Animal Learning & Behavior

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 1–14

Elements of syntax in the systems of three language-trained animals

Article

Abstract

Which properties of syntax are uniquely human, and which can be acquired by other animals? Relevant evidence is provided by work with three language-trained animals: the African gray parrot Alex, who can produce and comprehend a small fragment of English; the bottle-nosed dolphins Ake and Phoenix, who can comprehend a gestural and an acoustic language, respectively; and the bonobo Kanzi, who can produce combinations of lexigrams and comprehend a significant fragment of English. The systems of these animals are examined for evidence of four core properties of syntax: discrete combinatorics, category-based rules, argument structure, and closed-class items. Additional studies that explore further what these animals can learn about these core properties are suggested.

References

  1. Baker, M. C. (1992). Thematic conditions on syntactic structures: Evidence from locative applicatives. In I. M. Roca (Ed.),Thematic structure and its role in grammar (pp. 23–46). Berlin: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Berridge, K., Fentress, J. C., &Parr, H. (1987). Natural syntax rules control action sequences of rats.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,23, 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bickerton, D. (1990).Language and species. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bickerton, D. (1995).Language and human behavior. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bloom, P. (1994). Possible names: The role of syntax-semantics mappings in the acquistion of nominals.Lingua,92, 297–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, R. (1957). Linguistic determinism and the parts of speech.Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology,55, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, R. (1973).First language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Caplan, D. (1992).Language: Structure, processing, and disorders. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cheney, D. L., &Seyfarth, R. M. (1990).How monkeys see the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, N. (1965).Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Demers, R. A. (1988). Linguistics and animal communication. In F. J. Newmeyer (Ed.),Linguistics: The Cambridge survey: Vol. III. Language: Psychological and biological aspects (pp. 314–335). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection.Language,67, 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fisher, C., Hall, D. G., Rakowitz, S., &Gleitman, L. (1994). When it is better to receive than to give: Syntactic and conceptual constraints on vocabulary growth.Lingua,92, 333–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gleitman, L. R., Gleitman, H., Landau, B., &Wanner, E. (1988). Where learning begins: Initial representations for language learning. In F. J. Newmeyer (Ed.),Linguistics: The Cambridge survey: Vol. III. Language: Psychological and biological aspects (pp. 150–193). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Goldberg, A. E. (1995).Constructions: A construction approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Goldin-Meadow, S. (1979). Structure in a manual communication system developed without a conventional language model: Language without a helping hand. In H. Whitaker & H. A. Whitaker (Eds.),Studies in neurolinguistics (Vol. 4, pp. 125–209). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Greenfield, P. M., &Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S. (1990). Grammatical combinations inPan paniscus: Processes of learning and invention in the evolution and development of language. In S. T. Parker & K. R. Gibson (Eds.),“Language” and intelligence in monkeys and apes: Comparative developmental perspectives (pp. 540–578). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grimshaw, J. (1990).Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Haegeman, L. (1991).Introduction to government and binding theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Herman, L. M. (1987). Receptive competencies of language-trained animals. In J. S. Rosenblatt, C. Beer, M.-C. Busnel, & P. J. B. Slater (Eds.),Advances in the study of behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 1–60). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Herman, L. M. (1989). In which procrustean bed does the sea lion sleep tonight?Psychological Record,39, 19–50.Google Scholar
  22. Herman, L. M., Kuczaj, S. A., II, &Holder, M. D. (1993). Responses to anomalous gestural sequences by a language-trained dolphin: Evidence for processing of semantic relations and syntactic information.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,122, 184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Herman, L. M., Richards, D. G., &Wolz, J. P. (1984). Comprehension of sentences by bottlenosed dolphins.Cognition,16, 129–219.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hockett, C. F., &Altmann, S. A. (1968). A note on design features. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.),Animal communication (pp. 61–72). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hoffmeister, R., &Moores, D. F. (1987). Code switching in deaf adults.American Annals of the Deaf,132, 31–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Jackendoff, R. (1983).Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Jackendoff, R. (1987). The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory.Linguistic Inquiry,18, 369–411.Google Scholar
  28. Klima, E. S., &Bellugi, U. (1979).The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Landau, B., Smith, L. B., &Jones, S. S. (1988). The importance of shape in early lexical learning.Cognitive Development,3, 299–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Levin, B. (1993).English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Marler, P. (1984). Song learning: Innate species differences in the learning process. In P. Marler & H. S. Terrace (Eds.),The biology of learning (pp. 289–309). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  32. McNeill, D. (1970).The acquisition of language: The study of developmental psycholinguistics. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  33. Morrow, D. G. (1986). Grammatical morphemes and conceptual structure in discourse processing.Cognitive Science,10, 423–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Myers-Scotton, C. (1993).Duelling languages: Grammatical structure in codeswitching. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  35. Partee, B. (1995). Lexical semantics and compositionality. In D. N. Osherson (Series Ed.) & L. R. Gleitman & M. Liberman (Eds.),An invitation to cognitive science: Vol. 1. Language (2nd ed., pp. 311–360). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Pepperberg, I. M. (1981). Functional vocalizations by an African Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus).Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie,55, 139–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pepperberg, I. M. (1983). Cognition in the African Grey parrot: Preliminary evidence for auditory/vocal comprehension of the class concept.Animal Learning & Behavior,11, 179–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pepperberg, I. M. (1987a). Acquisition of the same/different concept by an African Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus): Learning with respect to categories of color, shape, and material.Animal Learning & Behavior,15, 423–432.Google Scholar
  39. Pepperberg, I. M. (1987b). Evidence for conceptual quantitative abilities in the African Grey parrot: Labeling of cardinal sets.Ethology,75, 37–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pepperberg, I. M. (1987c). Interspecies communication: A tool for assessing conceptual abilities in the African Grey parrot. In G. Greenberg & E. Tobach (Eds.),Cognition, language, and consciousness: Integrative levels (pp. 31–56). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Pepperberg, I. M. (1988). Comprehension of “absence” by an African Grey parrot: Learning with respect to questions of same/different.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,50, 553–564.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pepperberg, I. M. (1990a). Cognition in an African Gray parrot (Psittacus erithacus): Further evidence for comprehension of categories and labels.Journal of Comparative Psychology,104, 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pepperberg, I. M. (1990b). Referential mapping: A technique for attaching functional significance to the innovative utterances of an African Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus).Applied Psycholinguistics,11, 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pepperberg, I. M. (1992). Proficient performance of conjunctive, recursive task by an African Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus).Journal of Comparative Psychology,106, 295–305.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pepperberg, I. M. (1993). Cognition and communication in an African Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus): Studies on a nonhuman, nonprimate, nonmammalian subject. In H. L. Roitblat, L. M. Herman, & P. E. Nachtigall (Eds.),Language and communication: Comparative perspectives (pp. 221–248). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Pinker, S. (1989).Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. Pinker, S. (1994).The language instinct: How the mind creates language. New York: Morrow.Google Scholar
  48. Premack, D. (1983). The codes of man and beasts.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,6, 125–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Premack, D. (1984). Upgrading a mind. In T. G. Bever, J. M. Carroll, & L. A. Miller (Eds.),Talking minds: Approaches to the study of language in cognitive science (pp. 181–206). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Ristau, C. A., &Robbins, D. (1982). Language in the great apes: A critical review. In J. S. Rosenblatt, C. Beer, M.-C. Busnel, & P. J. B. Slater (Eds.),Advances in the study of behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 141–255). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  51. Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S.,Murphy, J.,Sevcik, R. A.,Brakke, K. E.,Williams, S. L., &Rumbaugh, D. M. (1993). Language comprehension in ape and child.Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,58 (Nos. 3–4).Google Scholar
  52. Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S., Rumbaugh, D. M., &Boysen, S. (1978). Symbolic communication between two chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes).Science,201, 641–644.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S., Rumbaugh, D. M., Smith, S. T., &Lawson, J. (1980). Reference: The linguistic essential.Science,210, 922–925.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schusterman, R. J., &Gisiner, R. C. (1988). Artificial language comprehension in dolphins and sea lions: The essential cognitive skills.Psychological Record,38, 311–348.Google Scholar
  55. Schusterman, R. J., &Gisiner, R. C. (1989). Please parse the sentence: Animal cognition in the procrustean bed of linguistics.Psychological Record,39, 3–18.Google Scholar
  56. Schusterman, R. J., &Krieger, K. (1984). California sea lions are capable of semantic comprehension.Psychological Record,34, 3–23.Google Scholar
  57. Seidenberg, M. S., &Pettito, L. A. (1979). Signing behavior in apes: A critical review.Cognition,7, 177–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sridhar, S. N., &Sridhar, K. K. (1980). The syntax and psycholinguistics of bilingual code mixing.Canadian Journal of Psychology,34, 407–416.Google Scholar
  59. Stowell, T. (1992). The role of the lexicon in syntactic theory. In T. Stowell & E. Wehrli (Eds.),Syntax and semantics (Vol. 26, pp. 9–20). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  60. Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.),Language typology and syntactic description (pp. 57–149). Boston: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Talmy, L. (1988). The relation of grammar to cognition. In B. Rudzka Ostyn (Ed.),Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 165–205). Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  62. Terrace, H. S., Pettito, L. A., Sanders, R. J., &Bever, T. G. (1979). Can an ape create a sentence?Science,206, 891–902.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tomasello, M. (1994). Can an ape understand a sentence? A review ofLanguage comprehension in ape and child by E. S. Savage-Rumbaugh et al.Language & Communication,14, 377–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tooby, J., &Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.),The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 19–136). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Vandeloise, C. (1994). Methodology and analyses of the prepositionin.Cognitive Linguistics,5, 157–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. van Hout, A. (1996).Event semantics of verb frame alternations. Tilberg, The Netherlands: Tilberg University.Google Scholar
  67. Van Petten, C., &Kutas, M. (1991). Influences of semantic and syntactic context on open- and closed-class words.Memory & Cognition,19, 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia

Personalised recommendations