Conclusions

Abstract

It will no doubt have been noticed that not once throughout this monograph have whistled languages been referred to as speech surrogates. In the opinion of the present writers there is nothing to recommend the use of this term. Whereas the sign language of deaf-mutes, for instance, is truly a surrogate since it is a substitute for normal speech, whistled languages do not replace but rather complement it in certain specific circumstances. In other words, rather than surrogates they are adjuncts. Looking at the question from a slightly different point of view, when a Gomero or a Turk whistles, he is in effect still speaking, but he modifies one aspect of his linguistic activity in such a way that major acoustic modifications are imposed upon the medium. Nevertheless the fact remains that he is still using the same medium, although in a vastly different shape. The procedure would be identical if one were to speak into a machine designed to convert the spoken word into whistled signals. It will be remembered that something of the sort was attempted recently in the U.S., with what long-term success we do not know, in the hope that communication with dolphins would thereby be facilitated. At the receiving end, the acoustic signal is mentally converted back into the original verbal image that initiated the chain of events, so that in effect ordinary language is still present at both ends of the chain. The whistled signals occupy the middle, but most of the normal linguistic events are not replaced. This in itself may not be a fact of major importance, but to call the Silbo, for example, a surrogate is in effect equivalent to lumping it with the sign language of deaf-mutes when there exist between the two vital differences.