Chimpanzees have diverse vocal sequences with ordered recombinatorial properties
researchgate.net
researchgate.net
We don't know what "language" is. This is an attempt to empirically construct that definition from the bottom up. Calling it "language" may saddle whatever's going on here with needless or even misleading assumptions.
By the broadest definitions, chimpanzees have a language, and maybe even multiple dialects. By the narrowest definitions, only humans have languages.
People behave like there's some profound truth here, but this is really just semantics. I don't see why it's such a touchy subject, other than the fact that people like to believe humans are a special case.
As for "dominion over the earth," we're in the process right now of finding out exactly how fragile our hold over the planet is. I would not be asserting "dominion over the earth" as some kind of virtue at this point.
In a different comment, I was talking about dogs, birds, cephelopods being more intelligent than we typically give them credit for.
That's not just some "cultural value". That's an actual capacity. If sharks, tigers, or monkeys could lord over us, they would have. Like they do for species they have the upper hand on.
A different worldview is that humans are a steward of a land, and the land has abundance for all who inhabits it.
On the other hand, I feel it is highly likely that other, now extinct, homo species had human-like language skills. Language evolved, and it is not very plausible that it did so in one leap from that which we see in other species today. Some level of language and other cognitive skills are to be expected in other species, and the study of those skills is both worthwhile in itself and as a guide to better understanding ourselves.
Who is to say it is not?
By analogy, if you are laying under your vehicle, loosening a bolt with a wrench, and your dog is hunched nearby watching, he can clearly see what you are doing (and quite possibly understands that the wrench is needed to loosen the bolt) but he cannot understand why you are doing that, or what 19mm means, nor express either. The dog understands leverage in terms of his world, but quite possibly not that the wrench is used to create it in a different way. Certainly he couldn't explain it to another dog.
The other apes are doing things we can see and hear, but do not understand or put any importance on. One thing I note is that there is no mention of body language in that essay. Posture and gesture (and situation) add a huge amount of complexity to language.
And apes are surely using that too.
For example, I can tell you "no" but with minimal deft gestures, convey understanding in you that I mean "maybe" or even outright "yes". The canonical example being Linus Torvalds saying "No" to whether he was asked¹ to add back doors to the Linux Kernel, while indicating non verbally and quite clearly that he meant yes.
You and I have "that knowledge" to understand the whole message, while we quite likely lack nuance that other apes have in their communications.
¹and we both understand "asked" to actually mean "pressured" to some degree, and told not to tell. And there was more than duality in Linus' answer, he was also saying "Don't trust me to not fall to pressure" and "If I am pressured, they shouldn't trust me to keep it a secret".
Apes are surprising in their sophistication.
And it's not like both of these sides don't have an almost endless variety of languages...
Whenever one group of humans has met another, it has rapidly become apparent to both parties that the other has a language, no matter how long the ancestors of the two groups have been isolated from one another. Given how long humans and chimpanzees have been coexisting, if they had comparably effective language skills, it is implausible that either party has not recognized it in the other.
I believe that the theory of evolution is correct, and therefore that the evolution of language confers a differential fitness, yet chimpanzees are clearly not behaving in a way that exploits anything like the full capabilities of a human-like language, either in interactions between the members of their own species, or with their adversaries such as leopards or humans. At any time in the past, a small cabal of language-wielding chimpanzees, who grasped something more of the capabilities of their language skills than did their neighbors, could have dominated the remainder, increasing both their fitness and that of their species. In practice, we do not even observe them chatting.
It was David Brin, I believe, who made the same point with respect to dolphins: if they have these language skills, how come the knowledge of the dangers presented by purse seine nets, and the means to avoid them, has not spread within those dolphin communities where these nets are a significant cause of mortality?
There are many cases in evolution where a feature evolved for one purpose but then served another (which is how, it is supposed, birds got their flight feathers) - but even if that was the case for chimpanzee language, what was that primary purpose and why have the abilities not been adopted for their secondary purpose - especially as, once you have that level of language skills, change occurs at the rate of meme spread, rather than that of genes.
In other words, the combination of human-like language skills and the chimpanzee lifestyle seems very far from equilibrium. Language, by its very nature, does not deliver its evolutionary benefits cryptically.
Anthropologists have been doing that from skeletons for centuries.
This might help with poetry but comes at a price: it is superhard to internalise all the numerous word forms. I can't image learning Polish, Lithuanian or Russian being only exposed to English previously!
No it won't, because it's understood to be poetic.
In English, it's a awkward if an adjective is put after a noun right? But you don't bat an eyelash if it's in a poem.
"High upon the chimney stack, there I saw perched three crows black."
(Don't search for that, I just made it up.)
Moreover, in languages with case, reordering doesn't cause any ambiguities or confusion. You know which word is the subject and which the object in any permutation. (Not necessarily for all words, but most.) The speakers already enjoy considerable reordering freedom in everyday sentences already (non-poetic) where it plays roles in emphasis and such.
Compare to parrot and corvids. Birds have evolved a brain more efficient than humans. Crows are able to work with abstractions, and pound-for-pound use less brain matter.
And then there's the octopus and other cephelopods.
I have no doubt they have a language with each other, we're just not smart enough to figure it out yet.
If this same analysis were conducted with other populations of chimpanzees as well, could it be determined whether different populations use different languages? I believe this sort of thing has been tried with Orcas, with the conclusion that different populations have different languages.
What would be possible in a thoroughly surveilled group is to do a detailed analysis and record of the behavior and interactions and dialogues etc., possibly even eye gaze direction, and it's exact timing, and then create some type of AI model based on all of that together.
For human language models there are obvious practical uses and we can intuitively evaluate the quality of the models. For animal communication you need to use other biological variables, like valence in the pig communication example.
I do remember one where they generated artificial frog mating calls and were able to generate artificial ones that were exceptionally attractive to female frogs, but that was from a while back, and I can’t find the link.
edit: I think this is the one I was thinking of: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26874309
https://medium.com/health-and-biological-research-news/prair...
https://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/132650631/new-language-discov...
Original paper: sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347205801174?via%3Dihub