SummaryRemarks on the evolution of “languages” of mammals. The variability of the intraspecific communication of canidsThe canid species mainly considered in this study, the golden jackal (Canis aureus), the cojote (Canis latrans), and especially the wolf (Canis lupus) have an extremely variable species‐specific intraspecific communication. Communities, but also differences between the species become evident; the wolf with its distinct social behavior has the greatest differentiation. These results make also clear, that forms of communication in mammals develop in evolutionary processes and events. A safe statement on the beginning of the forms of communication in canids cannot be given so far. This is also true for humans. The ideas of Lenneberg (1967) of the parallel and disjunct origin of the forms of communication in mammals has a high probability for higher systematic units, but on lower systematic level a gradual change can be observed. The forms of communication in mammals are highly differentiated structures, where specific pecularities of the brain are of a special importance.The observations on the variability of intraspecific communication of canids, representing nonhuman mammals, suggest to define “language” in a very general form. In this way, similarities, analogies, and differences between the species of mammals, inclusive man, can be seen more clearly. In only this way the material can be gained to answer the question, if the language of man has in principle exceptional position biologically.It is important for the valuation of forms of intraspecific communication, the “languages”, of mammals not to choose human theory of life and human thinking as a basis, but to start with the biological pecularities of the species. Also canids, as higher mammals, have the ability to abstract, a form of thinking. In their special, species‐specific way also non‐human mammals arrange their area of experience and thinking. They form for themselves a species‐specific “theory of live”. This will of course be different from the human one, according to the systematic position and the biological environment of the species. It is generally accepted that man has special abilities of thinking, he possesses an extraordinary developed brain, compared to all other mammals. This must effect his communication, his language, and result in differences to other mammal species. Gipper (1977) pointed out especially these differences, but they should not be interpreted as differences in principle.Canids use different gestures and sounds for communication within the species; dialog relations can be observed. Different connections of gestures and sounds have different contents of information. It is remarkable that canids do not use their total abilities in using the means of communication in the same way. This is very striking in the change from the wolf, as the only ancestor, to the domestic dog. It is evident that the brain has a greater importance in developing intraspecific communication, than do the peculuarities of organs causing the understanding.A dependanc of intraspecific communication from the environment can be observed either in differences of wird species of canids as well as in the domestication. In the domestic dog, but also in other domestic animals, there is an increase in vocalisations. But the content of information of sounds and gestures decreases in domestication, expressions of arousal become more important. A remarkable plasticity of intraspecific communication becomes evident by domestication. The transformations can be evaluated in the sense of Kosswig (1963, 1965) as first stages of a regressive evolution.Experiments of cross‐breeding canid species show exemplarily that forms of communication within these mammal species have a highly polygene regulation, and that processes of learning have an influence. Also from this point of view, no basic differences between nonhuman mammals and humans can be assured, especially when taking into account the facts and thoughts described by Lenneberg. The findings in the canids give useful hints for a better understanding of the human language and its relations to the forms of communication in other mammals. Altogether one can conclude that genetic variability, numerous recombinations, the synorganisation of the processes caused in this way, and natural selection plays definite role in the
展开▼
