Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Stephen R. Anderson
Yale University
[Prepared for Cambridge
Encyclopedia of the Linguistic Sciences]
not interestingly different from that involved in conveying different degrees of fear
or aggression by varying degrees of piloerection.
Visual displays do not at all exhaust the modalities in which animal communication
takes place, of course. Auditory signals are important to many species, including
such classics of the animal communication literature as frog croaks and the calls
and songs of birds. In some species, portions of the auditory spectrum that are
inaccessible to humans are involved, as in the ultrasound communication of bats,
some rodents, and dolphins, and the infrasound signals of elephants. Chemical or
olfactory communication is central to the lives of many animals, including moths,
mice and lemurs as well our pet cats and dogs. More exotic possibilities include the
modulation of electric fields generated (and perceived) by certain species of fish.
In some of these systems the internal structure of the signal may be quite complex,
as in the songs of many oscine songbirds, but the general point made above still
holds: however elaborate its internal form, the signal has a unitary and holistic
relation to the message it conveys. In no case is it possible to construct novel
messages freely by substitutions or other ways of varying aspects of the signals
form.
In most animals, the relation of communicative behavior to the basic biology of the
species is very direct. Perceptual systems are often quite precisely attuned to
signals produced by conspecifics. Thus, the frogs auditory system involves two
separate structures (the amphibian papilla and the basilar papilla) that are
sensitive to acoustic signals, typically at distinct frequencies. The frequencies to
which they are most sensitive vary across species, but are generally closely related
to two regions of prominence in the acoustic structure of that species calls. Mice
(and many other mammals) have two distinct olfactory organs, projecting to quite
distinct parts of the mouse brain. The olfactory epithelium is responsive to a wide
array of smells, but the vomeronasal organ is sensitive exclusively to the
pheremones that play a major role in communication and social organization. In
this case, as in many, many others, the perceptual system is matched to production
in ways that optimize the organisms sensitivity to signals that play a crucial
ecological role in the life of the animal.
The essential connection between a species system of communication and its
biology is also manifested in the fact that nearly all such systems are innately
specified. That is, the ability to produce and interpret relevant signals emerges in
the individual without any necessary role of experience. Animal communication is
not learned (or taught), but rather develops (in the absence of specific pathology,
such as deafness) as part of the normal course of maturation. Animals raised under
conditions in which they are deprived of exposure to normal conspecific behavior
will nonetheless communicate in the fashion normal to their species when given a
chance.
Exceptions to this generalization are extremely rare, apart from human language.
Vocal learning, in particular, has been demonstrated only to a limited extent in
cetaceans and some bats, and more extensively in three of the twenty seven orders
of birds. The study of birds, especially oscine songbirds, is particularly instructive
in this regard. In general, their song is learned on the basis of early exposure to
appropriate models, from which they in turn compose their own songs. There is
much variation across species, but a clear generalization emerges: for each species,
there is a specific range of song structures that individuals can learn. Experience
plays a role in providing the models on which adult song is based, but (with the
exception of a few very general mimics, such as the lyrebird) this role is quite
narrowly constrained by the song-learning system of the individual species.
acquiring and using such a system. This should not be seen as particularly
surprising: if language is indeed embedded in human biology, there is no reason to
expect it to be accessible to organisms with a different biological endowment, any
more than humans are capable of acquiring, say, the echolocation capacities of
bats, a system which is equally grounded in the specific biology of those animals.
Conclusion
Human language is often considered as simply one more instantiation of the
general class of animal communication systems. Indeed, like others it appears to be
highly species-specific: although relevant experience is required to develop the
system of any particular language, the overall class of languages accessible to the
human learner is apparently highly constrained, and the process of language
learning more like genetically governed maturation than like learning in general.
The structural characteristics of human language are, however, quite different
from those of other communication systems, and it is the freedom of expression
subserved by those distinctive properties that gives language the role it has in
human life.
Stephen R. Anderson