Elephant Language
A study published in Nature Ecology & Evolution has revealed that African elephants use individually specific calls to address one another, akin to using names. This discovery challenges the long-held belief that non-human animals do not use arbitrary labels to communicate, a trait previously thought unique to humans. Moreover, it raises intriguing questions about the nature of language and its evolution across species.
Human language has long been distinguished by the use of arbitrary vocal labels, including names, which are not imitations of the sounds made by the referents. This ability allows for complex and abstract communication. Noam Chomsky’s theory of universal grammar posits that the capacity for language is innate in humans, governed by a set of abstract rules that underlie all languages. Chomsky’s concept of the “basic property” of language emphasizes the ability to generate an infinite range of expressions from a finite set of elements.
In contrast to human language, communication in other species like dolphins and parrots has been observed to involve imitation of signature calls of individuals they are addressing. This recent study, however, aimed to determine if elephants, known for their sophisticated vocalizations, also use non-imitative, name-like calls, potentially bridging the gap between human and animal communication systems.
The research team conducted extensive fieldwork, recording the vocalizations of wild African elephants in Amboseli National Park and Samburu and Buffalo Springs National Reserves in Kenya. Using machine learning, they analyzed the acoustic structure of these calls to predict the intended receiver. They also conducted playback experiments to observe the elephants’ responses to calls addressed to them versus those addressed to others.
The analysis revealed several key points:
1. Individual-Specific Calls: The structure of elephant calls varied depending on the individual being addressed, suggesting that elephants use specific vocal labels for different individuals.
2. Non-Imitative Nature: The calls were not merely imitations of the receiver’s vocalizations. Elephants responded more strongly to calls specifically addressed to them, indicating recognition of individual labels.
3. Context and Age Influence: Vocal labels were more accurately predicted in contexts of contact and caregiving, and calls from adult females were more likely to contain these labels than those from juveniles.
This discovery has profound implications for understanding the evolution of language and cognition, challenging some aspects of Chomsky’s universal grammar theory while potentially supporting others:
Universality of Language Capacity: The presence of arbitrary vocal labels in elephant communication suggests that the capacity for complex symbolic communication may not be unique to humans. This could indicate that certain aspects of Chomsky’s universal grammar, particularly those related to referential communication, might extend beyond human language.
Basic Property in Non-Human Species: The elephants’ ability to use distinct vocal labels for different individuals aligns with Chomsky’s concept of the basic property of language. It demonstrates a rudimentary capacity to combine finite elements (vocalizations) to create a potentially infinite set of meaningful expressions (individual-specific calls).
Evolution of Language: This finding supports the idea that complex communication systems can evolve independently in different species, suggesting that the precursors to human language may be more widespread in the animal kingdom than previously thought. In his book “What Kind of Creatures Are We?”, Chomsky discusses the evolution of language and the possibility of precursor systems in other species, making this discovery particularly relevant to ongoing debates in the field.
Innate vs. Learned Communication: The study raises questions about the extent to which these communication abilities in elephants are innate or learned, a central debate in Chomskyan linguistics regarding human language acquisition. Chomsky’s views on the innate nature of language, as elaborated in “What Kind of Creatures Are We?”, may need to be reconsidered in light of such findings in animal communication.
Cognitive Capacities: This research aligns with Chomsky’s exploration in “What Kind of Creatures Are We?” of the cognitive capacities that set humans apart from other animals. While reinforcing the unique complexity of human language, the elephant study suggests that the cognitive gap between humans and other species may be less absolute than previously thought, particularly in areas of symbolic communication.
The study offers compelling evidence that African elephants use name-like calls to address specific individuals, expanding our understanding of animal communication and cognition. This discovery not only sheds light on elephant social behavior but also contributes to the ongoing discourse in linguistic theory. It challenges us to reconsider the uniqueness of human language and the potential for complex communication systems in other species. Further research into the social and ecological contexts of these calls, as well as their developmental trajectory in elephant societies, could provide deeper insights into the evolutionary pressures that shape complex communication systems in animals. Additionally, comparative studies across species may help refine our understanding of the universal properties of language and communication.
References
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2005) ‘Three Factors in Language Design,’ Linguistic Inquiry, 36(1), 1-22.
Chomsky, N. (2016). What Kind of Creatures Are We? Columbia University Press.
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002) ‘The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?’ Science, 298(5598), 1569-1579.
Pardo, M.A., Fristrup, K., Lolchuragi, D.S. et al. (2024) ‘African elephants address one another with individually specific name-like calls’, Nature Ecology & Evolution.
Notes on Structuralism & AI 