I do not have any strong objection to it being called language, so long as that does not slide into "...just like we do." I take it as quite clear that the language of chimpanzees is qualitatively less powerful, in terms of its ability to express and communicate ideas, than that of humans - their behavior amongst themselves, and in their interactions with humans, would surely be very different if it were (if they have language and they understand language, why are they not using it in situations where it would be clear, to any individual with that knowledge, how useful it would be?)
On the other hand, I feel it is highly likely that other, now extinct, homo species had human-like language skills. Language evolved, and it is not very plausible that it did so in one leap from that which we see in other species today. Some level of language and other cognitive skills are to be expected in other species, and the study of those skills is both worthwhile in itself and as a guide to better understanding ourselves.
why are they not using it in situations where it would be clear, to any individual with that knowledge, how useful it would be?
Who is to say it is not?
By analogy, if you are laying under your vehicle, loosening a bolt with a wrench, and your dog is hunched nearby watching, he can clearly see what you are doing (and quite possibly understands that the wrench is needed to loosen the bolt) but he cannot understand why you are doing that, or what 19mm means, nor express either. The dog understands leverage in terms of his world, but quite possibly not that the wrench is used to create it in a different way. Certainly he couldn't explain it to another dog.
The other apes are doing things we can see and hear, but do not understand or put any importance on. One thing I note is that there is no mention of body language in that essay. Posture and gesture (and situation) add a huge amount of complexity to language.
And apes are surely using that too.
For example, I can tell you "no" but with minimal deft gestures, convey understanding in you that I mean "maybe" or even outright "yes". The canonical example being Linus Torvalds saying "No" to whether he was asked¹ to add back doors to the Linux Kernel, while indicating non verbally and quite clearly that he meant yes.
You and I have "that knowledge" to understand the whole message, while we quite likely lack nuance that other apes have in their communications.
¹and we both understand "asked" to actually mean "pressured" to some degree, and told not to tell. And there was more than duality in Linus' answer, he was also saying "Don't trust me to not fall to pressure" and "If I am pressured, they shouldn't trust me to keep it a secret".
Comments
I do not have any strong objection to it being called language, so long as that does not slide into "...just like we do." I take it as quite clear that the language of chimpanzees is qualitatively less powerful, in terms of its ability to express and communicate ideas, than that of humans - their behavior amongst themselves, and in their interactions with humans, would surely be very different if it were (if they have language and they understand language, why are they not using it in situations where it would be clear, to any individual with that knowledge, how useful it would be?)
On the other hand, I feel it is highly likely that other, now extinct, homo species had human-like language skills. Language evolved, and it is not very plausible that it did so in one leap from that which we see in other species today. Some level of language and other cognitive skills are to be expected in other species, and the study of those skills is both worthwhile in itself and as a guide to better understanding ourselves.
Who is to say it is not?
By analogy, if you are laying under your vehicle, loosening a bolt with a wrench, and your dog is hunched nearby watching, he can clearly see what you are doing (and quite possibly understands that the wrench is needed to loosen the bolt) but he cannot understand why you are doing that, or what 19mm means, nor express either. The dog understands leverage in terms of his world, but quite possibly not that the wrench is used to create it in a different way. Certainly he couldn't explain it to another dog.
The other apes are doing things we can see and hear, but do not understand or put any importance on. One thing I note is that there is no mention of body language in that essay. Posture and gesture (and situation) add a huge amount of complexity to language.
And apes are surely using that too.
For example, I can tell you "no" but with minimal deft gestures, convey understanding in you that I mean "maybe" or even outright "yes". The canonical example being Linus Torvalds saying "No" to whether he was asked¹ to add back doors to the Linux Kernel, while indicating non verbally and quite clearly that he meant yes.
You and I have "that knowledge" to understand the whole message, while we quite likely lack nuance that other apes have in their communications.
¹and we both understand "asked" to actually mean "pressured" to some degree, and told not to tell. And there was more than duality in Linus' answer, he was also saying "Don't trust me to not fall to pressure" and "If I am pressured, they shouldn't trust me to keep it a secret".
Apes are surprising in their sophistication.