AIM:

To report on the language acquisition of Kanzi, a

bonobo chimp (pygmy chimpanzee), and his
younger sister Mulika.
The report covers a 17-month period,
beginning when Kanzi was aged 2 years.
To compare language acquisition in the bonobos
with that of two common chimpanzees, Sherman
and Austin, studied earlier (1975-1980).

Sherman & Austin

common chimps
(Pan troglodytes)
Kanzi a bonobo chimp
(Pan paniscus)

PARTICIPANTS / SUBJECTS:
Kanzi born in
captivity in US (1980)
His mother was Matata,
a wild- captured bonobo,
who was the actual
intended subject for the
language study
Matata was not Kanzis biological mother. She had
kidnapped him from his mother, Lorel, when he was
just a few hours old
In 1983, Matata gave birth to Mulika, the second
bonobo subject in this research
She grew up as Kanzis sister

METHOD:
A CASE STUDY was carried out, focusing on one bonobo, Kanzi, but also
including early data of his younger sister Mulikas language acquisition.
Data gathered by OBSERVATION. (quantitative)
The design was LONGITUDINAL, reporting over a 17-month period of
Kanzis language acquisition. (10 years in total)

Think!

What are the potential STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES of the method chosen?
- Can findings from a case study be generalised?
- Are findings gained from observation reliable and valid?
- Can all variables be controlled in a longitudinal study?

PROCEDURE:
The procedure is in 6 parts
1. Description of the environment where the apes were living
Naturalistic outdoor environment

55 acre forest
Food placed in 17 locations Kanzi +
carers spent most of day collecting it
Kanzi communicated about food in the
forest, and in a backpack, with
lexigrams
Mulika also did this as she got older

Indoor environment
In the day, Kanzi
and Mulika helped
with domestic
chores e.g. food
preparation
Helped
spontaneously with
simple jobs like
washing up
Watched videos of
people/animals they
knew from the
centre
Played with toys
Played games e.g.
tickle, chase

2. The communication system used

with the apes
The lexigram system:
A visual symbol system
A keyboard of symbols, lit up when pressed
To start with Kanzis board had 8 lexigrams
By the end of the study, had 256 lexigrams
Connected to an electronic voice synthesiser Kanzi understood spoken English
Indoors, the keyboards werent mobile attached to computer
Outdoors, Kanzi used portable keyboards and laminated pointing boards

Other means of communication:

Spoken English
Gestures, including 100 ASL gestures

3. The exposure of Kanzi and Mulika to

lexigrams how they learned
Kansi was exposed to use of symbols, gestures, and human speech from age 6 months
This happened as he watched his mother, Matala, and her keepers
No-one tried to train Kanzi directly
Mulika learned from observing Kanzi

The lexigram system

They used the same lexigram system as Sherman and Austin

However, Sherman and Austin were taught to use it Kanzi and Mulika werent. They
spontaneously used it after observing others

Other differences between Kanzi and

Mulika, and Sherman and Austin:

On Sherman and Austins keyboards there was no

voice synthesiser they didnt understand human
speech
Sherman and Austin didnt use lexigrams outdoors
they couldnt use them if they didnt light up

Apparatus:

Lexigram board made up of symbols used to stand for

words; these symbols brighten up when touched (256 keys).

Note: each lexigram was arbitrary i.e. it did not look like the

object or word it stood for.

4. Data recording and

classifying
Recording:
INDOORS lexigram use could be automatically recorded
OUTDOORS a record was made by hand and entered into computer later
There was a complete record of Kanzis utterances from 30-47 months of age
For Mulika, the record ran from 11-21 months

Classifying the utterances:

The utterances were classified as:

correct or incorrect
spontaneous if there was no prompting or cueing
imitated if they included a companions utterance
structured if they were in response to a question

Structured questions were used to see if the chimps

could give a specific answer

5. Vocabulary acquisition criteria

What counted as acquired?
Utterance happened spontaneously and was appropriate to what primate was trying to
achieve, and could be verified on 9 out of 10 times
e.g. if Kanzi indicated he wanted to go to the treehouse it would be verified if he took
the experimenter to this location. This was counted as a positive concordance score

Establishing reliability: (CONTROLS)

A 4-hour block of real-time observations were
compared with analysis of a video of the primates
that was made at the same time.
There was 100% agreement on the lexigrams used
and their correctness
There was disagreement on whether one
utterance was spontaneous
The video observer counted 9 extra utterances

6. Formal testing of productive

and receptive capacities
When?
At the end of the study, Kanzi and Mulika were formally tested on all
the words in their vocabulary.
Kanzi was tested in the 17th month of the study, aged 46-47 months
Mulika was tested aged 18-21 months

Why?
To ensure that their performance
was not due to the experimenters
giving them cues, or inadvertent
glances.
This acted as another control
measure

How? The Tests.

a) They were shown photographs and asked to select the
right lexigram
b) They listened to a word or a synthesised version of the
word and then asked to select the correct photograph
or lexigram
c) These were blind tests and the order of photographs /
words was carefully controlled so that the experimenter
had no prior knowledge that could bias primate
responses.

PROCEDURE EVALUATED
bonobos lived at the Language Research Centre (had human
companions who also used ASL and spoken English)
exposed to lexigram keyboard which eventually consisted of
256 keys
Kanzi & Mulika learned through observation (mother was
Matata) no formal training provided to chimps
all utterances were recorded and coded:
- correct / incorrect
- spontaneous / imitated / structured
criteria for learning of symbol:
- behavioural concordance measure (what Kanzi said had to
match up with what he did)
Tests consisted of:
- blind test in forest (with person unconnected with training)
- matching photo to lexigram symbol
- matching photo to spoken English
- matching lexigram symbol to spoken English

Results 1:
Greater use of specific and untutored gestures by K & M
Early referential use of lexigrams (M at 12mths)
Symbol acquisition: K = 44; M = 37 lexigrams
Blind test in forest K able to lead experimenter out of

forest by correctly using photos and lexigrams

Results 2:
80% of Ks utterances were spontaneous
Use of combinations (multiple symbols) 2,500+

correct and mostly about initiating games

D
A
B
F

Results 3: Formal Vocabulary Tests

Which one is the
tomato Kanzi, show me
tomato

Primate

Number correct / total

Matching symbol Matching photo

Matching photo

to English
65/66

to English
56/59

to symbol
55/59

41/42

36/41

41/42

Not tested

3/30

30/30

Not tested

2/30

30/30

Bonobos can understand spoken English whereas common chimps cannot

Conclusions
K and M (bonobos / pygmy chimps) were different from

common chimps. Their results were significantly

better compared to the first research subjects.
They were spoken to normally which allowed them to
learn language and respond without contextual cues.
This was suggested to be down to the lack of training
and the power of nurture and Cultural learning.
2. The beginning of syntax had been learned by M and
K. (rules of sentences). They were able to direct others
(request a to act on b)
3. It appears that language of some sort can be
learned without being hard wired (agrees with
argument that language is learned rather than being
innate)

Comparing Pygmy Chimps

with
common
chimps
The researchers were able to summaries 4 main

differences between the Pygmy chimpanzees and the

Common chimpanzees.
Kanzi and Mulika comprehended the lexigrams with far
more ease, and used then far more spontaneously
without the need for training, than Austin and Sherman.
Kanzi and Mulika were far more able to comprehend
spoken English words.
Kanzi and Mulika used lexigrams far more specifically
e.g. to differentiate between coke and juice, than
Austin and Sherman who used broader categories e.g.
food.
Kanzi was able to refer to requests involving others.
Austin and Sherman never formed requests in which
someone other than themselves was the beneficiary.

Evaluating the study

Ethical considerations:
Chimpanzees being reared away from
their natural environment for human
research
Unable to return to natural habitat
Develop human dependency
Often frustrated and bored by constant
human intervention
Skills learnt that are not required in the
wild

Ecological Validity-

the degree to which

the behaviours observed and recorded in a study
reflect the behaviours that actually occur in natural
settings.

EV Strengths found in the study:

Kanzi and Mulika were free to roam round
centre and in 55 acres of woodland made it
more natural setting.
They were not instrumentally conditioned but
learned by observation as children do.
They could also visit their mother Matata
EV Weaknesses:
Wild animal reared in a human setting for the
purposes of research
From a young age animals were constantly
exposed to human behaviour and nurtured by
humans alongside their mother.

What are the strengths and

weaknesses of the study?
Subjects
Method (quantitative)
Procedure
Ethics

Strengths of the method

Improvement of previous studies on language

acquisition of primates.
Data was gathered under rigorous controls
which meant the data was more reliable and
valid as less open to bias and subjectivity.
Longitudinal study allows in depth data and
shows development over time
Ecological validity Kanzi was observed by
researchers whilst outside and roaming freely.

Weaknesses of the
method
Ethics animals are vulnerable and cannot
express desires like humans.
It was clear the subjects became humanised
wanted constant human attention.
Chimps engaged in human past times like
watching TV and drinking coke and eating
sweets not normal in the wild.
Difficult for subjects to return to the wild
Differences of rearing for K and M compared
to S and A.

Participants
Small number of subjects.
Used a different species of chimp for this

study.
Differences of rearing for K and M compared
to S and A.

Type of data collected

A vast amount of data collected allows for
easy comparisons with previous subjects.
However, validity of data relies on the validity
of the tests, which do not allow for comments
on and observations of behaviours that may
have occurred during the tests (REDUCTIONIST
means data does not allow for more detailed
evidence to be recorded)

How useful was this

research?
Chimps displayed many characteristics of a
human child learning language this helps us
to develop our understanding of how humans
learn language.
Shows the potential for animals learning
language may have implications for the way
we live alongside animals in the future.

Describe ONE change you

would
make
to
this
research

What?
How?
Why? What would you expect to happen?