Gardner & Gardner (1969) - Aims & Context
- Hockett (1960) believed there were real qualitative differences between human and non-human language - human languages contain many features which animal communication does not.
- Aitchison (1983) concluded that there are 4 criteria which are unique to human language:
- Semanticity: The use of symbols to mean an object or action.
- Displacement: The ability to refer to things not present in time or space.
- Structure-Dependence: The patterned nature of language and correct word order.
- Creativity: The ability to produce and understand many new ways of saying the same thing.
- Chomsky (1957) stated that we are biologically programmed to acquire language. He called this the Language Acquisition Device.
- Hayes & Hayes (1952) worked with a chimp called Vicki. They wanted her to talk, however, after 6 years she was only able to make 4 sounds.
- Bryan (1963) stated that the vocal ability of chimps is different to humans; they will only vocalise in situations of high stress or excitement.
- Premack & Premack (1966) raised a chimp called Sarah. They taught her to make sentences by using shapes and colours to represent words. She acquired 130 signs and could make sentences up to 8 units long.
- The aim of Gardner & Gardner's study was to:
- Investigate if they could teach a chimp ASL.
1 of 5
Gardner & Gardner (1969) - Procedures
- Wild, female chimp aged 8-14 months, called Washoe.
- She was always with a human companion during her waking hours. They played games with her and only communicated using American Sign Language (ASL).
- Training Methods:
- Imitation: "Do this" game; was unsuccessful.
- Prompting: If she 'lapsed', she was shown the correct sign and would imitate that.
- Using Signs: To acquire a large vocabulary.
- Operant Conditioning: Rewarding Washoe for good signing.
- Records were kept of her progress for over 22 months.
- 3 observers had to report seeing Washoe using a sign spontaneously and appropriately.
- The sign had to be recorded every day for 15 days in order for it to be classed as 'learned'.
2 of 5
Gardner & Gardner (1969) - Findings & Conclusions
- 30 words were acquired, such as "move, up, sweet, open, tickle".
- Washoe's language acquisition resembled a human's.
- Differentiating: Washoe used 'flower' to reference odours. She could eventually distinguish between 'smell' and 'flower'.
- Transfer: She could apply 'flower' to different kinds of flower, and use 'dog' when hearing a dog bark.
- Combining: She could combine 2 or 3 signs, for example: 'listen dog' when a dog barked.
- ASL is an appropriate medium of communication for the chimp.
- The study suggested that more could be accomplished because of Washoe's ability to combine signs.
3 of 5
Gardner & Gardner (1969) - Evaluating The Methodol
- Case Study:
- Lots of qualitative data acquired.
- Can't be generalised as it is specific to an individual.
- Strict criteria had to be kept to in order to ensure that Washoe had actually learnt a word.
- Standardised procedures were used in order to ensure that this experiment could be repeated.
- Kanzi (1991) - another chimp - also showed semanticity. This proves that language can be taught to chimps.
- Low internal validity as, occasionally, the training programme and procedures went wrong because Washoe was pressed too hard to learn.
- However, high internal validity because the recording of whether Washoe had actually learned a sign was strict.
- Ethical Issues:
- Could not give informed consent, and also had no right to withdraw because she is a chimp.
- Her rights were ignored.
4 of 5
Gardner & Gardner (1969) - Alternative Evidence
- Loulis - Supports:
- Loulis, a chimp, acquired more than 50 signs just by mirroring other chimps.
- This shows that chimps can teach and learn ASL from other chimps.
- Kanzi & Mulika - Develops:
- Two chimps who were taught to use language via lexigrams.
- By 17 months, Kanzi could use 2500 non-imitative combinations.
- Savage & Rumbaugh (1986) concluded that some chimps have a greater propensity for language than others.
- ELIZA - Contradicts:
- ELIZA was a computer programme which could respond as if it were a non-directive therapist.
- Judges were unable to tell the difference between ELIZA's responses and the therapist's responses.
- This suggests that there is a difference between producing language and actually understanding it.
5 of 5