Certain Marks which Characterise the Sounds of Monkeys as
Speech--Sounds accompanied by Gestures--Certain Acts follow
certain Sounds--They acquire new Sounds--Their Speech addressed
to certain Individuals--Deliberation and Premeditation--They
remember and anticipate Results--Thought and Reason.
As a result of my experience with monkeys, I shall here sum up the chief
points in which their speech is found to coincide with that of man, and
note those features which distinctly characterise the sounds as a form
of speech.
[Sidenote: SOUNDS OF MONKEYS AS SPEECH]
The sounds which monkeys make are voluntary, deliberate, and articulate.
They are always addressed to some certain individual with the evident
purpose of having them understood. The monkey indicates by his own acts
and the manner of delivery that he is conscious of the meaning which he
desires to convey through the medium of the sounds. They wait for and
expect an answer, and if they do not receive one they frequently repeat
the sounds. They usually look at the person addressed, and do not utter
these sounds when alone or as a mere pastime, but only at such times as
some one is present to hear them, either some person or another monkey.
They understand the sounds made by other monkeys of their own kind, and
usually respond to them with a like sound. They understand these sounds
when imitated by a human being, by a whistle, a phonograph, or other
mechanical devices, and this indicates that they are guided by the
sounds alone, and not by any signs, gestures, or psychic influence. The
same sound is interpreted to mean the same thing, and obeyed in the same
manner by different monkeys of the same species. Different sounds are
accompanied by different gestures, and produce different results under
the same conditions. They make their sounds with the vocal organs, and
modulate them with the teeth, tongue and lips, in the same manner that
man controls his vocal sounds. The fundamental sounds appear to be pure
vowels, but faint traces of consonants are found in many words,
especially those of low pitch; and since I have been able to develop
certain consonant sounds from a vowel basis, the conclusion forces
itself upon me that the consonant elements of human speech are developed
from a vowel basis. This opinion is further confirmed by the fact that
the sounds produced by the types of the animal kingdom lower than the
monkey, appear to be more like the sounds of pipe instruments; and as we
rise in the scale, the vocal organs appear to become somewhat more
complex, and capable of varying these sounds so as to give the effect of
consonants, which very much extends the vocal scope. The present state
of the speech of monkeys appears to have been reached by development
from a lower form. [Sidenote: EACH RACE HAS ITS PECULIAR TONGUE] Each
race or kind of monkey has its own peculiar tongue, slightly shaded
into dialects, and the radical sounds do not appear to have the same
meaning in different tongues. The phonetic character of their speech is
equally as high as that of children in a like state of mental
development; and seems to obey the same laws of phonetic growth, change,
and decay as human speech. It appears to me that their speech is capable
of communicating the ideas that they are capable of conceiving, and,
measured by their mental, moral, and social status, is as well developed
as the speech of man, measured by the same units. Strange monkeys of the
same species seem to understand each other at sight, whereas two monkeys
of different species do not understand each other until they have been
together for some time. Each one learns to understand the speech of the
other; but, as a rule, he does not try to speak it. When he deigns an
answer, it is usually in his own tongue. The more fixed and pronounced
the social and gregarious instincts are in any species, the higher the
type of its speech. They often utter certain sounds under certain
conditions in a whisper, which indicates they are conscious of the
effect which will result from the use of speech. Monkeys reason from
cause to effect, communicate to others the conclusion deduced therefrom,
and act in accordance therewith. If their sounds convey a fixed idea on
a given subject from one mind to another, what more does human speech
accomplish? If one sound communicates that idea clearly, what more could
volumes do? If their sounds discharge all the functions of speech, in
what respect are they not speech?
[Sidenote: CANNOT THINK WITHOUT WORDS]
It is as reasonable to attribute meaning to their sounds as to attribute
motives to their actions; and the fact that they ascribe a meaning to
the sounds of human speech, would show that they are aware that ideas
can be conveyed by sounds. If they can interpret certain sounds of human
speech, they can ascribe a meaning to their own. They think, and speech
is but the natural exponent of thought; it is the audible expression of
thought, and signs are the visible expression of the same; born of the
same cause, acts to the same end, and discharges the same functions in
the economy of life. To reason is to think methodically; and if it be
true that man cannot think without words, the same must be true of
monkeys. I do not mean, however, to claim that such is a fact with
regard to man thinking; but if such can be shown to be a fact, it will
decide the question as to the invention of human speech, as it was
necessary for man to think in order to invent; and, by the same rule, he
could not think a word which did not exist, and therefore could not have
invented it. But I beg to be allowed to stand aside and let Prof. Max
Mueller and Prof. Whitney, the great giants of comparative philology,
settle this question between themselves; and I shall abide by the
verdict which may be finally reached.
But theories are useless things when the facts are known; and since I
have actually learned from a monkey a certain sound having a certain
value and meaning a certain thing, and by repeating that sound to a
monkey of the same species have met with uniform results, have
understood him, and been understood by him, no argument could be so
potent as to cause me to believe that this was accident. I am aware that
coincidents occur; but when they become the rule instead of the
exception, they are no longer mere coincidents, but are the normal state
of things.
[Sidenote: THOUGHT AND REASON]
In conclusion, I would say that since the sounds uttered by monkeys
perform all that speech performs, is made of the same material, produced
by the same means, acts to the same ends, and through the same media, it
is as near an approach to speech as the mental operations by which it is
produced are an approach to thought. If it can be shown that these
mental feats are not thought, the same process of reasoning could show
that these sounds are not speech. If man derived his other faculties
from such an ancestry, may not his speech have been acquired from such
a source? If the prototype of man has survived through all the
vicissitudes of time, may not his speech likewise have survived? If the
races of mankind are the progeny of the Simian stock, may not their
languages be the progeny of the Simian tongue?