
Why Can’t Apes Talk? - anthrocurious
https://www.sapiens.org/language/primate-speech/
======
wasd884
I read this book not long ago:

[https://www.amazon.co.uk/Next-Kin-Conversations-
Chimpanzees-...](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Next-Kin-Conversations-Chimpanzees-
Intelligence/dp/0718141717/ref=la_B000APTUHE_1_1)

And in it the author (who spent decades working with and teaching chimps)
concludes that chimps have the intelligence to talk but not the vocal chords.
They can understand humans talking (in the same way that a dog can understand
verbal commands) but they cannot do much besides grunt or hoot back.

However when you change the conversation method to something else (such as
sign languge) chimps can talk back exceedingly well. In the book mentioned
above the author has video proof that the chimps can talk to humans (and each
other) at the level of a two to four year old child.

This is the main chimp in the book:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washoe_(chimpanzee)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washoe_\(chimpanzee\))

This doesn't seem to just apply to chimps either. Gorillas (and other large
apes) can do the same.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_\(gorilla\))

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
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...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0093934X79900476)

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.

~~~
wasd884
> That kind of work was very poor methodologically and its results are best
> explained as the Clever Hans effect

I think you might be overreaching here! Roger Fouts was (and still is) an
expert and I fear you may just be regurgitating information from a study that
is nearly forty years old.

The book I mentioned earlier was written twenty years after the linked article
and explicitly mentions the bias he experienced in an entire chapter alone. It
counters and logically explains away a lot of the conclusions that they
falsely arrived at. If I remember correctly one of the main reasons that
studies in the 70s and 80s liked to play down the intelligence of chimps is
that it allowed the "for profit" chimp research centers to continue operating.
A lot of these studies were published and financed by people who would lose
out if they had to provide better (and therefore more costly) conditions for
their "dumb testing subjects".

As for the clever hans effect, Roger was extremely careful to not to
selectively extract words and interpret them during his research. He even
invited officials from the ASL institute to verify his findings first hand.

The clever hans effect also cannot explain away why chimps started signing to
each other (when no humans were present and the chimps were being monitored by
video) or why sometimes the chimps would sign to themselves (much in the same
way that humans occasionally mumble to themselves).

I implore you (if you have the time) to read Roger's book. It really is an eye
opener and very well written!

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
The tone of your comment is unpleasantly aggressive- I'm "regurgitating"
information, you "implore" me to read a book, etc? Could you please keep the
tone down, from now on? I will not continue this communication otherwise.

In any case, the article is old because the research it refers to is old and
that research is old because the majority of interested scientists consider
the question about great apes' language answered, and in the negative. A few
holdouts, of course, will always refuse to give up their preferred theories.
That doesn't mean they're right.

>> The clever hans effect also cannot explain away why chimps started signing
to each other (when no humans were present and the chimps were being monitored
by video) or why sometimes the chimps would sign to themselves (much in the
same way that humans occasionally mumble to themselves).

Sure, but there's nothing stopping the apes from signing to each other, or to
themselves, at random, without the signing actually meaning anything.

The point of the article I cite is that there is no way to know that because
of the shoddy methodology followed in most such experiments.

As to the Clever Hans effect, this is what Noam Chomsky has to say:

>> CHOMSKY: Interesting story about poor Nim. The experiment was carried out
by a very serious experimental psychologist, Herbert Terrace. A convinced
Skinnerian [student of Behaviorist, B.F Skinner], he expected that if an ape
was brought up just like a human it would be a little human. He had some very
fine assistants, including some excellent former students of ours, and others
who went on to be leading figures in the field. The experimentation was done
with meticulous care. There’s a book, called Nim, which describes it, with
great enthusiasm, claiming at the end that it was a grand success and the ape
is ready to go on to great things. Then comes the epilogue. When the
experiment was over, a grad student working on a thesis did a frame-by-frame
analysis of the training, and found that the ape was no dope. If he wanted a
banana, he’d produce a sequence of irrelevant signs and throw in the sign for
banana randomly, figuring that he’d brainwashed the experimenters sufficiently
so that they’d think he was saying “give me a banana.” And he was able to pick
out subtle motions by which the experimenters indicated what they’d hope he’d
do. Final result? Exactly what any sane biologist would have assumed: zero.

[https://chomsky.info/2007____/](https://chomsky.info/2007____/)

Another commenter in the parent thread also posted a link to a video where
Chomsky discusses the Clever Hans effect in the Nim Chimpsky research in more
detail.

>> If I remember correctly one of the main reasons that studies in the 70s and
80s liked to play down the intelligence of chimps is that it allowed the "for
profit" chimp research centers to continue operating. A lot of these studies
were published and financed by people who would lose out if they had to
provide better (and therefore more costly) conditions for their "dumb testing
subjects".

Those are very strong allegations of scientific misconduct, which of course
we're not going to resolve on HN. However, I note that the people who
published great ape language studies would benefit even more financially if
they had managed to show that great apes can learn sign language.

In fact, the amount of money one would imagine them making would positively
dwarf any expenses to improve the conditions of their subjects.

~~~
chiasmic
I didn’t perceive the comment you replied to as aggressive or confrontational.
I use implore very neutral manner, and interpret the comment as disagreeing
with you, but without aggression. Given tone of voice is lost in text only
communication, it’s often wise to adopt the principle of charity in
Interpretation.

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
I agree, but I did respond to the comment- I hope that shows good faith.

------
pravda
Chomsky gives some clues:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2-nLuUrdJQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2-nLuUrdJQ)

------
morganvachon
From the tagline: _A recent study suggests they’ve got the voice but not the
brains._

As pointed out early in the article, I had always read it was the other way
around; their brains are advanced enough for rudimentary speech, but they
lacked the vocal "hardware" that humans developed over time.

The fact that they can learn to sign and show true understanding of a non-
verbal language seems to contradict the article's gist.

~~~
gxx
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.

~~~
jobigoud
> because of limitations in the part of the brain that controls the muscles of
> the mouth

That makes it sound like it might be feasible to "fix" this. Maybe by
implanting electrodes to stimulate these specific muscles and have the
electrodes controlled by unrelated moto-neurons (or maybe capture the sign
language and apply the correct stimulus).

How far are we from this, are there any research team working on this? Is it
ethical to do it? Is it ethical not to do it if we have the means?

------
amriksohata
Hindus believes apes did talk at some point, or atleast one species existed
that did talk. They were called Vanara. They no longer exist but this
literature might point to some species that are now extinct, no fossilised
evidence though would be hard to guage from fossils.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanara](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanara)

~~~
srean
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-...](https://www.altnews.in/bjp-science-ganeshas-plastic-surgery-yoga-
can-cure-cancer/) 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.

~~~
neel8986
It seems around the world being unscientific and plain stupid is a great asset
for winning democratic elections. We will be horrified if a well know
professional speaks such rubbish but somehow okay with the facts that such
people can handle countries with multi-trillion dollar economy

~~~
srean
I used to find some comfort in the fact that Indian politicians were in some
ways better than the types of Michelle Bachman. They knew enough not to flaunt
their ignorance and knew when they were out of their depth. Apparently no
more.

------
devoply
Who is to say the other non-sapient apes won't be able to talk in the next few
hundred thousand to a million years if they don't go extinct?

------
MichaelMoser123
I wonder if multiple talking species can possibly coexist, or if one of them
inevitably ends up destroying it's competitors.

~~~
amelius
Given the problems between human _races_ , I'd say the latter.

~~~
blattimwind
Humans aren't divided into races.

~~~
close04
Of course we do: car races, bike races, but also human races yes. You may be
confusing _race_ and _(sub)species_.

~~~
jobigoud
> You may be confusing race and (sub)species

There is a stigma with the word race and in many places (i.e. Europe) we learn
that there is only one Human race, and only one Human species, as opposed to
several "ethnic groups". Although the difference between race and ethnic group
is vague. I've always wondered if it was just a taboo or not.

~~~
close04
Race is indeed an ambiguous term in general, as there are overlaps. But I have
to wonder whether it's the stigma associated to the word especially post WW2
and Nazi eugenics that made some anthropologists reconsider and say "most
differences are cultural". There are obvious aesthetic (not functional)
differences between populations. These are enough to distinguish between races
within other species so I'm having a hard time finding an authoritative
explanation for why it would be different for humans.

I find no challenge in treating people as equals without the need to think
they are the same race so such an argument based on sociology is not as
convincing as a biological one.

------
omrihaviv
This makes me ponder the affects of a device such as Elon Musk’s Neuralink on
other species. Will we be able to make animals smarter, not just humans?

~~~
jobigoud
This is usually called "uplift" in science fiction.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uplift_(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](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yD4KQGZUs4)

------
err4nt
My theory -> they're too smart! Maybe they realize that if they ever started
talking back to us humans, we'd put them to work (more than we already do)

