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.

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.

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.

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. SIGN USED WITHOUT SOUNDThe 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.

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.

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.