|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
This bird doesn't speak a language in the same sense (or even close) to the way humans can.
First, at about 45 seconds in, the bird asks for water with '[I] want some water' 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 of what he said. The tester passes it off as him being silly, but she's just got her hopes up. She also does not inflect the word 'block', showing that the bird has not grasped one of the most fundamental components of language: grammar. I do not see this as anything significant. Jon In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Nobody is saying otherwise. Just because something is different in scope doesn't mean it is different in kind. We all agree that humans have very complex linguistic skills. That doesn't mean no other animal has them. Where did I say that no other animal had them?
I point out that children do the exact same thing that Alex does. Would you say that children aren't "speaking" at that point? 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. There is also need of a grammar, or rather, a set of rules that govern how the words relate. With the set number of grammar rules, and the set number of words, a creature should be able to represent an infinite number of concepts/ideas/etc.”linguistic creativity”that's language. The bird just mumbles out sounds that are either completely random or simple responses to stimuli... and some knob recorded it all in order to get people going 'ooo... ahhh'.
And neither does a two-year-old. Does that mean the child isn't "speaking"? But a child will understand 'blocks' and 'block' as being morphologies of the same thing. The bird clearly wasn't able to understand that 'blocks' was an inflection of 'block', else the woman should've just spoken normal English. No, she had to say 'block' instead because the bird did not understand the grammar. Why did the bird not understand the grammar? Because the bird is incapable of understanding grammar. 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.
So how do you explain Koko discussing her feelings about the death of her kitten, Ball? Who? What? Unless Koko's a bird, I don't see how that's even relevant. In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Do you have any idea what you're talking about, and did you bother reading anything I wrote?
Now, that's not true and you know it. That's the point behind language: It allows you to combine the terms into things that are more than the sum of their parts. How do you combine them if you have a lexicon and 'nothing else'?
quote: Yes, I would. My apologies, but if that is the case, then you are an idiot.
Surely we're not going to say that the child hasn't learned how to speak until learning the irregular inflection, are we? It isn't the same grammar, but it is a grammar nonetheless. Where did I specify that a particular grammar was required?
When presented with a complex field and asked to count how many of a specific type requiring recognition of multiple characteristics simultaneously, he was able to correctly respond. 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. If we want the bird to understand 'blocks', we'd have to teach it to him as a separate word, which would have a separate meaning to him. In a true language, 'block' is a word that is altered via the rules of grammar to form 'blocks', and so once we learn the rule, we can make plural a myriad of nouns. If I gave you the word: 'kloomp', and told you it was a noun, you could tell me its plural, because you understand the grammar. If we did the same with the bird, he'd ask for his water.
Don't confuse "speech" with "language." The two are not the same. 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. Jon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Thank you, Modulous. I find it interesting that the proponent for 'animal language' in the source you've given, Dr. Griffin, says:
quote: I fail to see, in anything shown or demonstrated by that bird, that he was expressing 'his conscious thoughts and feelings.' Someone from the pro-'birds grasp language' side of the camp really ought to point out an instance where this occurs. Jon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
All speech is a response to stimuli. No, my friend, I'm afraid you are greatly mistaken.
The question remains: Is there a fundamental difference between the way humans respond to stimuli and the way some animals respond to stimuli? Yes, there is. Human”and other 'real'”language does not require a single stimulus.
If animals - and some people, e.g. children - respond in only a rote way, how is that a fundamental difference? Children, usually when old enough to form the words, have a grasp that can be generally considered language. By at least 5 or 6 they have the tools for 'linguistic creativity', a fundamental property of all 'real' languages. Here is 'linguistic creativity':
quote: I'm sorry, but your information on what 'language' is is highly outdated. That I can make up willy-nilly any sentence I want is proof of 'linguistic creativity' and severely dents your argument that 'language' is just response to stimuli. Phil likes sweet, warm, purplish-yellow shortcakes.Johnny dances nicely though he's got a guitar in his hands. Phil likes sweet, warm, purplish-yellow shortcakes, and Johnny dances nicely though he's got a guitar in his hands, which is big enough to be used by a man twice Johnny's size and thrice Phil's size... I can continue this ad infinitum, and I require no stimulus. Certainly, there's no guitar around, no shortcakes, no man named Phil, no one dancing... etc. I think the average atheist also demonstrates this idea when they invent animals that they've never seen before, like 'purple crooked-toed unicorns...'. True, real, actual language is such that you can have a finite grammar, a finite lexicon, and produce an infinite array of sentences representing an infinite array of ideas”stimulus or not. Not seen in the bird. Bird doesn't have language. Jon__________ An Introduction to Language 8 ed., Victoria Fromkin, Robert Rodman, Nina Hyams. pg 8 (2007).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
You need to know that (a) a question is being asked (what) (b) that it involves one of two (or more) specified item(s) (the bigger one) and (c) the answer being sought (color). That's grammar, is't it? No. Mere ability to give the trained stimuli response is not an indication that the bird has grasped grammar. Let me ask you; s'pose English used infixes in the direct objects that were taken by a particular verb, which served as the infix. Now, s'pose you taught your bird that 'key' = (what a key is) and that 'find' = (what find is) and got the bird when you said 'k-find-ey' to go get the 'key'. If you taught the bird what 'stick' was, do you think the bird would go get the stick when you said 'st-find-ick'? I'm quite convinced that neither bird nor dog would be able to pull this off. Why? Because they lack the ability to understand the grammar as a set of rules governing how the words in the lexicon can relate. Their ability only goes as far as single sound recognition, which is not language of itself.
quote: quote: Again, you're placing more significance on this than on what a dog can do simply because the bird is able to vocalise the sounds as a trained reaction to its particular stimuli. Now, you still need to answer my questions, or I suppose, you forgot about them?
quote: Jon__________ An Introduction to Language 8 ed., Victoria Fromkin, Robert Rodman, Nina Hyams. pg 8 (2007). A Thinking Bird or Just Another Birdbrain?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I'm sorry, but I have to agree with IaJ on this whole matter. What that bird does with its vocalisation and what a human does with language are things that are of a different kind.
As to whether that's evidence for special creation, well, I think you know where I'd stand on that issue. But, I'm nevertheless convinced that all of you have failed to show that what the bird does is anything more than response to stimuli. Even the bird's trainer doesn't agree with you that it's 'language'. I really think you all need to give the point a rest. Humans have language.Alex the pea-brained bird does not. Jon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
How do you expect me to reply to you when you keep making dumbass claims like:
All speech is response to stimuli. All language isn't a response to stimuli. Lot's of language is creative. Being creative is what makes it language as opposed to a response to stimuli.
Where do you draw the line? When does response to stimuli become "true" speech in children. Actually, I did answer that, and will do so again. 'Response to stimuli' becomes 'language' when it stops being 'response to stimuli'. Jon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what it is you are getting at.
A stroke of lightning can be termed as a stimuli - but it won't necessailly beget speech. Huh?
Here we see, one must look past the conduit - and the result affirms only a hovering control factor applies. Err... Also
Stimulus Stimulus = singularStimuli = plural Jon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
It is epochial, and the reason deliberated by so many forums and scientific papers today. I'm sorry, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any serious scientific papers that are meant to address 'taxonomy according to Genesis'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
All the linguists who worked with Alex say yes. If you aren't going to present this evidence, then this debate will not continue. The consensus by the linguistic community is that what the bird does is not language.
That they were not as sophisticated as an adult human's grammar and syntax merely shows a difference in degree, not kind. ... ...though it displays every example of what we would call such were it being spoken by a human. Explain to me how this isn't contradictory.
What part of recognizing a question isn't grammar? The part of recognising a question. There's no grammar. Not even the trainer thinks it's language.
So Alex cannot translate our grammar. Not the point. The bird doesn't have grammar. 'Block' and 'blocks' are as different to him as 'hello' and 'goodbye'. It's simple, really, he doesn't possess the brain parts required for grammar, and this is displayed in his lack of grammar.
quote: The bird does not recognise a 'body of rules' that can form 'all of the sentences that are permissible in a given language'. You have yet to demonstrate to the contrary, and you have yet to present your astonishing list of 'linguists' who agree with you. Until you can tell me how the bird's behaviour represents his understanding of grammar”merely responding to the stimuli doesn't constitute grammar”and can present the evidence by these 'linguists', I think your argument has no basis. If you don't present those, of course, I'm not going to waste my time discussing something with someone who can't even be bothered enough to bring forth his evidence. Jon
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024