
Macaque monkeys have the anatomy for human speech, so why can’t they speak? - hyperpallium
http://www.kurzweilai.net/macaque-monkeys-have-the-anatomy-for-human-speech-so-why-cant-they-speak
======
zw123456
I have to do another post on this.
[http://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.1974668](http://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.1974668)
This has been a pet theory of mine monkeys hearing is not very good below
8khz, down as much as 60db in the 4khz and below range where human speech
primarily resides. Maybe they are basically hard of hearing in our spectral
range? I wonder if anyone ever thought about making a special hearing aid for
them to boost the low frequencies. Or maybe move the human speech up to their
range (they can hears as high as 45Khz while humans cut off at 20khz). Maybe
you could teach them to speak but it would be super high pitched and another
device could shift it back down. Like a frequency up and down converter.

~~~
devoply
I like the idea of a universal monkey translator.

~~~
zw123456
I know right, I want to build one :)

------
wbhart
I had read that the spinal cord of monkeys and the small hole through which it
must pass, does not permit the many nerves that are required to control the
speech apparatus with sufficient accuracy for intelligible speech. I was
surprised to find the article didn't mention this issue at all, either as an
urban myth, or as a fact of anatomy. Has thinking moved on when it comes to
this issue? Are Macaque monkeys somehow different in this regard?

------
nabla9
Descartes thought that monkeys could talk if they wanted to but they didn't
because they would be forced to work.

~~~
cokernel
I'd be interested in a citation for this, if you have one handy. I've read
that he wrote about this in a letter but I haven't been able to find it. The
closest I've been able to find is (via WP):

> The word [orangutan] comes from Bontius (1631, Hist. Nat. et Med. Ind.
> Orient.) who claimed that the Javanese had informed him that orang-utans
> could talk, ‘but do not wish to, lest they should be compelled to labour’.

Dellios, Paulette (2005). A Lexical Odyssey from the Malay World. The
Proceedings of the European Integration-Between Tradition and Modernity
Congress, Editura Universităţii "Petru Maior", Volume Number 1, 2005, ISSN
1844-2048, pp. 460-463.
[http://www.upm.ro/facultati_departamente/stiinte_litere/conf...](http://www.upm.ro/facultati_departamente/stiinte_litere/conferinte/situl_integrare_europeana/Lucrari/Delios.pdf)

Bontius's book looks like the sort of thing Descartes would have read, so I'd
be interested in reading his reaction.

~~~
nabla9
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes)

>Mr. Clerselier has written me that you are expecting from him my
Meditations... in order to present them to the queen of the land. ...If I had
only been as wise as they say the savages persuaded themselves that the
monkeys were, I never would have become known as a maker of books: Since it is
said that they imagined that the monkeys could indeed speak, if they wanted
to, but that they chose not to so lest they be forced to work. And since I had
not the same prudence to abstain from writing, I now have neither as much
liesure nor as much peace as I would have had if I had kept quiet. But since
the mistake has already been made, and since I am now known by an infinity of
people at the academy, who look askance at my writings and scour them for
means of harming me, I do have great hope of being known to persons of great
merit, whose power and virtue could protect me.

>Letter to Pierre Chanut (Nov. 1, 1646) as quoted by Amir Aczel, Descartes'
Secret Notebook (2005) citing René Descartes: Correspondance avec Elizabeth et
autres lettres (1989) ed., Jean-Marie and M. Beysaade, pp. 245-246.

------
ebbv
I suspect the answer is similar to why a macaque can't play billiards even
though it is physically capable of it.

It's not like macaque monkeys don't "speak" to each other, they do make sounds
that indicate certain things that other monkeys understand. They just don't
have the cognitive ability for language. It's too complex and abstract for
them.

Similarly, they can manipulate a pool cue and even knock balls around a table
with it potentially. But they can't actually understand the rules or play the
game effectively, even though they can be taught rules of much more simple
"games" like "press the red button and get a treat, press the blue button and
get nothing."

~~~
tikwidd
Other primates already have the anatomy required for natural language more or
less, namely arms and hands. Signed languages are as complete and expressive
as spoken languages, and there is speculation [1] that spoken and signed
language use the same underlying grammatical facility or "language organ".

Kinda OT, but this got me thinking about why human evolution has preferred
spoken over signed language - why did spoken language evolve as the favourite
mode when we already had perfectly good anatomy for signed language? Spoken
language has some obvious disadvantages that I can think of:

* limited iconicity compared to sign

* not good for communicating while hunting

* less private

* speech production requires fine articulations and motor control, takes longer to learn, extends adolescence?

* "The positioning of the larynx deep in the throat, and the tongue far enough low and back to articulate a range of vowels, also compromised breathing and chewing. Presumably the communicative benefits outweighed the physiological costs." [2]

Spoken has some advantages over sign though:

* communication over distance

* sound-based iconicity/ possible

* can communicate with poor vision

* can communicate while performing manual tasks (this is probably the biggest one)

Maybe early humans used a combination of both depending on the situation, and
as the abstraction capability of the brain increased, spoken became the
(hearing) norm. Either way, it seems like anatomical explanations for language
evolution aren't very useful. Female Cosmetic Coalitions[3] is an interesting
theory from anthropology which relates evolution of natural language with in-
group trust.

[1]
[http://www.lscp.net/persons/peperkamp/Peperkamp_Mehler_(1999...](http://www.lscp.net/persons/peperkamp/Peperkamp_Mehler_\(1999\)_Signed_and_Spoken_Language.pdf)

[2] The Language Instinct, Steven Pinker

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_cosmetic_coalitions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_cosmetic_coalitions)

~~~
OneTwoFree
I think the "can communicate with poor vision" is the most important as its
dark in about 50% of the day when sign language doesn't really work. Not to
mention that you first need to call the other's attention to start
communicating with signs, possibly by making some sort of sound so they look
at you. The second most important benefit is (IMHO) that you can speak while
you are focusing on something, e.g. waiting for the prey to come closer while
everyone holds their weapons.

------
zw123456
So why can parrots be taught to speak? Of course they do not understand what
they are saying but they can be trained to say words. Monkeys can be trained
to do some pretty complex things in comparison to what a bird can do, it seems
to me monkeys are smarter than birds. So it seems like there is some other
part of the explanation that is not completely figured out here.

~~~
woofyman
>not understand what they are saying but they can be trained to say words.

Not necessarily true.

[http://blogs.thatpetplace.com/thatbirdblog/2011/06/10/do-
par...](http://blogs.thatpetplace.com/thatbirdblog/2011/06/10/do-parrots-
understand-what-they-say-yes-according-to-a-new-study/#.WGl1jDQ8LCQ)

Edit: fix link

~~~
jplasmeier
I think you've posted the wrong link...

~~~
woofyman
Thank you

------
lisivka
Gelada baboons can talk:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPtcNucxiMg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPtcNucxiMg)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm1q-V2b1Sc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm1q-V2b1Sc)

------
Manglano
Good speculative fiction story: Extraterrestrial species of immortal primates
visits Earth, deploys the substrate for Wernicke & Broca's areas into a
species of speechless apes, to see the invention of Shakespeare.

~~~
wyager
As I recall, this was more or less a plot element in Daniel Keys Morgan's
"Tales of the Continuing Time" sci-fi series. Good series.

------
ErikVandeWater
> Our findings imply that the evolution of human speech capabilities required
> neural changes rather than modifications of vocal anatomy.

They have the anatomy to speak except for the brain anatomy. _rolls eyes_

------
Pica_soO
Because they lack the break through "retardation". And yes, for a monkey,
unnecessary sounds, attracting predators are a handicap.

Imagine if vocalization was a disease result - a multi host disease that trys
to attract predators by creating constant loud vocalization of thought.

~~~
ebbv
Monkeys make "unnecessary" sounds all the time. It's not like a group of
monkeys just sits there silently and only makes absolutely necessary sounds.

Plus as other commenters have pointed out, speech would let much more useful
and detailed communications possible.

~~~
Pica_soO
Okay, i was wrong :D

------
jcoffland
People should use this recording to ask their partners to consent to marriage.
It says, our union will be both creepy and scientific in a way that is usually
difficult to convey.

