world. When presented in this manner, I was almost convinced that this was a plausible representation of mental development. However, I found that I still had a nagging feeling that it could not be true. Upon further investigation I found that language is by no means the only way to interpret or communicate in the world. The significance of this statement is that if my thesis proves valid the results are twofold: it refutes the behaviorists and Cartesian assertion that language is the boundary that separates animals and humans; and it supports the theory that animals not only have language, but they also posses the ability for cognitive thought.No one will argue that animals possess sight and auditory abilities. However, the c
That language is not indispensable is demonstrated by the fact that children often comprehend much more than their language skills imply. Jackendoff's studies indicate that "children have some grasp of the grammatical patterns of the language quite a while before they can use them in their own speech ... children use this grasp to help them figure out what we're trying to tell them, even when they don't know all the words we've uttered" (Jackendoff 107). Therefore, although a child might have a vocabulary of only fifty words, he or she may be able to comprehend communication on a much higher level. The child maintains a level of "mental grammar" that, according to Jackendoff, may be completely unconscious (Jackendoff 20). According to Piaget, a child's first communication occurs, not by language, but by "acted conversations" (Wood 181). Children use a variety of pointing, waving, and gyration motions to indicate what is on their minds. Even after a child makes initial attempts at speech, understanding his or her body language is critical in deciphering the intent of the communication. Wood points out that "Younger children depend on gestures and bodily movement for a direct statement of their message. With the acquisition of verbal language, gestures and movements take on the different role of complementing the verbal message" (Wood 182). For example a toddler who wants a cookie might stand in front of the cookie jar, point to it, and grunt. The body language reinforces the clarity of the child's message. To convince the skeptics in the scientific community, research into animal consciousness must go beyond demonstration of the ability of animals to exhibit language. As Savage-Rumbaugh states, " As long as behavioral scientist follow in the footsteps of Descartes, assuming that nonhuman animals are merely robots made of meat and bone, they will refuse to give up their paradigms built upon the methods of physics and chemistry." (Savage-Rumbaugh & Lewin 255). Language is based on comprehensive. Comprehensive is exhibited by a wide range of language-related skills. These include the ability to draw inferences, weighing relevancy's, participation in social practices, providing justifications, and using language to guide and plan activities (Atherton and Schwartz 14). Most ape language studies indicate that animals possess the cognitive aptitude to perform all these activities, although not at a level of sophistication that matches human beings. Maybe another way to tackle the question of animal consciousness would be to try to think in terms of the animal mind instead of in terms of the human mind. Either way one looks at this issue, after considering the facts presented in "Kanzi", there can be no question as to the validity for the argument that many animals possess a level of consciousness and understanding. Rollin believes that the moral aspect in scientific research involving animals is lacking because scientists are unwilling to admit the existence of animal mentation. They fear being accused of anthropomorphism! I believe that they not only fear anthropomorphism, but they are genuinely afraid of dissipating the thin line that distinguishes the animals from the humans. This concept of fear is further addressed by Dr. Matt Cartmill when he reflects that "Whether we fear or welcome the dissolution of [the animal human ] boundary (as) the real issue behind much of the recent debate over primate communication, sociobiology, and human evolution." (excerpt from Human Uniqueness in Paleoanthropology). Although many scientists believe in animal consciousness, they are unwilling to admit it publicly. As one colleague confided to Rollin, "I believe it at home, but I leave it behind when I go to the lab" (Rollin 268). Belief in animal mentation requires value judgments, something which modern science abhors. For this reason, many in the field are reluctant even to propose study of the concept. Belief in the cognitive abilities o
Some common words found in the essay are:
According Piaget, Atherton Schwartz, Savage-Rumbaugh Lewin, Behaviorists Cartesians, , According Savage-Rumbaugh, Jane Goodall, According Rollin, Kanzi Savage-Rumbaugh, Uniqueness Paleoanthropology, animal mentation, savage-rumbaugh lewin, studies indicate, animal consciousness, animals possess, language skills, symbolic communication, body language, vervet monkeys, cognitive abilities, handicapped persons eg, acquisition verbal language, studies indicate animals, keyboard lexigram system, computer-based keyboard lexigram,
Approximate Word count = 2697
Approximate Pages = 11 (250 words per page double spaced)
|