Editing Great ape language (section)

== Criticism and controversy ==

=== Language abilities ===
Controversy in the 1970s and early 1980s centered on different understandings of language. The Gardners, Roger Fouts and Penny Patterson – all psychologists – operated from a lay person's understanding of language as simply a means of communication (as in the popular term "body language"). They succeeded in teaching apes a number of signs,<ref name="bauman2008">{{cite book |last=Bauman |first=Dirksen |title=Open your eyes: Deaf studies talking |publisher=University of Minnesota Press |year=2008 |isbn=978-0-8166-4619-7}}</ref> but doing so led to inflated claims about "talking apes" in the mainstream media.

Linguists understood language as a complex, structured system of communication defined by several key characteristics. Teaching apes to use isolated signs was, from this perspective, nothing to do with language. Many argued (in line with Terrace<ref name=":6" />) that the apes merely demonstrated a form of [[operant conditioning]], similar to pigeons trained to peck buttons in a specific order.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Petitto |first1=Laura A. |last2=Seidenberg |first2=Mark S. |date=1979-09-01 |title=On the evidence for linguistic abilities in signing apes |url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X%2879%2990047-6 |journal=Brain and Language |volume=8 |issue=2 |pages=162–183 |doi=10.1016/0093-934X(79)90047-6 |issn=0093-934X |pmid=487067 |s2cid=39620186|url-access=subscription }}</ref>  So, when the psychologists trumpeted apes' acquisition of speech or language, other scholars— especially linguists – criticized these claims and pointed out problems with them. The most significant and enduring criticism regarded the lack of evidence supporting great apes' use of syntax and grammatical sentence structure.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Pepperberg |first=Irene M. |date=2017-02-01 |title=Animal language studies: What happened? |journal=Psychonomic Bulletin & Review |language=en |volume=24 |issue=1 |pages=181–185 |doi=10.3758/s13423-016-1101-y |issn=1531-5320 |pmid=27368639 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Without demonstrating the use of sentences, the apes could not be said to have acquired language.

The Gardners did not set out to focus on sentence creation. Terrace, however, did.<ref name=":6" /> The [[Nim Chimpsky]] study had been designed to test a chimp's ability to create sentences. Its report of negative results came as a shock to the field. A critic of the ape language research organized a "[[Clever Hans]]" conference in 1980 trumpeting the Nim study and suggesting that scientists working on animal language were charlatans.<ref name=":7" /> To [[Irene Pepperberg|Irene Pepperburg]], a research associate who had been working with a parrot named [[Alex (parrot)|Alex]], the conference came as a wakeup call, pushing her to avoid claims about "language" and sticking to "vocal communication."<ref name=":7">Episode 5 (December 2021). "A Witch Hunt." VICE: A Show About Animals podcast. https://www.vice.com/en/article/did-koko-the-gorilla-understand/</ref> As a result of the Terrace study and the subsequent conference, funding for ape language research abruptly evaporated.<ref name=":7" />

With their funding gone, researchers turned to new projects. Some, feeling responsible to maintain care of their animal subjects, largely abandoned science. [[Francine Patterson|Penny Patterson]], for example, turned to PR work and children's media to raise funds to care for [[Koko (gorilla)|Koko]] and gorilla [[Michael (gorilla)|Michael]]. [[Roger Fouts]] struggled to show results for an NIH grant tied to [[Washoe (chimpanzee)|Washoe]] teaching her foster baby signs. (Fouts was accused by a one of his staff of faking data;<ref>Hess, E. (2008) p. 239</ref> another former grad student, [[Sue Savage-Rumbaugh]], criticized him for over-interpretation.<ref>Savage-Rumbaugh, S. (1994). p. 43</ref>) Ultimately, Fouts proved more concerned with [[Animal rights|animals rights]] and [[Animal welfare|welfare]] than scientific research.<ref name=":8">{{Cite book |last=Blum |first=Deborah |title=The Monkey Wars |date=1994 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=0195094123 |location=New York and Oxford}}</ref> In the 1980s, he partnered with [[Jane Goodall]] on a campaign to improve conditions for chimpanzees in NIH-funded labs, an effort that effectively alienated him from fellow scientists.<ref name=":8" />

The Gardners, unlike Fouts and Patterson, seemed to show little concern for the chimps' welfare after their studies ended.<ref>Fouts, R.; Turkel, S. (1997). pp 201–202.</ref> The Gardners were seen as the most data-driven and rigorous of the sign-language researchers. In 1989, they edited a volume that incorporated new data and addressed earlier criticisms of their work. ''Teaching Sign Language to Chimpanzees'' described "the continuity between human behavior and the rest of animal animal" and found "no barriers to be broken, no chasms to be bridged, only unknown territory to be charted."<ref>Gardner, R.; Garden, B.; Van Cantfort, T. (1989). Back cover text.</ref> In contrast to earlier studies, the book was favorably reviewed by scholars.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Boysen |first=Sally |date=September 1990 |title=Review: Teaching Sign Language to Chimpanzees |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2832447 |journal=The Quarterly Review of Biology |volume=65 |issue=3 |pages=383–384 |doi=10.1086/416919 |jstor=2832447|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Byrne |first=Richard W. |date=October 1990 |title=Book Review: Teaching Sign Language to Chimpanzees |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347205807146 |journal=Animal Behaviour |volume=40 |issue=4 |doi=10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80714-6 |via=Science Direct|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Gardner |first1=Beatrix T. |last2=Gardner |first2=R. Allen |date=May 24, 1991 |title=Chimp-Language Wars |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2876263 |journal=Science |volume=252 |issue=5009|page=1046 |doi=10.1126/science.252.5009.1046.c |jstor=2876263 |url-access=subscription }}</ref>

=== Ethics ===
The 2011 documentary [[Project Nim (film)|Project Nim]] drew public attention to the plight of apes used in human language studies. In its aftermath, a new critique gained favor.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Klick |first=Don |date=2017 |title=Human—Animal Communication |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/44866095 |journal=Annual Review of Anthropology |volume=46 |pages=357–378 |doi=10.1146/annurev-anthro-102116-041723 |jstor=44866095 |url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref name=":9">{{Cite book |last1=Ingersoll |first1=Robert |title=Primatology, Ethics and Trauma: The Oklahoma Chimpanzee Studies |last2=Scarnà |first2=Antonina |date=February 23, 2023 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1032413471}}</ref>

This critique argued that isolating apes from their species and drilling them in the communication method of another (''[[Homo sapiens]]'') was a misguided effort to sate human curiosity, not science. The apes involved, largely isolated from their species, showed recognizable signs of trauma.<ref>Hess, E. (2008).</ref><ref name=":9" /> Every ape subject refused to participate in language lessons to some degree. Making assumptions about ape's abilities with involuntary subjects forced to live in highly unnatural conditions was seen as not only unscientific but ethically wrong.

A 2024 report in the journal ''Scientific Reports'' about chimpanzee vocal communication drew upon both scientific and ethical critiques. It called for a reevaluation of ape communication skills, noting that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence – particularly when based on a few untrustworthy representatives (untrustworthy due to the "neglect and cruelty" inflicted on the apes).<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ekstrom |first=Axel G. |date=July 25, 2024 |title=Chimpanzee utterances refute purported missing links for novel vocalizations and syllabic speech |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-67005-w |journal=Scientific Reports |volume=14}}</ref>