LBT227-230海琪

9580056 海琪

CHARTER SIX p227-230

Language in the light of evolution and genetics

由演化與遺傳中理解語言

I. LIMITATIONS ON INFERENCES FROM ANIMAL COMPARISON

We tell our children that the cow says “moo,” the lamb says “bah,” and the rooster says “cock-a-doodle-doo.” Most animals around us seem to “say” something, and there is a temptation to assume that they are “communicating”; but how, what. And to whom these animals “speak” are questions to which there are but vague answers. Most vertebrate species emit some kind of acoustics signal, and the sensory receptors of each species are sensitive to the broadcasts of their own kind. The ubiquity of this phenomenon suggests that some biological functions are the same for all species—in fact. There is good evidence against this. An acoustic broadcast may serve to warn territorial intruders, to call the young, to transfer information; it may function to strengthen social cohesion in large groups or to prevent the breaking up of single couples only; it may have the effect of arousing or of lulling; it may be directed at members of other species, at members of the same species, at only certain individuals, or only to the self, as in echo-navigation.

我們告訴我們的孩子牛會哞哞的叫，小羊會咩咩的叫，公雞會咕咕的啼。大部分在我們周圍的動物似乎都會「說」一些東西，這會令我們認為他們是在「溝通」；但是，這些動物「會講話」似乎是一個疑問，而且也沒有一個肯定的答案。大部分的脊椎動物物種會發出某種特別的聲學訊號，每一物種的神經末梢感覺器官會對於他們所放出的訊號有所感知。這種現象的普遍性，告訴我們有關生物學的作用是經由這些特別的聲學訊號而傳遞的。無論如何，我們並不知道這些作用是否在每一物種都是一樣的----事實上，這裡有一個很好的證明是和它對立的。一個聲學的訊號所傳遞的意思可能是警告入侵地盤的入侵者，用來呼喚或吸引異性、威脅敵人、誘餌對方、呼喚較年青的、傳遞資料訊息；它亦可以在大團體中起強化其社會結合力或防止一對夫妻的分開中起有作用；它對喚能或安撫可能有著影響；對於其他物種的成員、同一物種的成員、或只是單一的個體、或只是對自己，就正如在航海中的回聲一樣，起有管理和規範的作用。

Animal communication does not merely fascinate us as a zoological phenomenon; it also encourages us to believe that appropriate comparative studies will reveal the origin of human communication. The rationale here is approximately this: since Darwin has shown that man is not the product of special creation but that he descended from more primitive animal forms, neither his structure nor his behavior are special creations. His forms of communication must have descended from primitive animal forms of communication, and a study of the latter is likely to disclose that there is indeed a straight line of evolution of this feature. This type of reasoning we shall call the continuity theory of language development. I do not agree with it, and the first part of the chapter will be devoted to a critical analysis. I will then propose a discontinuity theory and show that this is not only biologically acceptable but, in fact, more in line with present theories in developmental biology than the former type theory (Roe and Simpson, 1958; Simpson, 1949; Haldane, 1949; Rensch, 1954).

　　動物的溝通，不僅像動物的奇蹟般令我們著迷，它同時亦鼓勵我們去相信適當的比較研究將會幫助我們揭露人類溝通的起源。在這裡的原理大概就是：自從Darwin追溯自更多的原始動物形式，發表說人類並不是特別所創造出來的產物包括他的結構或是行為，兩者都不是特別的創造物。他的溝通形式一定追溯自原始物種的溝通形式，有一個跟這方面相關的研究透露，有關於遺傳的特點事實上是一條直線。這種推論我們將稱為語言發的持續性理論，但是我（作者）並不同意，這一章的第一部分將會作出重要的分析。我將會假設一個非持續理論及顯示這並不是生物上的可接受能力，但事實上，在生物發展中，現在的理論比以往類型的理論有更多的一致。

(1) Continuity Theory A: Straight Line Evolution of Language With Only Quantitative Changes

　持續性理論Ａ：在只有量的改變的語言直線演化

This type of theory rests on the belief that there is no essential difference between man’s language and the communication of lower forms. Man’s noises just sound different, and his repertoire of messages is merely much large than that of animals, presumably due to a quantitative increase in nonspecific intelligence. Theorists of this persuasion might picture the development of communication systems in the animal world as a straight road towards language such as shown in Fig. 6.1, with various animal communication systems as early way-stations. Human language is thought to be much more advanced, perhaps by virtue of some kind of proliferation of elements (more memory units; or more classification devices; or more computing elements).　

這類型的演化依頼於在人類的語言與低下形式的溝通之間，並無重要的分別的信念。人類的噪音聽起來是不一樣的，其訊息的所有組成部分是大於動物的，而之所以會這樣可能是由於在非特定性的智力上量的增加。被這個理論說服的理論家可能會將動物世界的溝通發展系統描繪成好像圖6.1所顯示一樣的直線路徑，好像早期不同動物的溝通演化系統一樣。人類語言被認為是更高級的，可能是因為不同種類元素的繁衍。

It can be only this kind of implicit belief that encourages investigators to count the number of words in the language of gibbons, to look for phonemes in the vocalizations of monkeys or songs of birds, or to collect the morphemes in the communication systems of bees and ants. In many other instances no such explicit endeavors are stated, but the under-lying faith appears to be the same since much time and effort is spent teaching parrots, dolphins, or chimpanzee infants to speak English. The rather wide-spread belief that many animals have a language of a very primitive and limited kind ( or that the animal pupils of English instruction can enter the first stage of language acquisition) is easily refuted by a comparison with man’s beginnings in language, discussed in Chapter Seven.

這可能只是一種含蓄的信念去鼓勵研究者計算在長臂猿的語言之中詞語的數目，去找尋猴子在發聲過程中或鳥兒唱歌時的音素，又或者收集蜜蜂和螞蟻在溝通系統中的詞素。在很多的其他情況，是不會那麼清楚的描述的；但潛在的原則，跟教導鸚鵡、海豚或星猩猩的嬰兒學習講英文所花費的時間及影響卻是一樣。更多普及的信念相信很多動物都有一非常原始的語言及限制的種類（或又者動物學習英文可以作為第一階段的語言習得），是很容易由人類開始學習第一語言的比較中反駁的。

I. Limitations on inferences from animal comparison

FIG. 6.1. Diagram of a “straight-line” evolution; numbers indicate traits of various species thought to be direct antecedents of 5.

圖6.1. 一 "直線" 的演化圖；數字代表不同物種在順序５之前的特徵

At the root of the idea that human language is merely quantitatively different from animal “language” is the idea that all animals have something that might be called “nonspecific intelligence,” but that man has much more of this endowment and that intellectual potential happens to be useful in the elaboration of a universal biological need for communication. Animals are thought to be unable to learn to understand English because of an insufficiency of this intellectual capacity. There are grave difficulties with this reasoning.

在人類語言僅與動物的「語言」只有量的不同的意念上，動物有一些東西可能叫做「非特異性的智能」，但人類有更多的天資、天賦，這些智力的潛能對於詳盡闡述普遍生物學在溝通上的需求是很有用的。動物被認為不能夠學習、明白英文就是由於在這方面智能發展能力上的缺陷。這就是這個推論的最大不同。

Intelligence or intellectual capacity are difficult to define in the context of general zoology. Insofar as intelligence is a measurable property within our own species (and there are those who have their doubts about this), we have seen (Chapter Four and Seven) that it correlates poorly with language capacity. Within certain IO ranges there is virtually no correlation whatever; and in the extreme low range, where there is an apparent correlation, it is rare to find individuals who have not even the capacity to understand simple spoken language. Most idiots and even imbeciles may be given verbal commands and many also acquire, spontaneously, the use of some words or even simple phrases. When the concept of intelligence must be applied to disparate species, the problem of scaling and measurement is enhanced greatly.

智力或智能發展能力在一般的動物學來說，是很難給下定義的。在智力的範圍內，在我們的物種中，智力是一種可測量的特質，我們已經知道跟動物相關的語言能力是非常貧乏的。在一定的IQ範圍內，這是沒有相關的。但在非常低的範圍內，卻有非常明顯的相關，這令我們很難去找出那些沒有能力去了解簡單口語的個體。大部分天才、甚至是笨蛋，都可以給予口語的指令及能自發性的習得一些詞語或簡單片語的用法。當智力的概念在不同的物種中被提及，量化與測量方法的困難便會大大的提高。

Clearly, intelligence is not a physical property that can be measured objectively. It is always tied to specific tasks and to the frame of reference of a given species. When we test different species by requiring animals to solve a certain problem, the similarity in task is seen by requiring animals to solve a certain problem, the similarity in task is seen by us, the human experimenter, but different species are likely to “interpret” an apparently similar task in their own, species-specific manner. Comparing the intelligence of different species is comparable to making relative measurements in different universes and comparable the results in absolute terms. When we say that a cat is more intelligent than a mouse, and a dog more intelligent than a cat, we do not mean that the one can catch the other by superior cunning but that one solves human tasks with greater ability than the other. The animal’s way of “interpreting” a problem situation becomes more and more similar to that of humans as the experimental animal is phylogenetically closer to man. But from this we cannot infer that language acquisition is just another problem-solving experiment and that phylogenetic proximity to man increases the capacity for language.

明顯地，智力並不是一項可以被測量的身體特質。智力通常依頼於特別的任務及特定物種的參考結構。當我們經由要求動物處理特定的問題去測試不同的物種時，同樣的任務是由我們人類實驗者去監控的，但是不同物種很可能用自己物種特定的方法去「解決」一件同樣的任務。比較不同物種的智力就是去比較在不同領域的有關測量方法以及比較在絶對的、肯定的方面的結果。當我們說一隻貓比一隻老鼠聰明、及一隻狗比一隻貓聰明時，我們並不是說只要其中一者較有計謀、能用狡猾的方法捉住其他的就是聰明的意思，而是那一者比其他的更能有能力解決人類的任務。動物「解決」困難情境時的方法，變得越來越與人類相似，正如被試驗的動物有系統發生的接近人類。但是從這裡我們並不可以說明語言的習得，就只是另一種解決問題的實驗及其系統的發生越來越接近人類，因而增加其語言能力。