# Do whales speak?



## Outsider

> The songs of the humpback whale are among the most complex in the animal kingdom. Researchers have now mathematically confirmed that whales have their own syntax that uses sound units to build phrases that can be combined to form songs that last for hours.


Link to article.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Hi, Outsider.

The article itself says: "...the authors do not claim that humpback whale songs meet the linguistic rigor necessary for a true language."


Well, I guess what we would have to ask, before asking if whales speak, is what's speak? Does my dog tell me he wants to go outside? Yes! But my fish tell me, with their bodies, that they are very hungry. I don't think either of them _*speak *_and I don't think we can show that whales _*speak *_either.

If I told people my dogs _*speaks *_to me, they'd have me committed.
I have seen many arguments for a nonhuman language but I have never seen a convincing one. If animals have a _*language *_it's not one like ours.

Do animals communicate? --Yes, of course they do! Are their messages complex? --Perhaps they are very complex but there are some things about language, any human language, that have never been shown to exist among animals.

I like this part of the article : *"**Humpback songs are not like human language, but elements of language are seen in their songs."* Yes, elements of human language are seen when my dog barks at me: he makes a sound by making sound waves using his lungs, throat and mouth like I do, that sound is heard, just like when I hear speech, and it gets me to do stuff, like when humans bark orders at me.


----------



## diegodbs

Do whales need it? "A los simios no les interesa conversar"  is an interesting article about animal language.


----------



## fenixpollo

> the linguistic rigor necessary for a true language.


 What criteria are those?


----------



## Residente Calle 13

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> What criteria are those?


Here are some :

grammar
abstraction
recursion
dialectization
slang
word-coinage

See the opening chapter to Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct.


----------



## danielfranco

Many years ago I saw a documentary about killer whales, and how they go around "talking" to each other. The researchers were able to find that certain sounds were meant as the individual names for each member of the pod. Every whale in the pod could reproduce the same sound and the referred whale would respond. Also, they were able to find a fair number of sounds that could be reproduced by every adult whale that new calfs had to practice before they could "sing" it approprietly. And finally, the researchers were excited to find out that the particular whale pod they were studying used a completly different set of "songs" to communicate when several pods reunited at different points in their yearly migration. Apparently, then, killer whales have names, a clan dialect, and an "official" international whale language. I wish I could refer you all directly to this documentary, but I have never seen it again.
Dan F


----------



## Residente Calle 13

danielfranco said:
			
		

> Many years ago I saw a documentary about killer whales, and how they go around "talking" to each other. The researchers were able to find that certain sounds were meant as the individual names for each member of the pod. Every whale in the pod could reproduce the same sound and the referred whale would respond. Also, they were able to find a fair number of sounds that could be reproduced by every adult whale that new calfs had to practice before they could "sing" it approprietly. And finally, the researchers were excited to find out that the particular whale pod they were studying used a completly different set of "songs" to communicate when several pods reunited at different points in their yearly migration. Apparently, then, killer whales have names, a clan dialect, and an "official" international whale language. I wish I could refer you all directly to this documentary, but I have never seen it again.
> Dan F



I have seen evidence like that before and it is indeed impressive. We learn new things about how animals communicate all the time. But one of the things that human languages have, things that even computer languages lack, are things like _*tense*_. When we can detect a whale talking about fish that it _*found*_, _*could find*_, _*would find*_, _*wish it could find*_, _*dreamt it found*_, _*will find*_, or _*should find *_then we know that they might have a true language. 

Honey bees, as far as we know, can tell other bees that they _*found *_a source of food if not techinically at least in practice that's what it amounts to. But as far as we know, bees don't communicate about the food _*they could find *_or that _*they might have found*_. And they really don't talk about abstractions like we do. We talk about things that don't even exist. I can tell you about giant aliens from the planet X24E who have legs in the shape of accordeons. You've never seen them but you can make a mental picture. Their focus is more narrow. Food.


----------



## maxiogee

You're being very 'speciesist', Resident Calle 13 in what you say. I think that we don't know what bees communicate about, we only know that they communicate the distance and direction of their food find by their dance. They may discuss the nature of the universe in ways we do not yet know. And whales may tell bedtime stories about the time they walked on the moons of Jupiter for all we know.
Just because we do not understand their 'langauges' is no reason to assume that they don't have 'real' language. By _that_ logic the many tribes in the Americas had no 'langauge' when the Europeans arrived.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

maxiogee said:
			
		

> You're being very 'speciesist', Resident Calle 13 in what you say. I think that we don't know what bees communicate about, we only know that they communicate the distance and direction of their food find by their dance. They may discuss the nature of the universe in ways we do not yet know. And whales may tell bedtime stories about the time they walked on the moons of Jupiter for all we know.
> Just because we do not understand their 'langauges' is no reason to assume that they don't have 'real' language. By _that_ logic the many tribes in the Americas had no 'langauge' when the Europeans arrived.



Since we don't know exactly what bees communicate about, we can't say they have a language. That's my whole point. In Science, we rely and what can be demonstrated or explained. We assume that all humans societies have a true language because until this day no languageless human society has been recorded by a languaged one. But that's based on what we know not on what _*might *_exist.

Just because we haven't discovered it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But in Science, we work with what can be explained not by what can possibly exist. In Science, we don't say there are brontosauruses in the Amazon because they might be hidden there. In Science, we discover things when we find them.


----------



## danielfranco

Well said!
Things like black holes, multiple universes, no-hair theorem, the anthropic principle, etc. are examples of great scientific work.
But they are all infered, cannot be proven at the moment...
Still scientific as heck, though!

Okay, sorry, I couldn't help myself with the badly timed joke... But, look: Residente is right in what he's saying. No other species in the planet has managed to show an initiative to communicate with humans in a purposeful and systematic manner, unlike humans have done for decades now. It's either because they are not interested, or because they lack the capability. Like Residente said, in science we have this principle called Occam's Razor (all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one), and according to it, then, we can presume that no other animal species in this planet except for humans possesses (do I have enough "s"?) true language. Not even the big-brained whales.
Too bad.
Dan F 

P.S. Maybe Douglas Adams was right, no? "So long, and thanks for all the fish..."


----------



## fenixpollo

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Here are some :
> 
> grammar
> abstraction
> recursion
> dialectization
> slang
> word-coinage
> 
> See the opening chapter to Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct.


 Perhaps I skimmed that chapter too quickly, but I didn't see those criteria listed there.

Since you don't speak Bee, how do you know that language doesn't include all of those criteria, including tenses?  Yes, yes, we don't know that they _do_, but you can't say that they _don't_ just because we can't observe it.  All you can say is that *we don't know* if they do or not.

Instead, you should say that your theory is that they don't, and provide evidence to support your theory. My theory is that whales and bees and other animals are more complex than you imagine... and that humans are less special than you imagine (as Pinker says in his introduction).


----------



## Residente Calle 13

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Perhaps I skimmed that chapter too quickly, but I didn't see those criteria listed there.
> 
> Since you don't speak Bee, how do you know that language doesn't include all of those criteria, including tenses?  Yes, yes, we don't know that they _do_, but you can't say that they _don't_ just because we can't observe it.  All you can say is that *we don't know* if they do or not.
> 
> Instead, you should say that your theory is that they don't, and provide evidence to support your theory. My theory is that whales and bees and other animals are more complex than you imagine... and that humans are less special than you imagine (as Pinker says in his introduction).


I say that bees and whales don't speak for the same reason I say dinosaurs are extinct. Bees might be bee-talking this very minute and there might be dinosaurs somewhere in South America. And aliens from Alpha Centuri might be intercepting this conversation. I might be an alien impersonating a human. This might not even be a real message, maybe you're just dreaming it.


----------



## fenixpollo

So bee or whale language is, for you, a scientific theory on a par with the theory of the Loch Ness monster?


----------



## Residente Calle 13

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> So bee or whale language is, for you, a scientific theory on a par with the theory of the Loch Ness monster?  I wish I were as confident in my own superiority as you are.


Bee language has not been proven to do what human language does. That does not mean bees don't do it but it seems unlikely. Whales talking seems more plausible but it hasn't been demonstrated either. In Science, we explain things that happen. That article says some data has been recorded that shows whales make sounds which are more complex than we thought.

It has nothing to do with humans being superior to bees and whales. I don't think I'm better than a bee or a whale or that people are better than bees and whales. 

If you want to say bees and whales might very well be _*talking*_, that's okay. I don't object at all. I find it hilarious. But it's not Science. In that sense, in the sense that you are saying that something might be happening, it's just like saying Nessy might have been caught on camera as she came up for air.


----------



## maxiogee

danielfranco said:
			
		

> No other species in the planet has managed to show an initiative to communicate with humans in a purposeful and systematic manner,
> <snip>
> then, we can presume that no other animal species in this planet except for humans possesses (do I have enough "s"?) true language. Not even the big-brained whales.



a) Maybe they don't think we're worth communicating with. 
b) We haven't communicated with them - maybe they don't think we have developed language yet. 
c) Maybe they have nothing to say to us.


----------



## danielfranco

Hi, maxiogee!
Have you read Douglas Adams' "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"?
In it, he says that men were the third most intelligent creature on the planet.
The mice were the most intelligent ones and used humans to conduct very smart and advanced lab experiments.
The second most intelligent beings were the whales and dolphins, and what they tried to tell us by doing jumps through hoops and acrobatic acquatic acts is that the Earth was about to be destroyed...
But humans couldn't understand even the simplest message and so they left us with a message that looked like a triple-back summersault while whistling the "Star-Spangled Banner" that meant "so long, and thanks for all the fish!"
I like the series very much: it's a trilogy in five parts (!), and it's rather odd but funny.
Anyway, I thought you'd appreciate that kind of humor by reading your signature.
Laters!
Dan F


----------



## maxiogee

I haven't read the book but I am aware of the quotation.

(my signature isn't intended to be solely humorous, it is also there to give a sense of my frequent, deep depressions.)


----------



## fenixpollo

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Bee language has not been proven to do what human language does. That does not mean bees don't do it but it seems unlikely. Whales talking seems more plausible but it hasn't been demonstrated either. In Science, we explain things that happen. That article says some data has been recorded that shows whales make sounds which are more complex than we thought.
> 
> It has nothing to do with humans being superior to bees and whales. I don't think I'm better than a bee or a whale or that people are better than bees and whales.
> 
> If you want to say bees and whales might very well be _*talking*_, that's okay. I don't object at all. I find it hilarious. But it's not Science. In that sense, in the sense that you are saying that something might be happening, it's just like saying Nessy might have been caught on camera as she came up for air.


I don't think it's more or less likely that bees would talk than whales.  Both sound more plausible than a black hole, but the theory is that they exist.  People are looking for mathematical and physical proof to that theory, but they haven't found it yet.  That's science.  Not discounting a theory because it seems to you "hilarious" or "implausible".

By using those words, you seem like you are feeling quite superior as a human.  You will admit that bees and whales communicate, but you have developed an arbritrary line in the sand and said that there is a difference between "communication" and "language"... and that humans are the only ones to have evolved highly enough to have language. You say that a language needs grammar and abstraction, but can you prove that whales can't click abstractly?  And bee dances don't have grammar?  Open your eyes, and you'll see that they do.

We used to think that humans were the only ones who used tools, but now we know that chimps and ravens use them.  We used to think that only humans teach each other, but now we know that even ants can do that.  Next on the chopping block: the idea that having language makes humans superior to the other animals.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> I don't think it's more or less likely that bees would talk than whales.  Both sound more plausible than a black hole, but the theory is that they exist.  People are looking for mathematical and physical proof to that theory, but they haven't found it yet.  That's science.  Not discounting a theory because it seems to you "hilarious" or "implausible".
> 
> By using those words, you seem like you are feeling quite superior as a human.  You will admit that bees and whales communicate, but you have developed an arbritrary line in the sand and said that there is a difference between "communication" and "language"... and that humans are the only ones to have evolved highly enough to have language. You say that a language needs grammar and abstraction, but can you prove that whales can't click abstractly?  And bee dances don't have grammar?  Open your eyes, and you'll see that they do.
> 
> We used to think that humans were the only ones who used tools, but now we know that chimps and ravens use them.  We used to think that only humans teach each other, but now we know that even ants can do that.  Next on the chopping block: the idea that having language makes humans superior to the other animals.


Without getting into my _*feelings*,_I think that it's more plausible that mammals "talk" than insects. That has to do with brain structure. "I" have not developed an "arbitrary" anything. What I am saying is based on what I have read (with my eyes wide-open) and using my brain.

First of all, we must distinguish between _*animal language*_ and _*animal communication*_. Animal language is when humans try to teach animals how to use symbols for communication. (Look these terms up). This is not the case with whales (or bees) so we can stop talking about _*animal language*_.

_*Animal communication*_ takes place in the animal world without interspecies intervention. Here's why its not language as far as we _*know *_:


   1. Human languages are characterized for having a double articulation (in the characterization of French linguist André Martinet). It means that complex linguistic expressions can be broken down in meaningful elements (such as morphemes and words), which in turn are composed of smallest meaningless phonetic elements, or phonemes. Animal signals, however, do not exhibit this dual structure.
   2. Animal utterances are generally reflexes of external stimuli and thus are not produced intentionally. They cannot refer to matters removed in time and space (a possible exception is the information conveyed in honeybee dance language).
   3. Human language is learned, while animal communication systems are known largely by instinct.
   4. Human languages combine elements to produce new messages (a property known as creativity). This is not possible in animal communication systems.
   5. In contrast to human language, animal communication systems are not able to express conceptual generalizations.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_communication)

That's Science. We can imagine anything we want but unless a study shows the grammar of bee language and how it works or the nature of the whale noun, animals don't talk.

It's not up to me to prove that whales don't talk. The question here is "Do Whales Speak?" I say they don't. If anybody thinks they do, show me how. Not why they perhaps _*might*_.


----------



## Fernando

Having no extra information, my approtation is going to be very poor. I only want to say I distrust this sort of "science news", because they are usually broadcasted by scientists that dedicate more than half their lives to an only purpose: To study one particular thing. So they have too many incentives to affirm too much.

As an example, imagine a scientist, 25, studying the language ability of the fly. When the guy is 45, with no money and a predectible low reproduction probability, he announces:

1) The flies are the most stupid of their animals and has never achived to transfer a bit of information. Consequences: His girlfriend definitely leaves him.

2) The flies are the smartest guys in the universe. They do not dominate the world just because their high moral values prevent them from doing it. Consequences: He receives more money for widen his investigations (maybe up to his retirement) while all fly-lovers in the country demand him to pregnate them. National Geographic makes an special edition.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Fernando said:
			
		

> Having no extra information, my approtation is going to be very poor. I only want to say I distrust this sort of "science news", because they are usually broadcasted by scientists that dedicate more than half their lives to an only purpose: To study one particular thing. So they have too many incentives to affirm too much.
> 
> As an example, imagine a scientist, 25, studying the language ability of the fly. When the gay is 45, with no money and a predectible low reproduction probability, he announces:
> 
> 1) The flies are the most stupid of their animals and has never achived to transfer a bit of information. Consequences: His girlfriend definitely leaves him.
> 
> 2) The flies are the smartest guys in the universe. They do not dominate the world just because their high moral values prevent them from doing it. Consequences: He receives more money for widen his investigations (maybe up to his retirement) while all fly-lovers in the country demand him to pregnate them. National Geographic makes an special edition.



It has been argued and reported that this is exactly the sort of thing that happens with research on this subject. I think it's okay for these guys to publish a study on the complexity of whale sounds but this sort of thing needs to be look at, reviewed, and _*duplicated *_by other people.


----------



## Outsider

Fernando said:
			
		

> Having no extra information, my approtation is going to be very poor. I only want to say I distrust this sort of "science news", because they are usually broadcasted by scientists that dedicate more than half their lives to an only purpose: To study one particular thing. So they have too many incentives to affirm too much.


While it's true that sometimes scientists use the media for self-promotion, the weakest link in science news is usually the popular media. Since journalists don't understand the subtleties and caveats of science very well, they tend to report discoveries in misleading and sensationalized ways.
However, this particular article is from a publication dedicated to scientific news, so I would expect more accuracy than average. Don't get me wrong, I agree with Residente 13 when he says there's no evidence yet that whales have a language in the same sense that humans do. But it's still interesting to learn about how they do communicate.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> But it's still interesting to learn about how they do communicate.



I think it's very interesting stuff and I really enjoyed the article. But what bothers me about many of these articles is the "catchy title" thing.


----------



## Outsider

It's just a way to draw attention from the readers.


----------



## Yuribear

Dear Maxiogee,

Some time ago when I was working with small cetaceans, I was fascinated by the works and findings of Dr. Lilly regarding interspecies communication. His findings were amazing. He worked in the 70's with the JANUS project where he invented a computer that would translate the high pitches emited by the cetaceans into images that humans could understand. One of the major findings was that they communicate in a tridimensional way through their high pitch vocalizations, he said that they transmit and receive in their brain something like a tri-dimensional image through the sounds they make.

Quoted as "An unparalleled scientific visionary and explorer, Dr. Lilly has made significant contributions to psychology, brain research, computer theory, medicine, ethics, and interspecies communication" Is in reality one of the top scientists in dolphin research. Any respectable cetacean "Scientist" cannot do any serious work without reading Dr. Lilly's findings. 

Here are some links of this amazing scientist and his work that you may enjoy reading:
 About Dr. John Lilly  and Dr. Lilly's webpage

So.... it can be said that cetaceans DO communicate and have a language of their own. Not like ours, *but of their own* and I only wish we knew more about interspecies communication.

Cheerie-o!
Yuri


----------



## maxiogee

Thank you, yuribear.
You have shown that my uneducated mumblings have a basis in fact.
I never cease to be amazed by the pre-conceptions scientists bring to their labours.
Out arrogance as a race is staggering.

_As grains of sand__,__ 
upon a beach upon a grain of sand,
We stand upon our arrogance,
and think we are alone -
and of some great importance._


----------

