Language Case

The fact that some animals can be taught to use symbolic language is clear evidence that these animals possess conscious minds.

According to Premack (1971), communication is not unique in humans. The difference between language and communication in humans and animals has been researched and discussed on an ongoing basis. At the same time, the fact that animals can be taught a symbolic language and whether that is an indication that animals possess conscious minds has also been researched and discussed by investigators (Premack, 1971). Using language to communicate with others and to form concepts can be seen as an indication that a species is exhibiting mindful behavior. Communication, or use of language, in animals can be described as exchanging information between a sender and a receiver. This exchange can also be seen as one animal's behavior changing the behavior of another animal. Language can be through speech, like seen in humans, through other vocal sounds, through sign language, such as used by humans that are deaf, and through symbolic language, such as body movements or changes in features of different parts of the body. For communication to be considered as mindful, meaningful and intentional, it must be versatile, symbolic, have an audience reaction and when an audience is absent, there is no attempt at communication.

Some communication in animals is considered to be functionally referential, using the different acoustical features of an alarm call, the listener is able to derive specific information regarding a predator (Cheney, Manser, & Seyfarth, 2002). Some animals have been observed producing alarm calls to signal information to other animals of the same species. These alarm calls were representative of a predator and the urgency to get away from the predator. The animals were recorded and observed changing the acoustics of the call to represent the predator and the urgency. These calls were based on the position of the predator. This can be seen as versatile and symbolic. The reaction of the audience, if one was present, was also noted as well as whether the reaction was appropriate. One study was done with chickens. The chickens demonstrated two different alarm calls depending on whether the predator was coming from the air or from the ground. If the predator was aerial, the rooster would create a high pitched whistling sound and if the predator was coming from the ground, the rooster created a pulsating cackling sound. If there were several chickens in the coop when a predator would fly over, a hawk, the rooster would demonstrate several calls. If there were no chickens in the coop, the rooster would not make any calls. The rooster also seem to demonstrate that it was aware of who was present in the coop. If there were chickens from other groups or other roosters, the rooster would not make a call. Also, quails were placed in the coop and the rooster would not make a call. The roosters demonstrated versatile, symbolic and audience appropriate communication to warn against predators. Another communication system that has been looked at, is the communication in honey bees to signal availability of food. The honey bees demonstrated two different types of dance. The honey bees showed a round dance that seemed to signal that food was found and a waggle dance that signaled the distance of where the food was found. The waggle dance was done in a line that was different in length depending on the distance and the direction was different depending on the direction the food was found. This system of signaling for food is versatile, symbolic and audience appropriate just like what was seen in the roosters. Just because the communication between these animals is considered versatile, symbolic and audience appropriate, some may consider that the communication is simply instinctual.

Another example of communication in animals is the 5 year experiment with Washoe. Washoe was acquired at 10 months old by two comparative psychologists, the Gardners. Washoe was taught ASL (American Sign