Skip to content


De Spraakverwarring

De Spraakverwarring
VPRO Noorderlicht / 25 min / 31-05-1998
Volgens Descartes vormt taal de abrupte scheidslijn tussen mens en dier, maar volgens Darwin is de evolutie een geleidelijk proces. Door deze paradox liggen taalkundigen en biologen nu met elkaar in de clinch over taalvaardigheid bij dieren. Met Noam Chomsky, Terrence Deacon, Frans de Waal en Duane Rumbaugh.

tekst van de uitzending:

VPRO NOORDERLICHT
AFLEVERING �DE SPRAAKVERWARRING�
UITZENDING 31-05-1998
DOOR JOS WASSINK

COMMENTAAR
Volgens Descartes vormt taal de abrupte scheidslijn tussen mens en dier, maar volgens Darwin is de evolutie een geleidelijk proces. Door deze paradox liggen taalkundigen en biologen nu met elkaar in de clinch over taalvaardigheid bij dieren.

TITEL �SPRAAKVERWARRING�

COMMENTAAR
Niemand heeft taal ooit zo grondig geanalyseerd als de prominente Amerikaanse taalkundige Noam Chomsky. In 1957 publiceerde hij zijn boek �Syntactic Structures� dat opviel door de haast wiskundige aanpak.
Tegelijk met het besef van de complexiteit van taal groeide bij hem de verwondering over hoe makkelijk kinderen taal oppikken. Hij concludeerde dat de mens over een gespecialiseerd taalorgaan moest beschikken.

�CHOMSKY�

PROF NOAM CHOMSKY
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY:
When you look at the human language you discover that, you do discover that very young infants have an enormous understanding of it with very little evidence and that�s a dramatic fact and has to be explained and the natural explanation, again if we are capable of studying humans as we study anything else, we would explain it the same way we would explain the flat that infants have arms and legs and not wings and flippers. You know, they�re built that way.

�TAALVERWERVING�

PROF NOAM CHOMSKY
It�s as if we�re higher apes who had a language faculty inserted. Obviously that�s not true, but at a rough metaphoric level it looks like that…

�TAALORGAAN�

COMMENTAAR
Het taalorgaan dat Chomsky introduceerde vormt de nieuwe scheidslijn tussen mens en dier. Maar vooral vanuit de biologie wordt daar flink aan gemorreld en stelt men de vraag naar de evolutie van taal.

PROF NOAM CHOMSKY
– Are you very involved in this question of evolution of language? – I�m not involved in it because there�s no such question. So therefore I�m not involved in it. If it were possible to discover anything about the evolution of language, I�d be very much interested. But the kinds of evidence that make it possible to study evolution are almost non-existent in the case of human language.

COMMENTAAR
Toch wordt er onderzoek gedaan naar de evolutie van taal. Bijvoorbeeld door neuroloog en antropoloog Terrence Deacon van de Boston University.

PROF TERRENCE W. DEACON
DPT OF ANTHROPOLOGY, BOSTON UNIVERSITY
The notion of a language organ suggests some unique part of the brain, dedicated to the processing of language I think anatomic evidence doesn�t bear that out: there are no unique structures in the brain of humans that distinguish us from other species.

�TERRENCE DEACON�

PROF TERRENCE W. DEACON
This is a human brain. You can see the front of the brain, the back of the brain. This is the left side, this is the right side. – And what points are involved in language? Classically, two major areas have been identified. This structure her is called the temporal lobe and right on top of the temporal lobe is the area that is involved in sound analysis. On each side, one for each ear. And an area just here on a strip that runs down toward the front of the temporal lobe called the motor strip.

�PLANUM TEMPORALE�

That mutterer, at the very bottom of it, right down here is involved in sound production. Movement of the mouth, tongue and larynx. An area called Broca�s area, originally identified in the 1860�s is just in front of the motor mouth area, an area called Wernicke�s area is located just around the auditory area back in the temporal lobes. Most of those identifications are on the left side because the left side tends to be more involved in the production of the sounds of speech and in analysing the sounds of speech.

PROF TERRENCE W. DEACON
So we can�t talk of language as one organ or one faculty. It�s many things all working in concert. That suggests long protracted evolution. An evolution in which these things became better and better over time.
This is the brain of a chimpanzee. In fact this brain, you can see the left side and the right side again the front and the back, it has a temporal lobe, at the front of the temporal lobe there is an auditory region and a strip here at the front is a motor region that controls the mouth and regions corresponding to Broca�s area and Wernicke�s area in their structure, their cell organisation and their connections appear to be present in most primate brains.
There are no, as far we know at this point in time, no completely novel structures in human brain that are not in chimpanzee brains.
What it means is that the precursors, the structures necessary to do all the basic steps, in language processing are there, but probably not organised in a way that�s ideal for the language process, since language is a very unusual kind of behaviour.

�NOAM CHOMSKY�

PROF NOAM CHOMSKY
Nobody doubts, including Terrence Deacon, that there�s a extraordinary difference between humans and chimps. So again he�s studying chimp brains, chimps aren�t studying his brain. That reflects a very dramatic difference between this species and others. And there are many other such differences. If neurophysiologists can�t find the basis for it, than they�re looking in the wrong place.

PROF TERRENCE W. DEACON
Chomsky�s view about the origin of language in children, how children acquire language, has been often times linked to a theory of how languages arose in the first place.
I don�t think that helps answer the question of how languages evolved in the first place. I think that�s the end of the stage, the end process in which over a long period of time we became very good at it.
I think the question about how language started is very different than the question on the origin of grammar and syntax. I think it�s the question of the origin of symbols. I think that symbols, the way that words refer to what they refer to are much more difficult than what we think and can�t be taken for granted.

�SYMBOLEN�

PROF TERRENCE W. DEACON
I think human society is made up of more symbols than we�re aware of by far. Only a few of them are inside of our heads. many of them are now out in objects in the world that become symbolic.
Those things that are symbolic are not automatically understandable. Not even guessable sometimes when you come from a totally different culture. So when you walk into another society and see a behaviour that doesn�t seem to make sense, you can�t figure it out, without knowing something about the society, that�s symbolic…
But those things that you can guess pretty easily from just watching people and engaging with them are gestural communications, those kinds are likely not to be symbolic. The most obvious examples are laughing and smiling and sobbing and whinking.

COMMENTAAR
Volgens Deacon is niet taal het belangrijkste onderscheid tussen mens en dier, maar het gebruik van symbolen. Dieren gebruiken geen symbolen, maar ze communiceren weldegelijk. Is een dergelijke communicatie zonder symbolen een taal? Frans de Waal bestudeert al sinds 1975 het gedrag van chimpansees. Tegenwoordig doet hij dat aan het Yerkes Primate Center in Atlanta.

�FRANS DE WAAL�

DR FRANS DE WAAL
LIVING LINKS, YERKES PRIMATE CENTER
Dit is de alfaman Sokko die een beetje aan �t intimideren slaat, zoals die elke dag een paar keer moet doen. �t Is niet agressief hoor, ik kan me niet voorstellen dat-ie iemand aanvalt, maar hij laat gewoon zien dat-ie de baas is.
Of apen een taal hebben in hun gewone, normale communicatie? Dat is een beetje zoals ze in het engels zeggen een stretch om dat te zeggen. Ze hebben een heel rijk repertoire aan non-verbale communicatie.

�COMMUNICATIE�

Ze zijn vreselijk goed in de directe communicatie van dingen die direct op dit moment aan de hand zijn tussen elkaar. Emoties communiceren zijn ze vreselijk goed in maar ook bepaalde intenties of bepaalde kennis die ze hebben of niet hebben kunnen ze aan elkaar communiceren.
Ze kunnen elkaar voor de gek houden, ze kunnen liegen in zekere zin, dat is niet communicatie maar miscommunicatie, maar het is allemaal heel direct hier en nu. En het is heel beperkt daarbuiten.

�CHIMPANSEE�

PROF NOAM CHOMSKY
SO their cognitive capacities seem much higher than people thought. They can solve all kind of problems, they can think about things, they have sort of a what some people call a theory of mind, they can understand that others have some sort of mind and so on. On the one hand you have that and on the other hand you have this total incapacity to do things that are at the core of human language.

COMMENTAAR
De kern van de menselijke taal wordt gevormd door woorden en zinsbouw. In hoeverre chimpansees daarmee overweg kunnen onderzoekt men in het Language Research Center van de Georgia State University in Atlanta.

�PROFESSOR RUMBAUGH�

PROF DUANE M. RUMBAUGH
LANGUAGE RESEARCH CENTER
GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY
Apes have the capacity for a wide variety of language skills. And these come by and large to us as a surprise in their first presentation by the ape, if you will. But we test them out under controlled conditions, and they hold. The data are solid!

COMMENTAAR
Kanzi, �s wereld meest taalvaardige aap, is een bonobo. Een aan chimpansees verwante apensoort.

PROF DUANE M. RUMBAUGH
Now if you expect apes to be as competent as you and I were with languaage, that is not going to be. They’re not humans and they are very appreciative of the fact they’re not. They have competencies with brains that are a third the size of ours. And there’re remarkble competencies.
Size of the brain is very, very important to intelligence and language function. But if chimps and bonobo’s are reared in a language structured environment, they can learn language in the same pattern, the same course, as human child learns theirs.

�SUE SAVAGE�

DR SUE SAVAGE RUMBAUGH
LANGUAGE RESEARCH CENTER
GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY
Well, the most fascinating thing is that we really, really, honestly, truly, cross my heart, do not teach anymore then if there is anybody watching this had a child they teach their child. We give lots of opportunities to learn, we use this board all the time, but we don�t require them to use it. Just like parents talk all the time, but you don�t make your child talk.

PROF DUANE M. RUMBAUGH
We conceived to have a keyboard. Where each key was a word, not part of a word but it was a word. For example, this is the word please, Sherman, this is Lana, no, this is questionmark, this is period, this is banana.

COMMENTAAR
Later werd een PRATEND keyboard ontwikkeld dat bij aanraking van een symbool het bijbehorende woord laat horen.

�KANZI�

PROF DUANE M. RUMBAUGH
He understood the specific english words as representing, as being this lexigram or as being this picture. And as he was tested from picture to lexigram, from lexigram to picture, from speech to lexigram or from speech to picture, he could do all of that, without special training!
Now, can they speak? NO. Kanzi does try to emulate the vowel patterns of certain words, like onion and yoghurt and right now and so on. He doesn’t put the consonants in like right now is’huh huh and onion is ‘hu iuh’, he doesn’t get the n there. He is trying to talk and he can emulate a few words like that and use them apropiately.

DR FRANS DE WAAL
Dat is interessant wat daar gebeurt in de mens-dier-interactie. Het heeft iets positiefs en iets negatiefs voor mij. Laat ik beginnen met het negatieve. Het negatieve is dat er een communicatie systeem nemen dat typisch menselijk is waarvan we niet eens weten of het bij dieren voorkomt maar we zijn er heel trots op dat het menselijk is. En dat leggen we op aan een andere soort die maar 1/3 van ons hersenvolume heeft en die daar voor zover we weten niet in gespecialiseerd is en zien hoever ze komen en ze worstelen ermee veel meer dan jonge kinderen. Jonge kinderen absorberen taal veel sneller dan die chimpansees en bonobo�s dat doen. Dus ze worstelen ermee en komen eigenlijk een heel end, verrassend ver. De ene zegt: fantastisch dat ze dat kunnen en de andere groep die zegt: dat is nog lang niet wat wij mensen kunnen. En het is een beetje een unfaire vergelijking, want eigenlijk meten we ze naar onze maatstaven. Dat is wat we aan �t doen zijn.

�TAALBEGRIP�

COMMENTAAR
Uit allerlei tests op het Language Research Center blijkt dat Kanzi uitstekend taal verstaat.
Volgt uit dit soort experimenten nu ook dat apen een taalorgaan hebben? PROF DUANE M. RUMBAUGH
It seems totally reasonable that we have, because we have the same circuits, the same area’s of the brain to be more specific, that we should expect there to be similar function. Equal function? NO. Exactly the same function? NO. Similar function? YES.
You know it wouldn’t be difficult for Chomsky’s view with regard to there being a genetic base to human langauge to now just modify it and say: Well, it was back in some of our hominid ancestors and pre-hominid ancestors, ancestors that were common to the bonobo’s, chimpanzees, the gorillas and the oeran oetangs, all of which are known to have language skills, that something different has happened.

COMMENTAAR
Volgens Duane Rumbaugh liggen dus de wortels van het taalorgaan al vroeg in de evolutie. In ieder geval voor voor de splitsing van aap en mens zo�n 6 miljoen jaar geleden. Wat denkt Chomsky daarvan?

PROF NOAM CHOMSKY
Kanzi has whatever capacities enabled Kanzi to achieve what he achieved in the environment that was contracted for him. Whether you want to call it training or not is another terminological question. And it�s interesting to know of any organism what capacities it has. But the question whether it has a language faculty is a meaningless question and therefore nobody should talk about it.

COMMENTAAR
Chomsky verwerpt iedere vergelijking tussen aap en mens als onwetenschappelijk. Biologen daarentegen gaan uit van continu�teit in de natuur.

DR FRANS DE WAAL
Er moet een verband zijn, altijd. Het is natuurlijk niet mogelijk dat wij gewoon taal ontwikkeld hebben los van alle andere vormen van communicatie dat zou ook zinloos zijn als daar, ook als je ziet hoe taal verwoven is met onze non-verbale communicatie, bijvoorbeeld hoe we bijvoorbeeld stemverheffingen verwerken, toonhoogtes verwerken in de gesproken taal.

�TAALORGAAN!�

PROF TERRENCE W. DEACON
If you think about the language organ as something that has been derived by modification from older structures, that is that evolution has subtely reshaped connections and circuits and proportions of the brain, if you define language organ that way, as having antecedence, then indeed it�s compatible with evolution. If you think of a language organ as a unique functional part of the brain that has no counterpart in the past, then it�s not compatible with evolutionary notion.

�CONTINUITEIT�

COMMENTAAR
Chomsky�s taalorgaan staat centraal in het levendige debat tussen biologen en taalkundigen. De ironie wil dat Chomsky zelf zich nooit in dit zogeheten continu�teitsdebat heeft gemengd. Sterker nog: volgens Chomsky bestaat het hele debat niet.

PROF NOAM CHOMSKY
There is no debate, so I have no opinion. There is an ideological doctrine which says there is continuity and nobody debates it. Cause it�s meaningless. So if you take a look at the debate you�ll find out it�s one-sided. Only one side participates. The other side doesn�t participate. So for example I�m supposed to be the proponent, the leading proponent of the anti-continuity position. I never said a word about it.

�GRAMMATICA�

PROF TERRENCE W. DEACON
I think that the core problem is not a problem of explaining the origins of syntax and knowledge of grammar but really a problem of explaining the origins of word meaning.

�SEMANTIEK�

That plays a relative minor role if any in Chomsky�s theory of how language is acquired.

�EVOLUTIE�

I think that the evidence from the restructuring of the brain in it�s evolution suggests that the symbolic problem is much more fundamental.

Human societies are made up of symbols, organised by symbols, and languages are ways of producing them and communicating quite easily. Today a large fraction of our culture is NOT in language, a large fraction of it is now in objects, in pictures and in artwork and so on. All of that is part of the symbolic communication and is part of what we learn in as the symbols of our culture.

DR FRANS DE WAAL
Als je de taal nauw definieert als een communicatiesysteem met symbolen die op een bepaalde manier georganiseerd zijn, dan weet ik niet hoever we komen met apen, maar als je het heel breed definieert als een manier waarop we de werkelijkheid absorberen en verwerken, dan zie ik ineens allerlei parallellen. Die buiten de strikte taal omgaan.

PROF DUANE M. RUMBAUGH
The phenomena of ape language is solid and it will stand the tests of time. And I have no doubt, about what scientists are becoming increasingly eager and able about finding thruth through talking together, and yes, that kind of interdisciplinary will come later than sooner.

CAMERA Jacko van �t Hof
GELUID Leo Franssen
MONTAGE Dolf Freese
MIXAGE Gert-Jan Eijlers
KLEURCORRECTIE Martin Klein
LEADER Marco Vermaas
COMMENTAAR Tessel Blok
RESEARCH Jacqueline de Vree
Monique van de Water
Ger Wieberdink
REDACTIE Hilbert Kamphuisen
Hansje van Etten
Simon Rozendaal
Karin Schagen
Annemiek Smit
Marjan Tjaden
Jos Wassink
MMV Prof. A. Kraak, emiritus KU Nijmegen
Prof. Jan Koster, RU�Groningen
Kinderdagverblijf Bimbola R�dam
kinderen en personeel Pebbels-groep,
Marloes de Herder
Stichting Apenheul, Apeldoorn
Caroline Berkhof
Emory University, Atlanta
Kate Egan
Language Research Center
Mary Shapiro
Xaverian Brothers High School
Br. Dan Aubin
PRODUCTIE Madeleine Somer
Karin Spiegel
SAMENSTELLING & REGIE Jos Wassink
EINDREDACTIE Rob van Hattum

copyright � Het Inzicht / Jos Wassink, 1998

English version—>

Posted in Televisie, VPRO Noorderlicht.


0 Responses

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

You must be logged in to post a comment.