An Interview with Virginia Morell

Acclaimed science writer Virginia Morell’s latest book Animal Wise: The Thoughts and Emotions of Our Fellow Creatures is being released this month by Crown Publishing. It’s about the inner worlds of animals, from ants and parrots to elephants and monkeys. Morell takes readers to field sites and labs around the world, introducing us to researchers and animals and exploring the moral and ethical dilemmas that arise when we learn that animals have cognitive abilities usually only attributed to humans.

Virginia Morell’s work always brings nature alive. She’s the author of three previous books. Ancestral Passions, her dramatic biography of the Leakey family was a New York Times Notable Book of the Year. Her Blue Nile, about her journey down the Blue Nile to Sudan, was a San Francisco Chronicle Best Travel Book. Wildlife Wars, which she co-authored with Richard Leakey in 2001, was named by The Washington Post as one of their Best Books of the Year.

She is also a contributing correspondent for Science, and has covered evolutionary and conservation biology since 1990. Morell is also a regular contributor to National Geographic and Conde Nast Traveler. In 2004, her National Geographic article on climate change was a finalist for Best Environmental Article from the Society of Environmental Journalists, and her National Geographic article “Animal Minds“, was selected for the Best American Science and Nature Writing 2009.

Morell lives in Ashland, Oregon, with her husband, writer Michael McRae, a Calico cat named Nini and a Farm Collie named Buckaroo.

EB: How did you become a science writer?

VM: As a child, I loved reading and spending time in nature. My parents were great outdoor enthusiasts, and as a family we spent many weekends and every summer vacation camping, hiking and exploring the mountains and deserts of the western states–and I was soon a devoted reader of field guides, learning all I could about wildlife, plants, and geology. I loved reading because I loved imagining myself as the characters in my books and being carried away by the words into their lives. And I loved watching birds and animals for much the same reason. Who were they? How did they live their lives? Did they have romances and adventures? They were elusive, flitting and flying away just as you inched closer. You had to be patient to see them and to learn their ways. I wrote short, imaginary tales about their lives, which everyone seemed to enjoy. And while these were fictional tales, they were my first efforts to explain the things in the world that I thought and cared about. I actually did not set out to become a science writer; as a child I didn’t realize there was such a career. I only discovered it in college. And then there was a sudden illumination: here was a way to combine all that I loved–reading, exploring the wild, meeting unusual, eccentric characters (human and animal), and sharing all of this through my tales.

EB: You’ve written about Africa’s natural treasures, about the Nile, and about the Leakey family. What brought you to the idea of animal minds?

VM: For my biography about the fossil-hunting Leakey family, I traveled to Tanzania to interview Jane Goodall in 1987 at Gombe Stream National Park, where she studies wild chimpanzees. (Louis Leakey had helped Jane launch this project.) While there, I joined Jane and her research assistants on their chimp-watching forays. So many of the chimpanzees’ behaviors, facial expressions, and gestures were similar to ours that I found myself slipping and calling them “people” when describing to other human-people what I’d witnessed. One chimpanzee also involved me in his political schemes; and with Jane’s assistance, a young chimp deceived her elder. (I tell both stories in ANIMAL WISE.) The chimpanzees were clearly thinking, as well as experiencing and expressing emotions—yet Jane could not say this about them. She had to use indirect expressions: “The young chimpanzee behaved ‘as if’ she were deceiving him.” There was a bias at the time against animals having minds, and being capable of thinking or feeling emotions, especially positive ones, such as love. That trip, my discussions with Jane about animal minds, and my own experiences with my dogs and cats led me to investigate the science of animal cognition.

In Ancestral Passions, my book about the Leakey family, I reviewed what was known about the physical evolution of humans. But what about our mental and emotional evolution? There isn’t an equivalent fossil record, but clues to the origins of these abilities can be found by studying other animals. Happily, in the years since my visit with Jane, many animal cognition scientists have adopted a more Darwinian perspective. They no longer ask “do animals think” or “do animals have emotions”. Instead, they’re investigating “how” animals think and feel. For ANIMAL WISE, I joined many of these researchers and the animals they study to find out what scientists know about the minds of our fellow creatures.

EB: I’ve seen videos of Alex the Parrot and his use of speech is really remarkable. Was he special or are other parrots capable of using language that effectively?

VM: Alex had remarkable vocal skills—not because he was special, but because a special human, Irene Pepperberg, spent innumerable hours teaching him how to imitate English words, or “labels” as Irene calls them. Many parrot species have the ability to imitate sounds because they are, like us, vocal-learners. That means they learn calls (or in Alex’s case, words) by listening to others call, and then imitating those sounds. For instance, you can tell me your name: “Ed.” I listen, and I can repeat it back to you, even if I’ve never heard that sound before, because I am a vocal-learner. Most other species, such as chimpanzees, dogs, and cats, are not vocal learners. They make sounds and calls (and these do have meanings), but they cannot imitate the calls of others because they lack the anatomy required for this skill. But parrots and humans aren’t the only vocal learners. Songbirds, hummingbirds, elephants, dolphins, many whales, and harbor seals all have this talent. Although these species are distantly related to each other, they share similar pathways in the brain that make it possible for them to learn and reproduce the sounds they hear.

EB: Is there an ethical component to animal minds? Apology? Regret? Shame?

VM: Many animal species, such as dogs, wolves, dolphins, primates, and rats, have rules that govern how to behave and how to treat others in their social group. They may not have apologies in the same way that we do; but they have ways to ask others for forgiveness if they transgress. Sometimes, this is expressed as submission (think of a dog rolling on his back and exposing his throat to a rival). A chimpanzee seeking forgiveness from another will grimace and extend her hand, palm-up—just as we do when begging.

It might seem difficult to ask if another animal feels regret, but Japanese scientists showed through a clever experiment in 2011 that Rhesus monkeys regret making poor choices. And to confirm their discovery, the researchers also recorded the neuronal activity of the monkeys during the test. Guess what? The regions of the brain that are known to be associated with memory and regret in humans were also activated in the “regretful” monkeys.

Darwin considered “shame” and “embarrassment” to be special emotions, found only in humans, and I don’t know of any studies that have convincingly shown these in other species. Guilt, however, is a different matter. Darwin observed that primates, dogs, and wolves all exhibit the types of behaviors that are associated with guilt: averting one’s gaze, and keeping one’s head down. Guilty behaviors help reinforce social bonds by reducing conflict and encouraging tolerance. Most dog owners think that their dogs feel guilty if they do something wrong. Scientists have devised clever tests for “dog guilt”—but the results so far are mixed. Maybe the best answer comes from one of the great observers of animal behavior, Konrad Lorenz, who wrote that we can “assume with certainty that the [dog’s guilty look] hides a guilty conscience.”

EB: Seems to me that people come to the issue of animal minds with preconceptions? Did you find that? Where do those preconceptions come from?

VM: When I mentioned to others that I was working on a book about how animals think, many responded with raised eyebrows and a smirk: “Oh, animals think?!” At first, I reacted defensively. But I came to realize that their response was simply what they had learned; what our society taught them, and still largely teaches. They were also afraid, I think, of being considered soft or sentimental. The idea that animals are little more than animated objects has been around for centuries, but it became central to western thought through the writings of the 17th century philosopher, Rene Descartes. He argued that the mind and body are two separate entities—the body is material, while the mind or soul is immaterial. Because animals are composed only of material substances, they lack minds or souls, and have no capacity for reason. Biologists, however, have shown that the mind is situated in the material brain—so the old Cartesian dualism is no longer valid. Yet for much of the 20th century, another group of scientists known as “strict animal behaviorists” argued that it’s impossible to know what other animals are thinking. We humans are highly empathetic beings, and so it is easy for us to assume that other animals are thinking or experiencing emotions identical to ours. But proving scientifically—through experiments and/or observations—what is actually going on in another animal’s mind is extremely difficult.

I think that because we use animals cruelly in so many ways many people prefer to regard them as things. It makes us feel less guilty. If humans in Africa were being slaughtered as elephants are these days, no one would stand by idly. But elephants are only animals.

EB: Do animals have humor? How does it work?

Yes, they do. Dogs, dolphins, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, crows, ravens, and parrots have all been observed behaving mischievously, and getting a kick out of it. One of my favorite examples—because it is so human-like—comes from Jane Goodall. On several occasions, she’s watched two young chimp siblings playing together; one chimp is usually a couple years older than the other, and just can’t resist teasing the kid. He’ll trail a vine around a tree—just out of reach of his younger brother. And every time, the little guy almost manages to grab the vine, the older one jerks it forward. After awhile, the little one starts to cry—while the older one erupts in laughter –exactly like human siblings. I’ve also read about a natural historian who had a dog and a parrot. The parrot liked to tease the dog. He would call the dog’s name and then whistle—just like the owner. The dog would run dutifully into the parrot’s room, and the parrot would laugh. Alex the Grey Parrot had a rather sarcastic sense of humor. When Irene Pepperberg didn’t give him a nut right away for a task he’d accomplished, he spelled it out for her: “Want a nut. Nnn, uh, tuh.” You could imagine him thinking, “Hey, stupid, do I have to spell it out for you?,” Irene said. Ravens get a kick out of pulling the tails of wolves; dolphins yank the tail feathers from unsuspecting pelicans; many dogs love to play keep-away. Our Buck gets a kick out of prancing around the house tossing some forbidden object—usually, the kitty litter pooper-scooper. Even rats, an animal you might not think of as having a sense of humor, surely must because they laugh. For ANIMAL WISE, I met Jaak Panksepp, the scientist who discovered laughter in rats by tickling them; they have “tickle skin” just as we humans do. Their laughs are too high-pitched for us to hear (you can hear them if you have a bat call detector), and they laugh when they wrestle and play-fight with each other, and when they’re tickled. Panksepp also discovered that the neural circuits for laughter exist in very ancient parts of the mammalian brain—which means that play and laughter were already present in animals long before we humans came along with our verbal jokes and repartee. As Panksepp said, “Although some still regard laughter as a uniquely human trait, honed in the Pleistocene, the joke’s on them.”

EB: Will your book cause people to reevaluate their relation with their pets?

VM: I can’t say if it will or won’t. But I hope readers will come away understanding that their dog, cat, guinea pig, goldfish, or parakeet has a mind—one that benefits from being challenged just as ours do. The dog cognition researcher, Adam Miklosi, told me, “A dog is not a lamp. It needs something to do; it needs to use its brain.” So, I hope readers will spend more time playing games with their pets, teaching them new tricks, walking and petting them, and just being with them. Engage with them—just as you would a friend you value.

EB: What authors have influenced you both as a reader and a science writer?

I expect that like many science writers, I’ve been deeply influenced by John McPhee. His books are models for explaining a field of science, and drawing readers to arcane subjects via the scientists. Evan Connell’s masterful “Son of the Morning Star” has also affected my writing. I’ve read and re-read his quick, painterly sketches of even minor characters—and would love to think I’m able to give readers somewhat similar vivid descriptions of the scientists I met for ANIMAL WISE. I’m also drawn as a reader and writer to Diane Ackerman, Jonathan Weiner, Annie Dillard, Gretel Ehrlich, Francis Parkman, Ian Frazier, and Charles Darwin (especially his “Voyage of the Beagle”).

EB: I almost hate to ask this, but do you have a next project?

VM: I have several book projects in mind, but haven’t settled on the next one yet.

Posted in Interviews | Comments Off on An Interview with Virginia Morell

Words of the World: A Global History of the Oxford English Dictionary

Sarah Ogilvie’s Words of the World: A Global History of the Oxford English Dictionary begins by describing her entry into the quiet world of the OED. She had come from of Australian branch of Oxford dictionaries, was a rare linguist among lexicographers, and quickly found herself fascinated by the OED archives, where she discovered some interesting facts about the OED editors. The early editors were not quite so fusty as many thought.

The question she focused on was this: how did the OED editors treat borrowed words? The simplified story that is often told is that the OED went from a tool of British empire-building to a repository of the world’s Englishes, evolving to preserve the flexibility and utility of English. It turns out that that story of progress is too simple. The early editors, especially Murray, Furnivall, and Onions, and were quite open to loan words (they essentially treated words used in an English context as English). And Robert Burchfield, editor of the OED supplement published in 1986, was not as inclusive as the reputation he cultivated. (In another context, John Updike has once referred to him as pleading the case of outcast words “like a left-wing lawyer”). Comparing the 1986 supplement to the 1933 supplement, Ogilvie found that the later supplement omitted many loanwords rather than marking them with as obsolete (with a dagger, naturally).

Was Burchfield making editorial choices (the words after all were still in the OED1) or lexicographic purging? It’s an open question but the press has sensationalized the story a bit, and Burchfield does seem to have overly hyped his own role. But, as Ogilvie makes clear, the story is really about the foresight of the early editors in deciding what a historical dictionary should do and how it should reach out to the English- speaking world.

Words of the World: A Global History of the Oxford English Dictionary is scholarly but readable and certainly changed the way I think of the OED.

Posted in Language, What People Are Reading | Comments Off on Words of the World: A Global History of the Oxford English Dictionary

The Story of Ain’t

David Skinner’s The Story of Ain’t ain’t just about ain’t. It’s the tale of the making of Webster’s Third International Dictionary, the wonderfully controversial flashpoint in the cultural wars between realists and snoots. I wondered what Skinner would add to the well-known (at least by linguists) story of Philip Gove and the cultural battle over scientific lexicography and to the tale told by Herbert Morton’s The Story of Webster’s Third: Philip Gove’s Controversial Dictionary and Its Critics.

Quote a lot, it turns out. Skinner tells the stories of the dictionary and the linguistic and business issues that informed its creation—the use of the IPA, the process outlined in Gove’s Black Book of dictionary-marking, the work-day at the Merriam-Webster office in Springfield (no talking), the initial public relations blunder about ain’t (it said “ain’t gets official recognition at last,” setting Webster’s III up to be about permissiveness rather than progress). Skinner describes the attempted buy-out by the American Heritage publishing company. And he tells the stories of not just Philip Gove and Dwight Macdonald but the presidents of Merriam and American Heritage (Gordon Gallan and James Parton), and the linguists and critics of the day (Leonard Bloomfield, Charles Fries, Sterling Leonard, James Sledd, Bergen Evans, and more). H. L. Mencken and David Foster Wallace even make appearances.

Skinner treats Gove and linguists of the day fairly, explaining their thinking and hinting at the difficulty of their position: describing the realities of language in a society that often wanted rules not facts. The detail research and explorations of the lives of the principals made this a compelling intellectual drama, and a tale with a moral, but not the one you might think.

Posted in Language, What People Are Reading | Comments Off on The Story of Ain’t

MY YEAR OF NEW WORDS, PART 5: SUFFIXES

Making up words requires suffixes—word endings. In English, there are two major types of suffixes. Some endings INFLECT nouns, verbs and adjectives, and adverbs to show their grammatical forms: plural, possessive, past tense, comparative, superlative. And some endings DERIVE new words from old, like –ify which makes a verb out of a noun or –ness which makes a noun out of an adjective or –y, which makes an adjective out of a noun (and which got quite a workout in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV series). As with prefixes, there are traffic rules. You can add –ness to clever, happy and sad but not intelligent, depressed and ecstatic. And we say curiousity or curiousness but verbosity rather than verboseness.

One suffix that’s puzzles me is –er. The vast majority of –er words are added to verbs to make them into one who ___s: teacher, farmer, professor (with the erudite variant –or). Lots of exceptions exist that involve implied or outright metaphor: lifer, looker, officer, lawyer, mother f***er. The –er words that are especially confusing to me are the words truther, birther, deather. And there’s a set of double –er compounds too: fixer upper, picker upper (check out early November for my attempt to add to this with breaker downer). I should have tried looker overer for the triple –er hat trick.

Some languages, by the way, use circumfixes and infixes too. English has a causative circumfixed em—–en, as in embolden or Homer Simpson’s embiggen. But we don’t use that technique much. And we have infixes for expressive purposes in polysyllables: like mathe-freakin-matics, or responsi-freakin-bitity.

Posted in Ideas and Opinions | Comments Off on MY YEAR OF NEW WORDS, PART 5: SUFFIXES