|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4628 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Jon writes: With a lexicon of 100 words, and nothing else, a creature can only express 100 different concepts/ideas/etc. Would you say a human could speak if he could only express 100 different ideas? Where I work many of the clients have varying abilities to speak. I can think of many that have a vocabulary of less than ten words. If they say "no" and don't want whatever I am offering - what do I call this? With a vocabulary of even less than an African Grey and less able to convey any complexities of speech, what should it be defined as if not speech? These people are not two year olds who will "get better", but I have never questioned that what they do is speech.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Jon responds to me:
quote: Yes. I am capable of language and can understand writing. Shall I turn the question back to you?
quote: Who said there was "nothing else"? That's what you're trying to claim. We have evidence that there is something else because Alex (and Koko and all those other animals we've been studying) have been doing exactly what we would call "speech" if those actions were being carried out by humans. So if it's speech when a human does it, why is it something else when a non-human does it?
quote: Ah, ah, ah...such langauge will get you banned. [Note to admins: I'm a big boy. I can handle this.] I see: Disagreeing with you is indicative of idiocy. Despite the fact that we have researchers who have literally spent their lives on this, you know more than they do. I guess they're all a bunch of idiots, then. Here, help us out. I'll ask you the same question we've been asking IamJoseph: What is your definition of "speech"? So far, you've made a couple negative claims ("If you can't do X, then you can't do "speech") that the evidence shows Alex shows positive evidence of. Ergo, Alex must be capable of "speech."
quote: Did you or did you not harp on the fact that Alex can't respond to the plural inflection? You then indicated that this means Alex doesn't understand the grammar. And yet, Alex clearly understands the concept of number because he will respond to number. The fact that he doesn't have the capacity to deal with inflections doesn't mean he has no sense of grammar. Again, there are languages that don't use inflections to indicate plurality. They use an auxilliary term. And yet, children learning that language don't immediately start using that auxilliary term when referring to plurality. They haven't gotten that far. They use the base term for everything. By your logic, because they don't use the indicator of plurality, this means they don't have any grammar and thus are incapable of speech. So what is it they're doing? "Mimicry"?
quote: He did much more than that. If you tell the dog, "Fetch second nubbly ball," when presented with a field that contains multiple balls, some of which are nubbly and some of which are not, he's not going to be able to do it when you start mixing up the field. Alex, on the other hand, can. If you present him a field of round and square blocks, some big, some small, some blue, some green, some red, and ask him how many big, green cubes there are, he can tell you even if you mix up the field. If it were a simple stimulus-response, then the response to "How many big, green cube?" would always be the same. Instead, his answer varies depending upon what is actually presented in front of him.
quote: Not if I haven't made it to plurality yet. Surely you're not saying that grammar depends upon the existence of plurality, are you? You do know that there are some langauges that don't have a plural, yes? Are those who use such language not "speaking"? You are harping on the details of the grammar rather than grasping the concept of what a grammar does. Not all languages have the same grammar. In Chinese, which is a highly analytic language, word order is extremely important in determining meaning. Latin, on the other hand, is a highly synthetic langauge and word order isn't nearly as important. So long as each word is inflected correctly, you can string them together pretty much any way you want. English is in the middle. In English, if you are describing a balloon with regard to its color and size, you say, "The big, red balloon." It is not technically incorrect to say, "The red, big balloon," since your meaning hasn't changed by reversing the adjectival order, but there's something about that phrasing that is just off and you hardly ever hear anybody putting the color adjective before the size adjective in English unless they're trying to make a point. So seeing as how we all agree there are languages that have different grammars, why are you harping on the fact that Alex hasn't grasped plurality? Why can't we have a grammar that doesn't indicate plurality? Why does that single failure mean he is incapable of "speech"? What do you mean by "speech"?
quote: Do you truly not see the point? Since he is refusing to define his terms, insisting upon the distinction between "speech" and "language" is an attempt to get him to define what he means by "speech." He is so adamant on refusing to define what he is talking about that I seriously wonder if he thinks sign isn't an actual langauge. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
If they say "no" and don't want whatever I am offering - what do I call this? Response to a stimulus.
I can think of many that have a vocabulary of less than ten words. Do they also have grammar?
These people are not two year olds who will "get better", but I have never questioned that what they do is speech. What do you define as 'speech'? Jon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Jon responds to Vacate:
quote:quote: And if the answer is yes, what then? What is the magic number of words needed in order for it to be called "speech"?
quote: Nice try, but that's our question to you. Since what Alex is doing is identical to what we define in humans as "speech," you're going to have to define why it isn't. While you're at it, please explain why the linguists have it wrong when they describe what Alex was doing as "speech." Everyone agrees it isn't very sophisticated. But surely sophistication isn't the defining characteristic, is it? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
(and Koko and all those other animals we've been studying) We are talking about the damn bird. The capacity for language in other creatures does not indicate the bird's capacity.
Who said there was "nothing else"? I did, when I gave the hypothetical scenario:
quote: To which you replied: 'Yes...' Whether there is 'nothing else' or 'something else' present in that bird is irrelevant at this point, because you have claimed that even if there is just a random storage of words and their meaning you think it indicative of language, which prompted this:
quote: Which I stand by fully. If you think someone who's memorised Webster's front to back and nothing else”grammar, inflections, syntax, etc.”can be said to possess 'language', then you rightly are an idiot.
If you tell the dog, "Fetch second nubbly ball," when presented with a field that contains multiple balls, some of which are nubbly and some of which are not, he's not going to be able to do it when you start mixing up the field. Sure, because people who play fetch with their dogs always make sure to throw the items in the exact place, each time... That parrot possesses no greater capacity for language than the dog; his only 'advantage'”if we dare call it that”is that he has the physical features required to actually say the words.
So far, you've made a couple negative claims ("If you can't do X, then you can't do "speech") that the evidence shows Alex shows positive evidence of. You have yet to show his positive evidence of understanding grammar. That the trainer in the video does not inflect 'block' should be evidence that she is just trying to fool people, because she knows in reality that her bird doesn't know grammar, and so doesn't possess language.
And yet, Alex clearly understands the concept of number because he will respond to number. The fact that he doesn't have the capacity to deal with inflections doesn't mean he has no sense of grammar. Again, there are languages that don't use inflections to indicate plurality. They use an auxilliary term. Sure... the auxiliary term is part of the grammar, and had the bird been trained in another language, the trainer would have dropped the auxiliary because if she included it, she knows that the bird will get confused and just ask for his water. Why? Because the bird doesn't have grammar.
And yet, children learning that language don't immediately start using that auxilliary term when referring to plurality. Again, you can communicate with the child using proper grammar, which shows that:
quote: Not all languages have the same grammar. Of course not; but they all have a grammar of some kind, else they are not languages.
why are you harping on the fact that Alex hasn't grasped plurality? Because, plurality is part of the grammar of English, the language the trainers are using to communicate with the bird. And, the bird has not been taught in any other language using any other grammar, as far as we know. As it is, there's no indication that the bird understands grammar, and so concluding that 'he can, but it's not like our grammar' is wishful thinking in the least, and at most”here's that word again (actually, a morphology of it)”plain and simple idiocy. If the bird is able to understand grammar, then why was it not taught to him? Simple: he isn't able to understand grammar. Why? Because he's a bird. Besides, most people are not taught their grammar; they acquire it simply through being with other people who speak a language using a particular grammar. That the bird has not been taught grammar, nor has acquired it through being in the presence of his trainers is rather conclusive evidence that he lacks the capacity to understand grammar. Lacking the capacity to understand grammar means that he lacks the capacity for language, no matter how complex his sound repetitions are, no matter how complex the stimuli are to which he is responding”he has no language.
Do you truly not see the point? Since he is refusing to define his terms, insisting upon the distinction between "speech" and "language" is an attempt to get him to define what he means by "speech." Irrelevant. You yourself have used them as synonyms in this very post. For the purpose of this argument, 'speech' and 'language' are the same thing. Making sounds is not language(/speech), even if they sound like words. Jon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
You already used 'speech' and 'language' synonymously, so I am going to assume that you are doing so here as well... in which case:
What is the magic number of words needed in order for it to be called "[language]"? It's not about the number of words. Please read what I am writing. It is about having words, and having a grammar governing the use of those words. You need (lexicon + grammar = language). You're shifting off-topic, though. The bird has enough words to qualify, so it's irrelevant to squabble over how many words are needed”we can both agree that the bird qualifies in the size of his lexicon. Where the bird loses the battle, though, is in not having a grammar. (lexicon + [nothing else] != language). I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is.
While you're at it, please explain why the linguists have it wrong when they describe what Alex was doing as "[language]." Shit, man... what passes as a 'linguist' these days? No one I'd consider to be a linguist of any standing would make a crack-pot judgement like that. Jon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4628 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
quote: Jon writes: Response to a stimulus. Its not the same as if I make a face and they laugh. Is it also 'response to a stimulus' if they say "pie" and refuse to eat any other desert?
Do they also have grammar? The one in question certainly doesn't - He only says "pie".
What do you define as 'speech'? I am not really sure. This definition works for me - The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words only I would also add sign language. I would suggest that what differs from mimicing is the ability to construct. Saying "Pretty bird" is simply mimicing, counting blocks and constructing a grouping of words to express this would be speech.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
When the tester gives him some water, he doesn't drink it. Clearly he didn't want water, and clearly he had no idea what the meaning was ... How do you draw this conclusion? Clearly Alex knew that asking for water would give him a distraction from the testing. Clearly the tester knew this was a tactic he often used.
I do not see this as anything significant. Your choice mate. You can ask 1 year old children these questions and not get the answers that Alex gives. Is that significant? Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Word repetition is not the only aspect of language; nor is a simple lexicon. With a lexicon of 100 words, and nothing else, a creature can only express 100 different concepts/ideas/etc. Would you say a human could speak if he could only express 100 different ideas? No. But you are confusing the use of single words with only being able to comprehend single words\ideas. Clearly the answer to "what color bigger" and "what shape bigger" getting the proper answers is not just word repetition but comprehension of the question and what the proper answer is. There are more than single ideas in these questions and the answers are not just {A} or {B} possibilities.
Because grammar is a key component of language, then it follows that the bird has no understanding or grasp on language. The child clearly understands the grammar, even if he/she is not able to repeat it properly at that age. And Alex clearly understands the grammar of the questions in order to give the right answers. If you claim this applies to the human child and not to Alex then you are using special the pleading logical fallacy. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
He responded to a simple stimulus, much like a dog when you say 'fetch ball'. Again, the fact that she didn't say 'blocks' shows the bird's inability to understand grammar. The bird does not see 'blocks' as a mere morphology of 'block', and so deduce they are relevant to the same thing. The tray has green blocks, blue blocks, green cars and blue cars on it. This was the first time this type question was asked of Alex, and he answered the question "how many green block" correctly. What part of understanding the grammar, the context, the meaning of the question do you not understand? You said with "only 100 words" that "only 100 ideas" could be understood. Obviously the correct answer to this question is not such a simple idea as a single word.
Where did I specify that a particular grammar was required? You said any grammar. Don't equivocate now.
I might be wrong, but I have a feeling that IaJ was using them as being synonymous. Though I disagree with him here, it'd be better to simply argue within his definitions rather than trying to argue him on semantics. What definitions? The ones where he says human speech is speech by humans? Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I don't think so.
quote: Also, "Broca's Area" has not relevence to speech datings. What is actually going on is you don't read what is posted in reply to you. You whip off junk without thinking and you never support your assertions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
All under 6000:
quote: Of coz, the above, and all that sort of descriptions, are not evidences of speech, but that's there is: theories and specs about anatomy. Civilizations which have no back-up of datings or follow-up continuation. Speech is the most important factor in established humanity's origins - as opposed skeletal finds. Proof of speech is what speech derives - names, dialogues depicting an evidential, historical factor which represents established communites of civilization, as well as specificality recallted of names, kings, wars, events - in an elevating thread of grads. It does not exist. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
To graduate from the current brick wall, the next step is to assume speech is a unique human attribute, a difference in kind than degree, not a result of the given thread of evolution, not prevalent for 100s of 1000s of years, and thus not part of the communication modes of all other life forms: what consequences can be derived from it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Show me that he has understood the grammar, and I will believe you. So, far, you've all failed to show that the bird understands grammar. Showing that he 'knows what it means' is a far different thing. As far as we know (and this is more likely), he's merely passing the items through two mental filters... one for 'green', then re-running the filter for 'block'. That is nothing more than most dogs can do.
Clearly Alex knew that asking for water would give him a distraction from the testing. Is that what you'd say of a dog who rolls over when given the command to 'sit'?
And Alex clearly understands the grammar of the questions in order to give the right answers. One of the base components of the English grammar is plural inflection. He was not shown to understand plural inflection. He was also not shown to understand the significance of word order, because they failed to test him with nonsensical word orders. They have, therefore, failed to give any evidence that he comprehends grammar. Will you please show me how what the bird is doing is any different than what a dog can do? Will you present evidence of the presence of an understanding of grammar in this bird? Jon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
All under 6000: Whoops - you didn't read the article did you?
quote:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024