So apes can learn words (as can dogs), but there’s no convincing evidence that apes can use syntax.
Separately, I recall a skeptical article written during the 1970s that noted that apes never use sign language among themselves: they only use it with humans. That would tend to support the Clever Hans hypothesis. But according to the wiki article on Nim Chimsky, Nim in fact used sign language with his ape-friend Sally:
In her biography of Nim, Hess writes that the chimps became inseparable. Nim taught Sally how to sign DRINK, BANANA and GUM, three of the words he used most frequently at the ranch.[41] He was frequently seen signing SORRY to Sally after they had a squabble.
Animal communication exists and this claim is not controversial. But AFAIK it’s not understood well enough to make a confident taxonomy covering the range from bacterial mats to human language in granular detail.
ETA: If you had told me during the 1970s or 1980s that an animal could have a vocabulary of 60 or more words, I would have been surprised. But there are dogs that apparently have this capacity. Also birds.
Off topic for this thread, but the Mandela effect probably arose because of the death in custody of Steve Biko, or maybe another activist. It’s certainly not a mistake I ever made, so I’m not sure.
People reading news and watching National Geographic, and being left with the impression that apes were learning language, were being suckered by fake news.
I’m not sure who we can fairly blame for the fake news, though-- lying trainers who were usually psychologists out of their field, or gullible journalists. Or even animal rights activists to eager for an animal to stand up and say " No!"
More like reading Nat Geo. I remember the original articles about Koko in what? the 70s? Why would I think they weren’t true? And an accurate representation? This wasn’t the Nat Enq.
It took my gullible self quite a while to learn this. I guess I blame my upbringing. Authority figures (parents, cops, presidents, news reporters) don’t lie.
Back to the OP, I would think that, from reading an article about Koko in a reputable magazine, that the scientist would not deliberately misrepresent themselves or their research. Even as a teen, I knew about peer review. If Patterson made claims that were not true, she’d be taken apart, metaphorically. Repeatability of results is crucial. And Nat Geo would look stupid repeating them, taking a hit to their reputation. If they publish lies by Patterson, what are we supposed to think about their articles by Goodall and Fossey? My obviously erroneous assumption: actual ASL speakers were also having independent conversations with Koko. Because, they said Koko could communicate. It would be trivally easy to verify that!
And yet…they did print lies. Didn’t anyone check? Why did they take Patterson at face value? Having another species that could used even a rudimentary language would be an astounding discovery. (trust but) Verify!
Why did they take Elizabeth Holmes’ claims at face value, without doing even a quantum of independent verification? Damned if I know.
Also, some of it is just how science works. Initial findings are later found to be wrong. That is to be expected with the scientific method, and is everything working exactly as designed. If we already knew the answer, then why would anyone have bothered with the experiment in the first place?
Scientists, being human, can sometimes get very attached to their non-replicating results, and spend the rest of their career trying to prove they were right the first time.
In this case, there was a very exciting finding. Part of the reason it was so exciting was that it was unexpected. Because it was unexpected (and involves cute/ferocious animals), it got reported on by the popular press.
Then, as is the curse of exciting and unexpected findings, it failed to replicate. Sometimes replication failure is because the first result was due to dumb luck. Other times it’s because the first result wasn’t actually the result that was advertised, which seems to be the case here.
Other topic: have cetaceans been mentioned? Due to the rule of cute/magnificent animals pushing marginal results into the popular press, I’ve seen several stories about whale and dolphin songs possibly being language, rather than simple signaling.
I do not have the knowledge to judge if this is just scientists and science reporters getting a little carried away with “wouldn’t it be cool if…” or if there is real support in the data to call it language. Even if there is some evidence of the songs being language, that doesn’t mean it is language, because again, the whole point of the scientific method is to prove your hypothesis is wrong.
This. National Geographic was describing the work of credentialed scientists. This century it was discovered that psychology had a replication problem, but I don’t expect Nat Geo to be more clairvoyant than most psychologists in the field.
Note that there was vigorous debate about Koko et al in the late 1970s: it was dubbed “The Ape Wars” in the popular scientific press. My understanding was that at best Koko et al were nowhere near the level of a human 2 year old. I don’t find either position to be implausible a priori, though the Koko study lacked rigor and the conclusions as reported in the popular press were in error. (ETA: Erm, I see from wiki that some were claiming that Koko had an IQ of 70 or 90. I don’t recall claims that expansive.)
Semi relevant: today’s New York Times has an article about cross-specie communication between a caterpillar/butterfly and certain ant colonies: the former tricks the latter. Gifted.
“Trilobites: The Password That Lets Caterpillars Hide in an Ant’s Lair: Some butterfly species can’t grow unless they trick ants into taking them home with a complex rhythmic signal.”
We have the dog buttons also. Our dog now regularly uses “snack” and “hungry”. Snack is when she wants some minor treat, which she’ll hit throughout the day. Hungry is for breakfast and dinner, which she will sit next to and mash repeatedly like clockwork at 8am and 6pm. We’re working on “play” and “potty” but she just prefers nipping us in the ass for communicating those wants. It’s been fun so far and our expectations are low, definitely no sonnets but maybe we’ll get a haiku in the future.
My cat accomplishes this by parking himself at my feet and staring at me.
~
What were they hoping to gain by teaching chimps sign language in the first place? I ask this sincerely. Surely not just to let us know when they were hungry or wanted out. Maybe an insight into simian philosophy?
Which was the rationale for using Sign in the first place - no other living primate can speak as humans do, but they have the dexterity to Sign.
It’s not the apes’ fault that they didn’t have the rest of what was required to use a human language as a human does. It was the fault of humans for assuming more was going on than actually was.
