A variety of human based codes have been used to communicate with non-humans. As yet none of these "pidgins" approach the complexity of human language.
While
it is a reasonable goal to provide a human-based code (HBC) to animals to
enable them to more accurately express their wants and any "thoughts" they may
have to us, the idea of alphabets and chimps makes no sense either from the
alphabet or the chimp side.
What is an alphabet? It is a written symbol system instructing us more or less
on how to move our vocal tract. Efficient following of these symbols enables
humans to hear themselves and thus understand what is written to the extent
they could understand someone saying those words. Chimp vocal tracts are
different from ours -- and their brain control of their tract is also
different. This has been known for nearly a century; recall the Hayes efforts
with Vicki.
(Some humans are abnormally good at using alphabets --hyperlexics -- while
others are very poor at it --dyslexics.)
http://www.uga.edu/lsava/Smith/Smith.html
The whole idea of speech as a rapid sequence of alternating consonants and
vowels seems far beyond their motor control system as well as the acoustic
capabilities of their vocal tracts , e.g. relatively large tongue, poor control
over nasality, and no pharyngeal resonance. Brain stimulation studies in
humans reveal a number of neocortical regions that will elicit vocalization but
not in non-human primates.
Leyton, A. S. F., & Sherrington, C. S. (1917). Observations on the
excitable cortex of the chimpanzee, orangutan, and gorilla. Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Physiology, 11, 135-222.
Penfield, W., & Roberts, L. (1959). Speech and brain mechanisms.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (p. 199)
All
mammals share certain communication structures and functions. Particularly
notable is the vocal relationship between mother and offspring in many species.
Functions of vocal communication in addition to parenting including mating,
social affiliation, territory defense, and other agonistic calls. See Goodall
(1995) on chimp calls.
With few limited exceptions there is no typical use of vocalization to refer to
objects or actions among mammals.
These include cognitive, interpersonal (social), and societal functions.
Linguistic
Biological
Vocal tract, Broca's and Wernicke's areas, left hemisphere, and genes (e.g. role of FOX 2)
All have the arbitrary signs and discrete combinations of hierarchically organized elements.
(see graphics for overview.)
Ditto sign language in similar circumstances. In both cases, children appear to synthesize complete language structures from fragments. Their brains already have some of the components necessary to create a language -- no trainers, no spoonfuls of jam.
High
language - low intelligence
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~jel/video/Human_Nature.html
All kids but no non-humans acquire/create human language: many arbitrary signs,
hierarchically organized structures: syllables, words, phrases, sentences.
Repeated home-raised ape studies show many human behaviors are acquired; a certain
degree of comprehension of commands, no vocal production
The apes encouraged to use a human-based code rarely exceed 3 non-repetitive symbols and show slow growth rather than the acceleratiing functions human children display in vocabulary growth and utterance length (mlu) from 18 months to 4 years..
Reflects Historical importance of language to "fitness"
Adaptations make acquisition easy
(No testament to human intellect anymore than webs are to spiders!)
Only extensive vocabularies are related to intellect.
Little certainty on how it came about
Co-evolved with humans
Involved the adaptive value of its functions
Related to brain size increase
connection between bipedalism, specialization in vocal tract and Broca's area, and FOXP2?
Possible Baldwin effect?
Aspects of an invented language became instinctive in non-Lamarckian fashion.
He
notes co-evolution of brain size and group size, and brain size and
language.
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~jel/images/Dubar_sketch.jpg
He also subscribes to the idea, previously considered in Tomasello & Call,
that social complexity adds to cognitive complexity.
Finally he notes that social grooming is a key element in keeping primate
groups together and human language may be a version of grooming in larger
groups that allows "contacting" all members of the group efficiently -- in
addition to its informational and cognitive functions.
"we can converse with with several people at the same time. To get from the
mean group size for chimpanzees (55) to that for modern humans (150), any such
bonding mechanism would have to be about three times (150/55) more efficient
than grooming: given the grooming is a one-on-one activity, language ought to
be a one-on-three activity... the maximum size of natural human conversation
groups (one speaker and three listeners. P.190)."
