by Gregory McNamee
Language, by one conventional definition, is an open system of communication that follows well-established conventions—a grammar, that is—while still admitting the description of novel situations.
By a somewhat less rigorous definition, it is “a system of arbitrary vocal symbols by means of which a social group cooperates.” Either way, according to this point of view, one with which even the Encyclopaedia Britannica agrees, language is something reserved to humans, who alone, it has long been presumed, have the ability to generate it.
Yet, the more students of communication look into the problem, the more it seems our definition ought to be extended to systems of animal communication. Arguably, the howl-and-grunt systems of chimpanzees, for instance, have a grammar, while they certainly are made up of apparently arbitrary vocal symbols that help chimps hunt, groom, and engage cooperatively otherwise. One rather Machiavellian definition of language adds the proviso that only human language can express counterfactuality or be used to lie, but studies of ravens suggest that a bird isn’t above a fib; another suggests that only humans have a sense of the future and the means to express it, a matter that would seem to be countered sufficiently by the fact that the ant, if not the grasshopper, stores food for the winter and discusses that fact with its fellows.
The real rub lies in the possibility of nesting times within other times: By the time you have finished reading this system, I will have written several thousand other words. Recently, when I was thinking about the matter of language, I wished that I had paid closer attention to anti-Chomskyan theories of grammar in the 1970s. And so forth. That ability to embed units of meaning within other units of meaning—well, that’s the real thing that separates humans from other species.
But now we are learning that whale song is capable of structuring expression in the hierarchies that we describe by diagramming sentences. The song of the humpback whale, for instance, follows a repetitive pattern whose units would seem to be fixed—thus, a grammar, at least of a sort—but that can be reordered to express different actualities. Some scales of repetition are short, with six or so units, which might be thought of as an analog to human words, while others can be as long as 400 units, a veritable novella. Combining these units lends a whale song its structure; the whale equivalent, that is to say, of what linguists call syntax in human language.
That combination of units can happen in innumerable ways. The sperm whale, for example, makes patterns of clicks called codas. These patterns can be mixed, and they seem to vary regionally across the world—serving, that is to say, as accents, the things that distinguish speakers from Birmingham, Alabama, and Birmingham, England. (Between January and April, by the way, you can hear humpback songs streamed live from their winter breeding ground off Hawaii at the Jupiter Foundation Web site.)
Blue whale surfacing in the ocean© Photos.com/Jupiterimages
A sperm whale from the Pacific will vocalize differently from one from the Caribbean, although all sperm whales speak what cetologists call “Five Regular”: five evenly spaced clicks that seem to say, “I am a sperm whale.” Blue whales speak different dialects but share common phrases; whales in the eastern Pacific use low-pitched pulses, whereas, says a researcher at Oregon State University, “Other populations use different combinations of pulses, tones, and pitches.”
Why should a sperm whale, say, have made such an adaptation? Scientists know that baby sperm whales “babble,” issuing undifferentiated sounds just because they can. Eventually, as we school our young in language, adult sperm whales teach the babies what is meaningful and what is not. This proves to be of central importance in enabling creatures that may be miles apart in difficult, opaque water to tell who is a friend and who is not. That is especially true when the water is densely polluted with the noise of passing ships, which have so often proved fatal to whales of every species.
Language conveys and hides truth, and it expresses joy and sorrow. One quietly tragic story, to my mind, involves a beluga whale that the US Navy held in captivity for nearly the whole of its 23 years, separated from its kind. An intelligent creature of the sort that ethologists call, in a term that itself masks tragedy, “solitary sociable,” it did what a stern student of language might deem impossible: it not only mimicked human speech but generated expressions on its own. A snippet of the beluga “speaking” can be found here, and though it takes some imagination to hear human discourse in the stream of sound, it’s not hard to divine the possibilities given another few score generations of evolution, assuming humans allow whales to continue their tenure on the planet.
That’s a matter of conditionality and futurity, more tricks of language. By the time I finish writing this article—another nested sequence of tenses—someone will have advanced a thesis disproving one or another of the arguments here and perhaps even venturing a novel one. Our language enables us to do so.
What remains to be discovered is whether other tongues current among other than human animals are truly languages, affording the possibility of coordinating sociality, and perhaps even telling a few tall tales along the way.
To Learn More
- Ricardo Antunes et al., “Individually distinctive acoustic features in sperm whale codas,” Animal Behaviour, April 2011.
- Sam Ridgway et al., “Spontaneous human speech mimicry by a cetacean,” Current Biology, October 23, 2012
- Ryuji Suzuki, John R. Buck, and Peter L. Tyack, “Information entropy of humpback whale songs,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2006.
