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.
Babbling.
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.
CONCLUSIONS:
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.
Reliability:
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.
Validity:
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.
Comments
No comments have yet been made