Why Can’t Apes Talk?

The article suggests, based on some more-recent work, that primates can have "speech ready" anatomy. The article seems to be saying that both the intelligence for language and the anatomy for speech may be present, but not the necessary level of coordination between the two.

That kind of work was very poor methodologically and its results are best explained as the Clever Hans effect, as the animals generating random strings unconnected to a current context, or simply as over-zealous efforts to assign meaning to the animals' signing, by their handlers.

See for example this article regarding the work of Francine Patterson with Koko:

On the Evidence for Linguistic Abilities in Signing Apes

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0093934X79...

From which I quote (since it's Elsevier-walled):

>> One of the major problems with Patterson's study is that it presents very little data. While several large corpora of the utterances of children have been published (e.g. Bloom, 1973), there is as yet no corpus of any ape's signing behavior. That is, Patterson fails to provide a substantial number of transcribed utterances. Rather, she relies upon individual examples to support her interpretations. In the absence of a corpus of utterances, however, these examples are impossible to interpret. One cannot determine whether they have the functions wich Patterson attributes to them, or whether they resulted from the ape acting as a "random sign generator" which happened to emit sequences that could be selectively chosen to illustrate particular points. This sampling problem vitiates Patterson's claim that certain combinations demonstrated that Koko possessed the ability to creatively combine signs into novel utterances. Those who assert that apes have shown linguistic abilities have invariably relied upon examples such as Washoe's signing water bird for duck. In the absence of a large corpus, however, these examples are subject to multiple interpretations. Patterson's claim that cookie rock was a creative description of a stale sweet roll loses much of its force if Koko also produced utterances such as cookie tickle, cookie hat, and toothbrush cookie in similar contexts. The largest corpus of utterances from any signing ape, that of Terrace, Pettito and Bever (1967a,b) shows that their subject, a chimpanzee named Nim Chimpsky, did in fact combine each vocabulary sign with a large number of other signs. Although each of the resulting combinations could be interpreted metaphorically, a simpler interpretation is that he merely combined signs randomly. The correct interpretation depends on other information--an accounting of the frequencies with which signs occurred in combination with one another, the contexts in which combinations occurred, the content of the teachers' signing--which Patterson fails to provide. Without this information, the importance of her examples cannot be ascertained.

>> Patterson's discussion of her cookie rock example provides some measure of this problem. She states, "Although Koko has produced uninterpretable strings (as do some children), most of her utterances are appropriate to the situation and some are strikingly apt" (p. 88). She then cites some "interpretable" examples, including cookie rock; the "uninterpretable" strings are not described. It is the case that only "interpretable" sequences are ever documented in the reports on ape signing. Only by presenting an unedited corpus of responses, however, could Patterson's assertion be validated.

Note also that one of the two authors in the quoted paper is Laura A. Pettito, one of the researchers that worked with Nim Chimpsky.

The article says that apes can't talk because of limitations in the part of the brain that controls the muscles of the mouth. Their ability to sign shows they do have the mental capacity to learn to communicate but with their hands. This may not extend to speech specifically for the reasons discussed in the article.

The experiments on teaching sign language to chimpanzees actually suggests the opposite, because it shows that, even if you take the physical inability issue off the table, the chimpanzees do not make much use of their language skills - they do not enter into extended conversations with their handlers or one another. The evidence that they 'truly' (perhaps we should ask 'how deeply') understand language is controversial, especially given the recent evidence as to the extent that computer programs can give the superficial impression of having more understanding than a more thorough study of their abilities reveals.

It is sometimes argued that we do not know enough about their motivations to make that call, but it is hard to imagine there being no situations in which they would find language useful, and even harder to imagine not being able to devise experimental situations in which a greater use of language would be the only way to achieve goals they manifestly desire. Ultimately, the argument about different motives is one about different mental capabilities, anyway.

Personally, I think it probable that species other than Homo Sapiens made good use of language, but we seem to be the only one around at the moment.

It's also equally hard to trust give it's based on Hindu scripture, and the Wikipedia article itself states that they're considered mythical creatures.

Many occult texts claim that the monkeys of today are a result of back crossing human DNA into monkey species long, long ago; and that they have been in regression ever since, turning less human with time.

Under the aegis of, Narendra "Ganesha is proof Hindus knew plastic surgery in vedic times" Modi, many self appointed spokesperson of what Hindu's believe in, have come out of the woodwork.

They are the western analogue of humans riding on flying dinosaurs. Its the same phenomena. Now, we have our own Ku Klux Klan -- the cow rakshak's who are on a murderous spree with an implicit promise from the government that they will be insulated from justice.

Here's a partial list for HN's entertainment.

https://www.altnews.in/bjp-science-ganeshas-plastic-surgery-... a collection of youtube videos of the Prime Minister of India making such claims and videos of some other assorted jokers who are running the country.

Are we all going to pretend that an ancient mythological fairy tale text is the evidence of talking apes?

Us Hindus also believe that one of those monkeys could fly, namely Hanuman. That doesn't mean it can be possible. A lot of Hindu mythology is pure myth. Do not even try to link it to science.

Supporting myth and superstition with pseudo-science has become popular these days in India, thanks to our PM and the rest of the ruling party indulging in such practice.

OMG, seriously, I am a Hindu and I don't believe apes did talk or we were flying around in pushpak vimanas. Anything that is described in mythology is mythology. Please enjoy reading it and read it to our kids, but tell them that it's a story. On the other hand if you want to do some solid work on bringing credibility to these mythical stuff mentioned in the stories, please do scientific research and try to back it with solid proof. Otherwise we will become a laughing stock in front of the scientific community.

p.s. There is a dark side version to the Vanara mythology, it was once told by my father and I have come to accept it as one possibility of how the name would have sticked. Here is one version: Vanara in sanskrit means Va-Nara? (question). It's like asking "Are you human"? So when Rama who was from north and when in excile came to contact with people in the south, he is said to have asked are you human? Va-Nara?

And don't forget all the gods then were Kings, which was so convenient isn't it? Rama was king but also is a god. Krishna is a king but also is a god, but oh wait Krishna is dark skinned, as he captured power from Kamsa and not of royal lineage, but in the story it was given a twist (even though he belonged to Yadav caste) that he was indeed of the royal lineage and of Brahmanical descent. Krishna wouldn't have minded that story himself.. So in all possibilities there were wars between two kingdoms (Sinhala and India) and the story is used to build the mythical story that we read now. Just enjoy reading it, but don't take it was written history or anything without solid backing.

p.p.s A comparable mythological story is Epic of Gilgamesh. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh). There are several elements in that story that is said to have inspired the Old Testament.

That's not a Hindu belief, and is an overly modern reading of Hindu mythology.

Just like Hindu/Indo-European notions of asparas/wood-nymphs doesn't imply the existence of and rationalization of a tribe of forest women, this isn't really a belief among Hindus about a former state of monkeyhood.

Ancient people simply believed in literally supernatural/estoeric things - they weren't "secretly" technologically advanced with a strange vocabulary we now read as religious.

Multiple human species existed at the same time, but got assimilated into Homo sapiens sapiens of today.

Given the problems between human races, I'd say the latter.

This is usually called "uplift" in science fiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uplift_(science_fiction)

Obligatory video of a Chimpanzee playing in VR. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yD4KQGZUs4