Language, Animal Communication, and Sign Language

This lesson compares human language with animal communication, evaluates the evidence from the Washoe and Nim case studies, and explains why sign languages must be understood as full human languages. The discussion is based on 1-What-is-language-24.

What makes human language different?

According to 1-What-is-language-24, human language has “numerous features that distinguish it from other communication systems.” The chapter highlights several important design features:

• Discreteness: messages are made from smaller repeatable parts rather than indivisible wholes.
• Displacement: speakers can talk about things that are not present, including the past, future, or distant places.
• Productivity: language users can create and understand utterances they have never heard before.
• Duality of patterning: a small number of discrete parts can be recombined systematically to create many meaningful expressions.

These features help explain why human language is more than a set of signals. It is an open, rule-governed system that lets people express endlessly new meanings.

How is animal communication different?

1-What-is-language-24 presents animal communication as meaningful, but not equivalent to human language. Animal systems can communicate information, yet the chapter emphasizes that human language has unique properties, especially productivity and displacement. In other words, animals may signal danger, food, or other immediate information, but human beings use a system that allows much broader and more creative expression.

The chapter also notes that research on whether animals can learn language is difficult because such studies are hard to design, observe, and measure. This warning matters when we evaluate famous ape-language experiments.

Case study 1: Washoe

In the 1960s, Allen and Beatrix Gardner raised the chimpanzee Washoe in an environment modeled on human child language acquisition and communicated with her using signs from American Sign Language, as described in 1-What-is-language-24. Their goal was to test whether a chimp given a human-like language environment could acquire sign language.

The reported results were impressive for the time:

• Washoe mastered about 200 signs.
• She was thought to understand many more.
• She was believed to have produced some creative sign combinations.

Because of these findings, the Washoe experiment was widely seen as a success. The main evidence in its favor was that Washoe appeared to learn a sizable number of signs and possibly combine them in new ways.

Case study 2: Nim

In the late 1970s, Herb Terrace taught another chimpanzee, Nim Chimpsky, 125 signs, according to 1-What-is-language-24. Nim’s case became especially important because it challenged the optimistic interpretation of earlier studies like Washoe’s.

Although Nim learned many signs, the chapter presents this case as evidence of the difficulties in claiming that chimpanzees truly acquire language. The Nim study suggested that learning signs is not the same as mastering a human language system. The key issue is not only vocabulary size, but whether the animal shows the deeper properties of language, such as systematic grammar and productive, independent sentence formation.

Evaluating the evidence from Washoe and Nim

The two case studies together show why the question “Can animals learn language?” is complex. Based on 1-What-is-language-24, a careful evaluation would make these points:

• Washoe provides evidence of impressive learning: mastering many signs suggests strong symbolic learning ability.
• Washoe does not by itself prove full language acquisition: knowing signs is not enough to show human-like grammar, productivity, or duality of patterning.
• Nim raises doubts about stronger claims: his case suggests that chimpanzees may learn trained signs without demonstrating the full structure of human language.
• The chapter urges caution: these studies are difficult to design and interpret, so conclusions must be limited.

Overall, the chapter’s evidence supports a balanced conclusion: chimpanzees can learn aspects of communication and symbolic signing, but the evidence does not clearly show that they acquire language in the same sense humans do.

Why sign languages are full languages

1-What-is-language-24 makes an important point: sign languages differ from spoken languages only in modality, the physical medium used to produce language. That means the difference is not whether they are “real” languages, but whether they are expressed through speech or through signs.

The chapter states that sign languages exhibit all of the design features of spoken languages. It also explains that although some signs in American Sign Language (ASL) are nonarbitrary, most are arbitrary, just as words in spoken languages are. This shows that sign languages share key linguistic properties with spoken languages.

In addition, sign languages have:

• Syntax: complex sentence structure
• Morphology: meaningful word-internal structure
• Semantics: systems of meaning
• The equivalent of phonology: a structured system built from smaller units such as handshape, location, and movement

This evidence is crucial for the lesson objective. If sign languages have arbitrariness, semanticity, syntax, morphology, semantics, and phonology-like structure, then they are not simplified substitutes for speech. They are full human languages with the same essential structural features.

Main comparison

• Human language is rule-governed, productive, and able to express meanings beyond the immediate situation.
• Animal communication can be meaningful and sophisticated, but the chapter presents it as lacking the full range of human language features.
• Ape signing studies show that animals may learn symbols or signs, but they do not clearly demonstrate human-like grammar.
• Sign languages are genuine human languages because they share the core structural features of spoken languages.

Conclusion

Drawing on 1-What-is-language-24, we can conclude that human language stands apart from animal communication because of features such as discreteness, displacement, productivity, and duality of patterning. The Washoe and Nim studies are important because they test the limits of animal communication, but they do not provide clear proof that chimpanzees acquire language as humans do. At the same time, the chapter strongly supports the view that sign languages are full languages, not lesser forms of communication, because they have the same core structural properties as spoken languages.