Talk:Kanzi

Musical skills?
Kanzi has musical skills and has played with Paul McCartney and Peter Gabriel? What sort of music did Kanzi do, sing? play the drums? guitar? Timan123 18:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

REPLY: Yes, Kanzi (Panabanisha and Nyota)did play music with Peter Gaberiel for about 2 weeks. Parts of the tracks from this even were included in a song called Animinal Nation. Kanzi, Panbanisha and Nyota "played" keyboard and drums while Peter played the keyboard and sang. Peter was Not in physical contact or in the cage with Kanzi (or the other apes). The apes rather enjoyed Peter Gabriel's visit as he was very lasi back and down to earth.

I do not recall Paul McCartney playing music with the apes. He had a whole Entourage with him and it was quite stressful to the animals (and humans) when he visited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnJohnson (talk • contribs) 16:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed
Can someone please clear up in the article if Kanzi is male or female? These are quotes in the article:

Kanzi is a male - this is a typo

"Kanzi, her mother, brother, and sister now live at the Great Ape Trust in Des Moines, Iowa"

"As an infant, Kanzi accompanied his mother to sessions where she was taught language through keyboard lexigrams"

Obviously, one says his, one her - is Kanzi male or female, and would someone adjust the article to reflect such?


 * Done. His refers to Kanzi.  Her refers to Matata, Kanzi's mother.

Why is this in dispute?


 * These are the main disputed parts:


 * Matata. As an infant, Kanzi accompanied his mother to sessions where she was taught language through keyboard lexigrams, but displayed little interest in the lessons. It was a great surprise to researchers then when one day, while Matata was away, Kanzi began competently using the lexigrams, becoming not only the first observed ape to have learned aspects of language naturalistically rather than through direct training but also the first observed bonobo to use language at all.


 * - FrancisTyers 08:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

What is the nature of the "dispute"? What would it take to resolve this? --JWSchmidt 13:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * See above for the nature of the dispute. Has it been independantly verified in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that Kanzi can "use language" and is this the precise term that they use? If so what are the references? - FrancisTyers 20:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind: Languages are not just sets of symbols. They also contain a grammar, or system of rules, used to manipulate the symbols. While a set of symbols may be used for expression or communication, it is primitive and relatively unexpressive, because there are no clear or regular relationships between the symbols. Because a language also has a grammar, it can manipulate its symbols to express clear and regular relationships between them.. I'm happy to accept that this animal can communicate using these lexigrams, what I'm not happy with is that it has a grammar. Maybe I'll be proved wrong :) - FrancisTyers 21:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Kanzi can communicate to a limited extent by using Yerkish, but I doubt that any non-human ape will ever master the full complexity of a human language's grammar. There have been articles published describing the details of Kanzi's ability to communicate. The Kanzi article should provide a description of which components of human language have been learned by Kanzi and which seem to be beyond the "grasp" of a chimp's mind. The article should describe the fact that Kanzi and other young chimps have learned symbol systems for communication in the same way that young human children do, by being exposed to language users. Nobody ever claimed that chimps can learn a complete human language, so there is no need to create a make-believe "dispute" and request evidence to support something that has never been asserted. Someone just needs to take the time to describe Kanzi's abilities. --JWSchmidt 01:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, that's what it seems to suggest in the text. I have no doubt that with further editing to the article, the dispute could be removed. I agree that the article should provide a precise description of which components of human language have been learned, and which have been taught. When you say articles have been published describing Kanzi's ability to communicate, do you mean to say they used "communicate" and not "language" (the two are different, see Language). I don't particularly have the time to spend investigating this. - FrancisTyers 12:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Since there is a chance that some Wikipedia readers may make the incorrect assumption that this article is about a chimp learning a complete human language, it could be made explicit that the Kanzi article is discussing a chimp that has learned only a subset of the behavioral and cognitive features that are traditionally used to characterize human language and that Kanzi's abilities are a form of non-human language. Another alternative is for Wikipedia to adopt the position of those who reject the terms "non-human language" and animal language. If Wikipedia adopts that position, then the Kanzi article should be edited so that it uses terms such as "communication" rather than "language". In my view, the way to improve this Wikipedia article is for someone take the time to describe the details of Kanzi's abilities. I still feel that it would improve the chances of resolving this "dispute" if there were a clear statement of what "facts" are under dispute. --JWSchmidt 15:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Both of those proposals seem very reasonable and would resolve the dispute without either of us having to put extra work into the article. I agree that the best way to improve the article would be to describe the details of Kanzi's abilities, but as I don't have the time this is not going to be done by me. I think the second best way would be to take both of your suggestions and merge them into one. i.e. explain that Kanzi has learnt a subset of the behavioral and cognitive features that are traditionally used to characterize human language and that some people refer to this as non-human language and some people refer to it as "communication" rather than "language". This way we are presenting both sides of the argument. - FrancisTyers 19:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it could also be noted that Kanzi significantly outperformed a human 2 year old in controlled studies of spoken English comprehension, and the fruit of the research has been using the aided language system to teach mentally retarded humans how to communicate. 128.163.170.33 20:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Larry York

I think it would be a misuse of wikipedia to attempt to make an authoritative scientific ruling on the subject when Kanzi's abilities have been historically so contraversial in the scientific community. It would be far more constructive to simply state Dr. Savage Rumbaugh's claims as claims and let readers decide for themselves what they would like to believe about them. - KanziODP

This entry still lacks the critical information needed to represent the significant debate about apes, language, and emotions. In addition, there is controversy about treatment of the apes at the facility in Iowa and about the degree to which his trainer, Savage-Rumbaugh, micromanages his care and embellishes his language skills. It isn't a pretty picture.

There is an excellent article in Slate about the controversy here: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/08/koko_kanzi_and_ape_language_research_criticism_of_working_conditions_and.html/. It would provide all the information need to balance and fill out the information on Kanzi. KC 18:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra (talk • contribs)

Further info
But What Have You Done for Us Lately?: Some Recent Perspectives on Linguistic Nativism


 * For a while that appeared to spell the end of ape language studies, but recently there has been a flurry of excitement over a bonobo named Kanzi, trained by Susan Savage-Rumbaugh, who seems to understand a wide array of English language commands, and can produce sentences by using a touch-sensitive symbol board. In a recent experiment Kanzi was faced with 310 sentences of various types. There were (in order of frequency) action-object sentences (e.g. "Would you please carry the straw"), action-object-location sentences (e.g. "Put the tomato in the refrigerator") and action-object-recipient sentences (e.g., "Carry the cooler to Penny"). Of the 310 sentences tested, Kanzi got 298 correct. Savage-Rumbaugh concluded that Kanzi's sentence comprehension, "appears to be syntactically based in that he responds differently to the same word depending upon its function in the sentence." (cited in Wallman, 1992, p. 103). Wallman (1992) argues, however, that this conclusion is ill-founded. Almost all the sentences with which Kanzi was presented were pragmatically constrained so that the relationships between agent, action, and object are clear simply from a list of the nouns used in the sentence. (For instance, how likely is it that Kanzi would be asked to carry Penny to the cooler? Or put the refrigerator in the tomato?) With respect even to those sentences that were pragmatically ambiguous enough to require a syntactic analysis, one still must be cautious about rejecting the pragmatic account because the sentences were given in everyday (i.e., not experimentally well-controlled) situations over a three month period. Without knowing the contexts in which the sentences were presented, it is difficult to know what can be validly concluded about Kanzi's behavior. As to the matter of Kanzi's sentence production, similar doubts arise. According to Wallman (1992, p. 95) Kanzi's most frequent string consists of "only one lexigram in combination with one or more deictic gestures."


 * Consequently, Kanzi does not show evidence of the kinds of grammatical knowledge that would pose a serous threat to the Chomskyan view. In fact, as we shall see below, Kanzi's behavior is precisely what one would expect from an intelligent animal who is attempting to communicate, but does not have the grammatical resources normally available to human beings. What is truly fascinating about Kanzi's performance is its remarkable similarity to the behavior of human beings who, for one reason or another, have access to some basic linguistic vocabulary, but not to the structure of the language to which the vocabulary belongs.

Some of this might be mentioned somewhere in the article? - FrancisTyers 17:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that citing Wallman, a criminologist, is appropriate for the article. Despite the fact that he has published a book on the subject, this is not his area of expertise. He has a biased view and is interested primarily in maintaining the Chomskyan view that language is somehow "inherent" to one species only -- us.


 * Kanzi has demonstrated an understanding of sentences requiring syntactic analysis. For example, he can correctly interpret the pattern agent action object action recipient in the following sentences:
 * Make the dog bite the snake
 * Make the snake bite the dog
 * These examples are ambiguous enough to falsify Wallman's claim that "... the sentences with which Kanzi was presented were pragmatically constrained so that the relationships between agent, action, and object are clear simply from a list of the nouns used in the sentence."


 * Ape language research seeks to address a fundamental question of cultural evolution: Did a genetic predisposition favoring the development of language exist within the common ancestor of champanzees and man? Kanzi and other apes may provide a partial answer to this question. - Wilford Nusser 13:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Where has the following claim been published?  For example, he can correctly interpret the pattern agent action object action recipient in the following sentences Can you please give a reference. - FrancisTyers 21:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not definitive by any means, but we just watched a video in class where Kanzi was doing several actions. They didn't show the dog and the snake biting each other, but they did show "Kanzi, give the dog a shot" and "Kanzi, get the ball that's outside" (in which he had to ignore a ball that was inside). More pertinently, there was a dog and snake there (stuffed animals, that is); that makes me inclined to believe that they probably did ask for those two sentences. *Shrug*. Just thought I'd contribute. Domenic Denicola 15:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Multiple articles on great ape language
This article is one of at least 16 articles on Wikipedia primarily about the fascinating but controversial subject of Great ape language. These articles have been created independently and contain much interesting but uncoordinated information, varying levels of NPOV, and differences in categorization, stubbing, and references. Those of us working on them should explore better coordinating our efforts so as to share the best we have created and avoid unnecessary duplication. I have somewhat arbitrarily put the list of 16 articles on Talk:Great ape language and would encourage us to informally coordinate efforts there. Martinp 18:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Photograph needed
A photo of Kanzi would be good for this article. Das Baz 16:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguity: little interest
As an infant, Kanzi accompanied his mother to sessions where she was taught language through keyboard lexigrams, but showed little interest in the lessons.There is some ambiguity there: who did show “little interest in the lessons”? Matata or Kanzi? I would say Matata, since Kanzi leanrt so much, but Kanzi is a possibility too: he learnt very fast and after just fot bored? So, who showed little interest? David Latapie (✒ | @) 01:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the wiley Kanzi pretended to show little interest, while really taking in more than he let on.Das Baz 18:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

'''Kanzi would play nearby while Matata would have her lession. Matata participated with interest in what was going on while Kanzi bounced around the room.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnJohnson (talk • contribs) 16:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As alpha male, Kanzi is not the "undisputed leader" of the group
I just watched an OPB special on bonobos, and was interested to learn they are a completely female led species. There may still be an alpha male (they didn't mention), but he would still be subordinate to the alpha female. This link is to a biopage for Kanzi's mother on the Great Ape Trust's website (GAT being the research center where Kanzi and his family live), and states in the very first sentence that she is the uncontested dominant member of their group.

Anyways, I'm not a member, and I'm not going to deal with figuring out how to edit or anything, but if someone out there wants to fix this for the sake of science, please do. And please forgive me if I do something wrong in signing or posting this; I've never done this before.

71.34.75.211 09:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I have made the correction based on your observation. Thank you, and keep up the good work. Erudil 17:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

A slanted article
This article abounds with an inappropriately enthusiastic, commendatory tone toward its subject. Additionally, several scholars dispute Savage-Rumbaugh's findings that Kanzi is linguistically skilled; S-R's opponents find that Kanzi is a well-trained animal, but that we cannot prove her linguistic comprehension. The Sue Savage-Rumbaugh article mentions Steven Pinker as a critic, but I believe several more exist. I have already begun to tone down some of the POV statements.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 08:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

These critics are just knee-jerk negativists who have never met Kanzi and don't know what they are talking about. Erudil 17:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Kanzi is a male, so when you talk about "her" linguistic abilities, you show a lack of grasp of the subject. Erudil 17:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What's the problem? Kanzi perceives a word and responds appropriately. That's no different to what happens with humans. 86.42.248.180 (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Smithsonian source incorrect
The article cites Raffaele, Paul (2006), "The Smart and Swinging Bonobo" but this is not the article Raffaele wrote about Kanzi (Kanzi is not even mentioned). In fact Raffaele wrote two articles about Bonobos and the one that should be cited is "Speaking Bonobo" (link below)

http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2006/november/speakingbonobo.php

68.101.79.58 00:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Rather than delete the first article, I clarified that it's a general article about Bonobos. I added the article that discusses Kanzi to the External Links section. TimidGuy 11:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Appearance
Does it really matter what he looks like? 66.117.221.211 (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to matter to the editor who insisted on its inclusion. But it was indeed odd the way it was highlighted with a major heading. I've integrated it into to biography section, making it less conspicuous. TimidGuy (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Kanzi the Fire-Maker ???
The article gives this example of Kanzi's behaviour :

"In an outing in the Georgia woods, Kanzi touched the symbols for "marshmallows" and "fire." "Given matches and marshmallows, Kanzi snapped twigs for a fire, lit them with the matches and toasted the marshmallows on a stick."[5]".

There is no evidence to support this claim. The reference [5] is to the interview in which Savage-Rumbaugh makes the claim. There is no corroboration.

Negative evidence is as follows:

1. I can't find any evidence of any animal deliberately creating and maintaining a fire. 2. I can't find any evidence of any animal deliberately cooking food. 3. If Kanzi could do these things, it would be a matter of minutes to film him doing so and you-tubing the result. No such film exists.

In the circumstances, I would suggest amending the article so that it reads :

"In an outing in the Georgia woods, Kanzi touched the symbols for "marshmallows" and "fire." Sue Savage-Rumbaugh alleges that "Given matches and marshmallows, Kanzi snapped twigs for a fire, lit them with the matches and toasted the marshmallows on a stick."[5]".

Gnu Ordure (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion to attribute it like that. We can't use the word "allege," though, per the guideline on words to avoid. I'll make the change but use "said." TimidGuy (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ask, and ye shall recieve. Here is a video showing Kanzi lighting a fire (with a lighter, not matches) and toasting marshmallows: http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_savage_rumbaugh_on_apes_that_write.html#

Thanks, didn't know that one. So let me share this one with Kanzi making fire: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZX4kkEgoMk Looks like this video is younger. Demoiselle Clarisse (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It was in a more recent version on the BBC series ' Monkey Planet' which of course is one fo the most credible TV channels in the world. I believe that some people are now saying that its a man in a monkey suit - personally can't see the Professor concerned conspiring with the BBC and people at Yerkes to perpetrate a hoax but then we are dealing in part with people who'll believe that Sandy Hook was faked etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.88.43 (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Sue Savage-Rumbaugh understands bonobo vocalizations ??
Hi TimidGuy.

With regard to my previous point, I'm happy with your judgment, and your edit. I admit I didn't know that 'allege' was to be avoided, but 'said' is OK by me.

I have further points with regard to Kanzi.

If it's OK with you, I'll present them one at a time.

The next example of Kanzi's behaviour in the main article is (my bolding) :

Paul Raffaele, at Savage-Rumbaugh's request, performed a Maori War Dance for the Bonobos. This dance includes thigh-slapping, chest-thumping, and hollering. Almost all the bonobos present interpreted this as an aggressive display, and reacted with loud screams, tooth-baring, and pounding the walls and floor. All but Kanzi, who remained perfectly calm, and conveyed in Bonobo language (interpreted by Savage-Rumbaugh to Raffaele) that he knew that no threat was meant, but that the performance should be apart from the other bonobos so as not to upset them. So a private performance in another room was successfully, peacefully and happily carried out.[5]

TimidGuy, earlier this evening I explained on another forum what the problem is with this. If you don't mind, I'll paste that here, and it should make sense (added bolding):

Here's another extraordinary claim. Bear in mind that in the wild, bonobos communicate vocally, but (according to wiki) "the meanings of their vocalizations are not currently known".

A reporter visited one time, and (rather inadvisedly, in my view) decided to perform the Maori war-dance, the Haka, in front of a cage full of bonobos. All the bonobos except Kanzi responded to the aggressive display of shouting, foot-stomping and tongue-waggling by going ape-s**t (sorry).

Kanzi sat there calmly, and indicated to S S-R to approach him. When she did, he "let loose with a stream of squeaks and squeals".

So far, so good.

The reporter and S S-R left the room, walked through the complex to another smaller room, where they found Kanzi waiting for them. Kanzi recognized the reporter, and did a little imitation of the dance. The reporter repeated his dance.

OK. Let's accept all that as fact.

The question is, what did Kanzi say to S S-R ?

Notice that the sequence of events as I've just described doesn't require him to say anything in particular. After he spoke, the people left the room, and he went to the small room to meet them. I have no problem with Kanzi then recognizing the reporter, nor in copying him.

Maybe he said "I want banana". Maybe he asked for a tickle. He could have said anything. Who knows ? People don't understand bonobo vocalizations.

Oh wait. '''Apparently S S-R does.

Alone of all the scientists in the world, S S-R has deciphered Bonobo vocalizations and can translate them.'''

And according to her:

Quote "Kanzi says he knows you're not threatening them," Savage-Rumbaugh said to me," and he'd like you to do it again just for him, in a room out back, so the others won't get upset.”

Oh really ?

He said that, huh ?

He made that complex statement in bonobo squeals and grunts, which only S S-R understands ?

I don't think so.

TimidGuy, I don't seem to be able to break up that block-quote ie I wrote all that with paragraphs and gaps, but they've disappeared, sorry. I've added some bolding, to make it clearer.

The basic point is that scientists don't yet understand bonobo vocalizations, yet S S-R claims she does. And there's no supporting evidence.

The orginal quote is

All but Kanzi, who remained perfectly calm, and conveyed in Bonobo language (interpreted by Savage-Rumbaugh to Raffaele) that he knew that no threat was meant, but that the performance should be apart from the other bonobos so as not to upset them.

In the circumstances, I suggest this be amended to read :

All but Kanzi, who remained perfectly calm; he then communicated with S S-R using bonobo vocalizations; S S-R understood this communication to mean that Kanzi knew that no threat was meant, but that the performance should be apart from the other bonobos so as not to upset them.

(By the way, TG, I'm new at this - I hope I'm following the wiki guidelines, but they are somewhat complex. Please advise if I'm out of order in some way).

Gnu Ordure (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please go ahead and make this change. I just glanced at the source and whoever added these points from the Smithsonian article didn't accurately represent what the source said. Feel free to rewrite these points so that they more accurately reflect the source. What's the extent of your interest in this article? It could certainly be more fully developed, and ideally be more grounded in the scholarly literature. TimidGuy (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Timid Guy. I'm not sure about the inaccurate representation you refer to. We have the article as above ("All but Kanzi..." etc). The Smithsonian article reads : "''she invited me to perform a Maori war dance. I beat my chest, slapped my thighs and hollered. The bonobos sat quiet and motionless for a few seconds, then all but Kanzi snapped into a frenzy, the noise deafening as they screamed, bared their teeth and pounded on the walls and floor of their enclosure. Still calm, Kanzi waved an arm at Savage-Rumbaugh, as if asking her to come closer, then let loose with a stream of squeaks and squeals."Kanzi says he knows you're not threatening them," Savage-Rumbaugh said to me," and he'd like you to do it again just for him, in a room out back, so the others won't get upset.”

''I’m skeptical, but I follow the researcher through the complex, out of Kanzi's sight. I find him, all alone, standing behind protective bars. Seeing me, he slapped his chest and thighs, mimicking my war dance, as if inviting me to perform an encore. I obliged, of course, and Kanzi joined in with gusto.

So to me, the wiki article seems a fair summary of what Raffaele reported. The problem is that S S-R's claim to understand bonobo vocalizations in this example is merely that - a claim. There is nothing to support it, and it contradicts the consensus that (according to wiki elsewhere) the meanings of their vocalizations are not currently known.

In other words, her claim is absurd. Personally, I don't think absurd claims have a place in an encyclopedia at all, but I'm happy to edit the article so that the claim is no longer presented as fact. Gnu Ordure (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * With the original quote, I think it is reasonable to assume that the gestures were the key part. Presumably, S S-R is "well-acquainted" enough with Kanzi to associate the "tone" of his screeching with moods, thus deducing from them that he was not angered by the haka; and combined with his beckoning and pointing gestures she thought she could deduce what she thought Kanzi meant. Whether that interpretation was correct is up in the air, but that seems the most reasonable scenario. --90.34.108.204 (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Timid Guy, You asked about the extent of my interest in this article. I did study animal communication as part of my Psychology degree course many years ago, but I'm not involved in that field now. My current interest simply comes down to a discussion in a Forum about animals' abilities, where claims were made that I knew were exaggerated (I'm still interested in language, and I'm familiar with recent developments as expressed by people like Steven Pinker and Jared Diamond); I was disconcerted to find a number of these claims about animals repeated on Wiki, and presented as fact - especially the claims regarding Kanzi. So I'm interested in correcting these claims, in the interests of accuracy.

You mention that the article could be better supported by "the scholarly literature". The problem is that none of the five examples of Kanzi's behaviour are supported by scientific papers - they're supported only by a magazine interview - and they all need correcting. Shall I continue to do so ?

I don't have the expertise to re-write the article - all I can do is point out where verification is missing. Maybe someone else can then provide it. Gnu Ordure (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * According to Wikipedia guidelines, this interview likely qualifies as a reliable source, but only in the sense that it's a major national popular science magazine. If someone were to insist that this source be used, it wouldn't be easy to override that. But since it's just the two of us, I'd vote for adding some information summarizing some of the reports in the scholarly literature and deleting or greatly condensing the points from the interview. But I wouldn't have the time to look up the scholarly articles. Would you by any chance be able to? TimidGuy (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that seems odd to me, TG. In this instance, the wiki article claims that S-R understands bonobo language. The Smithsonian reference supplied merely confirms (reliably) that S-R does indeed claim this. But there's no evidence to support the claim itself. This is science, after all. If an extraordinary claim is made, there should be some evidence to back it up, preferably in a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Otherwise it's useless.

As for scholarly literature about Kanzi, I have looked, but I can't find any - though to be honest I'm not sure where to look, except for PubMed, which drew a blank. If you could suggest other places to search, I'll do so.

Meanwhile, I'm sticking to my original plan, and I'm going to address the next point in the article. Gnu Ordure (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Since this discussion happened, the public radio show RadioLab did a piece on Kanzi and his "speaking" skills. This piece explains how Kanzi talks and shows that it is not just S-S-R who understands his vocalizations, but all staff that work with Kanzi. In case you guys are interested in working this into the Wiki article, here's the link to the piece: http://www.radiolab.org/2010/feb/19/kanzi/ - Anon, July 9, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.99.30.174 (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The 'unknown language' experiment...
The article says :

"Sue Savage-Rumbaugh has observed Kanzi in communication to his sister. In this experiment, Kanzi was kept in a separate room of the Great Ape Project and shown some yogurt. Kanzi started vocalizing the word "yogurt" in an unknown "language"; his sister, who could not see the yogurt, then pointed to the lexigram for yogurt.[5] ".

Now in this case, TG, there is a clear misrepresentation of the source, which reads :

"In one experiment she described to me, she placed Kanzi and Panbanisha, his sister, in separate rooms where they could hear but not see each other. Through lexigrams, Savage-Rumbaugh explained to Kanzi that he would be given yogurt. He was then asked to communicate this information to Panbanisha."Kanzi vocalized, then Panbanisha vocalized in return and selected ‘yogurt’ on the keyboard in front of her,"Savage-Rumbaugh tells me."

These accounts are substantially different, as you can see.

In the source, S-R explains to Kanzi. through lexigrams, that he 'would be given' yogurt - in the article, he is 'shown' the yogurt.

In the source, Kanzi is asked to tell Panbanisha that he would be given yogurt, in the article he isn't.

In the source, Kanzi simply vocalizes; in the article, he vocalizes in an "unknown 'language'".

Why is the wiki article simplified in this way ? Because the claims in the source are incredible. As far as I know, lexigrams do not include words such as 'would', so S-R can't tell Kanzi that he 'would' be given yogurt. Secondly, Kanzi is supposed to understand 3000 spoken English words (that's according to the wiki bonobo article, which references (guess what) the same Raffaele article we're talking about), so why does S-R need to use the lexigram at all ?

More importantly, both the article and the source refer to this 'experiment'. It would be nice to know the details of this experiment, which might describe how many objects Kanzi was shown, how often he vocalized, and how many times Panbanisha responded with accuracy, and so on.

I can't find this experiment. Tonight I contacted the Great Ape Trust, where S-R works with Kanzi, and asked for the reference. I'll let you know what they say. I'll leave off amending the article in the meantime. Gnu Ordure (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being willing to follow up on finding references. Google Scholar might be a place to start. It will really be great if we can upgrade this article. I'm glad you're giving it attention. TimidGuy (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, TG. Thanks for the link. I'm happy to pursue this (if only to teach myself how to use PubMed and Scholar). I was wrong about the absence of scholarly literature, by the way, there are published papers out there, but most journals seem to require payment for access to the full text, which is somewhat prohibitive. Gnu Ordure (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have access to a library, you could likely get them for free. Thanks for pursuing this. TimidGuy (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Biography"?
It's anthropomirphizing to label the discussion of Kanzi as a "Biography." Much better would be "Life." KC 19:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra (talk • contribs)

Anecdotes and serious research
The section "Examples of Kanzi's behavior" begins "The following are highly suggestive anecdotes, not experimental demonstrations." This is probably fair enough as a description of most of the examples given, but not for the paragraph about Dr Nick Toth's successful attempt to teach Kanzi how to make stone tools. As the footnote shows, that was a research project whose results were published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Archaeological Science — more than an "anecdote", surely?

Another study which might be mentioned — published in 1993 in the journal Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development — compared Kanzi (at age 8) with a two-year-old human child called Alia, in terms of their response to spoken requests. What I suggest — by all means let's keep that list of anecdotes, but move the bit about the tool-making study into a new list of journal-published research projects, which can also include the comparison of Kanzi and Alia. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kanzi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090809190717/http://kanzi.bvu.edu/ to http://kanzi.bvu.edu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

== Kanzi in recent years e. g. 2015 - 2020 and beyond

We are lacking current information about Kanzi e. g. is he alive, where is he, anyone still visiting him?

This is, imo, important for future generations too since it affects treatment of clever animals such as Kanzi and others. I do not think anyone can dispute that he is very clever. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:0:0:0:1 (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent news
There have not been quite many updates to the main article since ~2015 or so. Is there nobody able to provide more information? Evidently Kanzi is slowly getting fairly old by now, so who knows how long he will be alive. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Current Status?
There isn't anything in this article about Kanzi's status in 2020. I heard something about Dr. Sue Savage-Rumbaugh being fired and the project discontinued, but I haven't added anything because finding information on this subject that isn't outdated is difficult.
 * ❌ As per decline reason. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Kanzi is currently in a different facility called ape initiative. experiments with him have not been discontinued. Human545 (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)