Interpretation of Words--Specific Words and Signs--The Negative
Sign and Sounds--Affirmative Expressions--Possible Origin of
Negative and Positive Signs.
In my intercourse with these little creatures, I cannot forget how often
I have caught the spirit of their tones when no ray of meaning as mere
words of speech had dawned upon me, and it is partly through such means
that I have been able to interpret them. As a rule, each act of a monkey
is attended by some sound, and each sound by some act, which, to another
monkey of the same species, always means a certain thing. There are many
cases, perhaps, in which acquired words or shades of dialect are not
quite clear to them, just as we often find in human speech; but monkeys
appear to meet this difficulty and overcome it, just as men do. They
talk with one another on a limited number of subjects, but in very few
words, which they frequently repeat if necessary. Their language is
purely one of sounds, and while those sounds are accompanied by signs,
as a rule, I think they are quite able to get along better with the
sounds alone than with the signs alone. The rules by which we may
interpret the sounds of Simian speech are the same as those by which we
would interpret human speech. If you should be cast away upon an island
inhabited by some strange race of people whose speech was so unlike your
own that you could not understand a single word of it, you would watch
the actions of those people and see what act they did in connection with
any sound they made, and in this way you would gradually learn to
associate a certain sound with a certain act, until at last you would be
able to understand the sound without seeing the act at all; and such is
the simple line I have pursued in the study of the speech of this
little race--only I have been compelled to resort to some very novel
means of doing my part of the talking. Since I have been so long
associated with them, I have learned to know in many cases what act they
will perform in response to certain sounds; and as I grow more and more
familiar with these sounds, I become better able to distinguish them,
just as we do with human speech.
[Sidenote: SPECIFIC TERMS]
Until recently, I have believed that their sounds were so limited in
number as to preclude any specific terms in their vocabulary; but now I
am inclined to modify this opinion somewhat, as I have reason to believe
that they have some specific terms--such as a word for monkey, another
word for fruit, and so on. They do not specify, perhaps, the various
kinds of monkeys; but monkeys in general, in contradistinction to birds
or dogs. Their word for fruit does not specify the kind, but only means
fruit in a collective sense, and only as a kind of food. I am not
positive as yet that their specific terms may even go so far as this,
but I infer that such may be the case from one fact which I have
observed in my experience. When I show a monkey his image in a mirror,
he utters a sound on seeing it, especially if he has been kept away from
other monkeys for a long time; and all monkeys of the same species, so
far as I have observed, under like conditions use the same sound and
address it in the same way to the image in the glass. In a few instances
I have seen strange monkeys brought in contact with each other, and have
observed that they use this same sound on their first meeting. The sound
is always uttered in a low, soft tone, and appears to have the value of
a salutation. When kept in a cage with other monkeys, they do not appear
to salute the image in the glass, but chatter to it, and show less
surprise at seeing it than in cases where they have been kept alone for
some time.
In cases where monkeys have been fed for a long time on bread and milk,
or on any one kind of food, when a banana is shown him he uses a sound
which the phonograph shows to differ slightly from the ordinary food
sound. I have recently had reason to suspect that this difference of
inflection somewhat qualifies the sound, and has a tendency to make it
more specific. The rapidity with which these creatures utter their
speech is so great that only such ears as theirs can detect these very
slight inflections. I am now directing my observations and experiments
to this end, with the hope that I may determine with certainty in what
degree they qualify their sounds, by inflections or otherwise. I have
observed that in the phonograph the sounds which formerly appeared to me
to be the same are easily distinguished when treated in the manner
described in the second part of this work, where I describe at length
some of my experiments with this wonderful machine.
[Sidenote: THE NEGATIVE SIGN]
One of the most certain of my discoveries in the Simian speech, is the
negative sign and the word "no." The sign is made by shaking the head
from side to side in a fashion almost exactly like that used by man to
express the same idea. I have no longer any doubt of the intent and
meaning of this sign, and the many tests to which I have subjected it
compel me accept the result as final.
[Sidenote: SIGN COMMON TO MAN AND SIMIAN]
A little more than a year ago, my attention was called to this sign by
the children who own the little Capuchin, Jack, in Charlestown. A number
of times they said to him in my presence, "Jack, you must go to bed." At
which he would shake his little black head, as if he really did not wish
to comply. I watched this with great interest; but it was my belief at
that time that he had been trained to do this, and that the sign did not
really signify to him anything at all. The children, however, declared
to me that he really meant "no." To believe that he meant this would
presuppose that he understood the combination of words quoted; and this
was beyond the limits of my faith, although it was certain that a
repetition of the sentence always elicited from him the same sign,
which indicated that he recognised it as the same sentence or
combination of sounds, and gave it the same reply each time. I concluded
that he had been taught to associate this sign with some sound--for
instance, "bed" or "go"; but since that time I have found the sign to be
almost universal with this species of monkey, and they use the sign to
express negation. I have seen them use the sign in response to certain
things which were wholly new to them, but where the idea was clear to
them and they desired to express dissent. The fact that this sign is
common to both man and Simian, I regard as more than a mere coincidence;
and I believe that in this sign I have found the psycho-physical basis
of expression.
I have made scores of experiments on this subject, and I find this sign
a fixed factor of expression. In one case, where I tried to induce a
monkey to allow me to take him into my hands from the hand of his
master, he would shake his head each time, and make a peculiar sound
somewhat like a suppressed cluck. I would try to coax him with nuts, in
response to which he would make the same sound and sign each time, and
his actions showed beyond all controversy his intention. I had taught a
monkey to drink milk from a bottle by sucking it through a rubber
nipple, and after he had satisfied his thirst, when I would try to force
the bottle to his lips, he would invariably respond by a shake of the
head in the manner described, and at the same time utter a clucking
sound. I tried many similar experiments with three or four other
monkeys, and secured the same result in each case. In another instance,
where a monkey was confined in a small cage so that I could easily catch
him in order to tame him by handling, when I would put my hand into the
cage to catch him, he would shake his head in this manner and accompany
the act by a plaintive sound which was so touching, that I could not
obtain my own consent to persecute the little prisoner by compelling him
to submit to my caresses. I have found that the little rogue, McGinty,
in Central Park does the same thing at times when I go into the cage and
attempt to put my hands on him, and especially when he has taken refuge
in a corner to nurse his jealousy. While I remain outside the cage, he
is so devoted to me that he will scarcely leave me to get something to
eat; but when I enter the cage, and reach out my hand toward him, he
will shake his little head and utter that peculiar clucking sound. Many
of these tests I have repeated over and over with the same results, and,
noting the conditions at the time, I am thoroughly convinced that the
sign and sound mean "no." I have observed that this sign is always made
in the same manner; but sometimes it is accompanied by a clucking sound,
while at other times it is a soft whimpering sound, almost like a low
plaintive whistle. [Sidenote: SIGN USED WITHOUT SOUND] The sign is
frequently used without the sound at all, and I must impress it upon my
reader that these results do not always present themselves in every
experiment, as much depends upon the mood and surroundings of the
subject. I have found that one advantage is to have the monkey confined
in a very small cage, as otherwise he will turn away and get out of your
reach when you press anything upon him that he does not want. I have
also found much better results by having the monkey alone, and where he
can neither see nor hear other monkeys.
Having discovered the sign of negation among the Simians, I began an
investigation to ascertain how far it could be found among the races of
mankind. I have carried my search far beyond the limits of local
inquiry, and up to this time I have found only a few trifling exceptions
in the use of this sign among all the races of men, and those few
exceptions are found among the Caucasian race, and appear to be confined
to Southern Europe. I have heard that among certain island tribes of
Polynesia these signs are reversed, but I have been assured by two
officers of the English navy and two of the United States navy, who have
visited the islands in question, that such is not the case. Among the
Indians, Mongolians, and Negroes I have found no noteworthy exceptions.
I have inquired among mothers who have raised families to ascertain when
they first observed this sign as an expression among their children; and
from the consensus of opinion it appears that this is about the first
sign used by infants to express negation.
[Sidenote: THE POSITIVE SIGN]
I have not found the positive sign, or sign of affirmation, by a nod of
the head, to be so general, yet it has a wide range within the human
family, and appears to be used to some extent among the lower primates.
Seeking a source from which these signs may have originated, I have
concluded that they may arise from two circumstances. The negative sign
doubtless comes from an effort to turn the head away from something
which is not desired, and that with such an intent it has gradually
crystallised into an instinctive expression of negation or refusal;
while the nod of affirmation or approval may have grown out of the
intuitive lowering of the head, as an act of submission or acquiescence,
or from reaching the head forward to receive something desired, or they
may have come from these two causes conjointly.
[Sidenote: ALPHABET FOR SIMIAN SPEECH]
This is only one of a great many points in which the speech of Simians
coincides with that of man. It is true we have no letters in our
alphabet with which to represent the sounds of their speech, nor have we
the phonetic equivalence of their speech in our language; but it is also
true that our alphabet does not fully represent or correctly express the
entire phonetic range of our own speech; but the fact that our speech is
not founded upon the same phonetic basis, or built up into the same
phonetic structures, is no reason that their speech is not as truly
speech as our own. That there are no letters in any alphabet which
represent the phonetic elements of Simian speech, is doubtless due to
the fact that there has never been any demand for such; but the same
genius which invented an alphabet for human speech, actuated by the same
motives and led by the same incentives, could as easily invent an
alphabet for Simian speech. It is not only true that the phonetic
elements of our language are not represented by the characters of our
alphabet, but the same is true to some extent of our words, which do not
quite keep pace with human thought. In the higher types of human speech
there are thousands of words and ideas which cannot be translated into
or expressed by any savage tongue, because no savage ever had use for
them, and no savage tongue contains their equivalence. The growth of
speech is always measured by the growth of mind. They are not always of
the same extent, but always bear a common ratio. It is a mental product,
and must be equal to the task of coining thoughts into words. It is
essential to all social order, and no community could long survive as
such without it. It is as much the product of mind and matter as salt is
the product of chlorine and sodium.