Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 151 of 268 (424934)
09-29-2007 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Jon
09-29-2007 2:37 AM


Re: Are you all just testing my response to your stimuli?
Jon writes:
quote:
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'.
You're misunderstanding (or avoiding) the question. I'm asking how you would literally make the distinction.
I'm asking you to design an experiment. You're on one side of the curtain amd somebody (or something) is on the other side. What specific questions would you ask to determine what that enitity was. How, specifically, would you interpret the answers to determine if they were "true speech" or just "response to stimuli"?
Assume that you can't identify the subject by way of accent, tone of voice, etc.
How would you distinguish, by words alone, between human and animal? Between mature human and immature human? Between human and machine?
Until you can demonstrate empirically how you would make the distinction, all you have is a schoolboy hypothesis.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 2:37 AM Jon has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 152 of 268 (424936)
09-29-2007 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by IamJoseph
09-29-2007 2:43 AM


IamJoseph writes:
quote:
(Isn't it ironic that your posts probably wouldn't pass the test for "speech"?)
I think whoever did not select the human kind from a list of all other life forms as possessing a unique factor would fail the test.
I'll remind you that you haven't told us yet what the test is.
Please post a list of questions that you would ask an unseen subject in order to determine whether that subject was human or non-human. Tell us how you would interpret the various anticipated responses to distinguish speech from non-speech.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by IamJoseph, posted 09-29-2007 2:43 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 153 of 268 (424937)
09-29-2007 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by IamJoseph
09-29-2007 6:11 AM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
Does it mean there's no H and O on Mars?
No.
Does it mean if H2O were put on Mars - life would result?
No.
Now if one says, the critical conditions are only present on earth, then there goes your adaptation, life from the inanimate, survival of the fittest, etc, etc.
I don't know what they are, so I can't tell you to which planets life is potentially limited to.
So...speech?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by IamJoseph, posted 09-29-2007 6:11 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 154 of 268 (424939)
09-29-2007 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Jon
09-29-2007 9:34 AM


comprehension, grammar, vocal communication and speech
And we were able to, out of a group of three objects of different materials and colours”pink wool, blue leather, green flannel”ask him 'what matpinkrial?', we should assume that he will say 'wool'. Now, we teach him a new colour: 'red'. We teach him ONLY that red is the colour that it is. We run the tests again, this time”pink wool, blue leather, red plastic”ask him 'what ----- ?' (you know what word goes in here, because you have grammar, to demonstrate that, I'm going to leave it blank). Will the bird recognise what you have said? That's the testing that must be done to show grammar.
That would be how he learned color. He didn't learn it independently for each type of item.
Thus understanding is not always dependent on the grammar and so just because he deciphers the meaning does not mean he has the grammar stored away in that little bird brain of his.
So you concede that he understands the meaning of the words. Dr. Pepperberg says that Alex has a simple syntax. Those put together make communication, speech that is more than rote mimicry.
Clearly, we do not use grammar to get meaning from 'block green' because the grammar isn't correct”i.e., it's missing”;
I get meaning from "block green" so I don't know what your problem is. Grammar is the way of connecting simple concepts into more complex concepts, and we can list them plain and simply:
block
green
three
wood
green block
three block
wood block
three green
wood green
three wood
three green block
three wood block
three wood green
green wood block
three green wood block
three green block has much more complex meaning than block
but more than that we have concepts that modify concepts
green block is modified so that "how many green block" is not a question of how many green or how many block.
Alex was tested for the first time with that combination of toys and answered that there are three green blocks.
Therefore, when grammar is NOT REQUIRED for there to be MEANING/UNDERSTANDING, showing that the bird understands (if you've even done that much), will NOT show his possession of grammar. To test this, we have to come up with instances in which meaning IS dependent on grammar, such as I've done above.
And the examples with the parrot do show that the answers meet the requirements of your test, as noted in the previous post regarding 'k-find-ey' and the like.
So, do you want to equivocate, move the goalposts, deny the obvious or admit reality?
We have this definition of speech in Message 1:
quote:
1. the faculty or power of speaking; oral communication; ability to express one's thoughts and emotions by speech sounds and gesture: Losing her speech made her feel isolated from humanity.
What part of that is missing in Alex?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 9:34 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 1:05 PM RAZD has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 268 (424949)
09-29-2007 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by RAZD
09-29-2007 11:37 AM


GRAMMAR + LEXICON = LANGUAGE
Grammar is the way of connecting simple concepts into more complex concepts
BZZ! Sorry, that's where you're wrong. Can I give it to you all again:
quote:
Dictionary.com
4.Generative Grammar. a device, as a body of rules, whose output is all of the sentences that are permissible in a given language, while excluding all those that are not permissible.
This is the definition used for language:
quote:
Dictionary.com
1.a body of words and the systems for their use common to a people who are of the same community or nation, the same geographical area, or the same cultural tradition...
Note... 'body of words' (lexicon/dictionary) + 'systems for their use' (rules/grammar) = LANGUAGE. This is the formula that I've been repeating to you all over and over and over and over and over again. Mere understanding of vocal cues does not = language. There must be the two parts.
GRAMMAR + LEXICON = LANGUAGE
We have this definition of speech in Message 1:
quote:
1. the faculty or power of speaking; oral communication; ability to express one's thoughts and emotions by speech sounds and gesture: Losing her speech made her feel isolated from humanity.
What part of that is missing in Alex?
All completely irrelevant. 'Speech' and 'language' have been used as synonyms throughout this thread. IaJ SAW the parrot making vocalisations similar to a humans”I don't think he will deny that the parrot has this faculty. When IaJ, and I might be wrong, talks about 'speech' in terms of its uniqueness to humanity, he is, I am ALMOST CERTAIN, talking about what most would call 'language'.
As far as we can tell in time, IaJ is right; language is perhaps the most unique of all features to humanity, and we've yet to find any creature other than ourselves capable of it. If you've been arguing against him using your definition, then I'm sorry to say, you've been fighting a strawman (put up by you in Msg 1) this entire time.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2007 11:37 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2007 10:57 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 268 (424973)
09-29-2007 7:34 PM


More Defining Moments:
Here are some quotes from the Wiki article on language.
quote:
A language is a system of symbols and the rules used to manipulate them.
quote:
Languages are not just sets of symbols. They also contain a grammar, or system of rules, used to manipulate the symbols.
From the Wiki Language Portal, more of the same:
quote:
A language is a system of symbols, generally known as lexemes, and the rules by which they are manipulated.
Other sources:
ABC.net.au: Page Not Found
quote:
In fact, the language ability of great apes seems not to go beyond the level of the two-year-old child, who has yet to learn to make proper grammatical sentences.
quote:
Grammar is something that emerges in human children between the ages of two and four, and probably depends on a programmed growth spurt in the left side of the brain. This event seems to be unique to humans.
quote:
Moreover, words are strung together not by simple association, but rather by the use of rules.
quote:
But Chomsky's point is that language is much more than just communication, and he argues that language itself is uniquely human.
More from Wiki on Great Ape Language
quote:
In the research involving Washoe, all researchers returned lists of signs Washoe used, with the exception of the one deaf native ASL user who reported no signs but many gestures.
Wiki on Alex
quote:
Some in the scientific community are highly skeptical of Pepperberg's findings, pointing to Alex's alleged use of language as operant conditioning.[3] Critics point to the case of Clever Hans, a horse who could apparently count, but who was actually taking subtle cues from his trainer.[2] In another case, Nim Chimpsky, a chimpanzee named after Noam Chomsky, was thought to be using language but later shown to have been imitating his teacher.[2] Dr. Herbert Terrace, who had worked with Nim Chimpsky, says he thinks Alex performed by rote rather than using language; he calls Alex's responses "a complex discriminative performance."[2]
All the studies point to language”what IaJ calls 'speech'”being something which no other creature has been observed to possess, whether naturally acquired or forcefully taught. Humans alone have been shown to have the capacity for langauge; language is a unique kind of communication only possessed by humans.
No one has provided any evidence to the contrary. No one has demonstrated that the bird has grammar. No one has addressed the points that the trainer doesn't call it 'language', that Noam Chomsky doesn't call it 'language', that Steven Pinker doesn't call it 'language'. The people who have worked with the bird and the people who have studied language all agree that Alex doesn't possess language. Why is this point so hard for you to grasp? Why is this point so hard for you to refute? Why is this point so hard for you to even address?!
All that, on top of the definitions that you've been unwilling to address/unable to refute. The examples that you haven't provided demonstrating grammar-dependent meaning in any of the tests. The list of linguists that was promised, but conveniently never produced. Etc. Your position is completely void of support. When will you give it up?
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by ringo, posted 09-29-2007 8:21 PM Jon has replied
 Message 173 by IamJoseph, posted 09-30-2007 4:54 AM Jon has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 157 of 268 (424981)
09-29-2007 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Jon
09-29-2007 7:34 PM


Re: More Defining Moments:
Jon writes:
When will you give it up?
When you explain to us, in detail, how you would distinguish between a speaker and a non-speaker - from communication alone, without foreknowledge if it was human or non-human.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 7:34 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 10:28 PM ringo has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 158 of 268 (424984)
09-29-2007 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Jon
09-29-2007 6:26 AM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
Jon responds to me:
quote:
You haven't shown that the bird understands.
Except that the bird understands the questions presented to him.
quote:
You haven't shown that understanding = grammar.
Except that the very comprehension of a question is indicative of grammar.
quote:
You haven't presented the list of linguists agreeing with you.
Because that's presumed from the people who were working with him. Have you not read their work in the first place? That's the starting point.
You're 0 for 3, friend.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 6:26 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 10:03 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 268 (424994)
09-29-2007 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Rrhain
09-29-2007 8:35 PM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
Read my other posts. They answer all your questions. Don't reply to me until you have read them, and do not reply to me except with issues pertaining to my more recent posts addressed at your arguments.
If you'd like, I'll link you to them, but most are linked to in the final sentence of message 156.
Because that's presumed from the people who were working with him. Have you not read their work in the first place?
Clearly you are the one who has not read it, because the bird's trainer is clear to point out that it's not language. Stop making this claim unless you have specific quotes where they say otherwise. Here's my specific quote (for the billionth damn time):
quote:
Dr. Pepperberg refuses to call Alex's vocalizations ''language.'' ''I avoid the language issue,'' she said. ''I'm not making claims. His behavior gets more and more advanced, but I don't believe years from now you could interview him.''
From the chief trainer herself.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Rrhain, posted 09-29-2007 8:35 PM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by ringo, posted 09-29-2007 10:27 PM Jon has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 160 of 268 (424995)
09-29-2007 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Jon
09-29-2007 10:03 PM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
Jon writes:
... the bird's trainer is clear to point out that it's not language.
Dr. Pepperberg is reluctant to call Alex's vocalizations "language".
Isn't the issue as much about the understanding of language as about the vocalization of language? He might not be able to speak complex sentences, but if he can understand complex sentences, isn't he using language?

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 10:03 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 10:39 PM ringo has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 268 (424996)
09-29-2007 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by ringo
09-29-2007 8:21 PM


Re: More Defining Moments:
First. It's not my job to prove their is no grammar... it is your job to prove that there is. Nevertheless, I will attempt to address your point.
...explain to us, in detail, how you would distinguish between a speaker and a non-speaker - from communication alone, without foreknowledge if it was human or non-human.
I'd ask the individual thinks which are dependent on grammar for comprehension. If the thing failed to comprehend, I'd deduce that it lacked grammar, and so it didn't have language. For example, I'd ask:
'Jack shot Jill. Who died?'
Then:
'Jill shot Jack. Who died?'
Or, I'd give it a black and white image of a house, and say 'frama', indicating that the image represents a 'frama'. Then, I'd show various slides of colour, telling them each which colour it is:
'red'
'green'
'pink'
'blue'
Then, I'd show it a red house and say 'fredama'. Next, a green house and say 'frgreenama'. Then, a pink house and 'frpinkama'. Finally, I'd show it a table of coloured circles of red, green, blue, and pink; and also with houses of red, green, blue, and pink on that same table. Then, I would ask a question indicating that I want them to point to 'frblueama'. If they possess grammar, they should be able to point to the correct image: blue house. If they do not possess grammar, then we can expect that they will only point to the correct image about 1/2 of the time.
In any of these tests, I'd make sure that the meaning of what I was asking was dependent on the presence of grammar, unlike in the questions asked to the bird, where the meaning of 'green block' and 'block green' is the same, and is dependent only on rote memory of the words and their meanings and not dependent on their grammar.
You need to make a test that depends on grammar for meaning in order to test grammar. The questions asked for the bird have no hint of a grammar-dependent meaning.
How can we figure out if a person knows what a computer is if we never introduce the notion of a computer into the conversation? If we wait for them and they never present it, then we cannot conclude they know the notion of a computer. But, they might know it, and they just never brought it up. So, we need to force them into it by asking 'What's a computer?' And then, by asking a question where the meaning is dependent on the understanding of 'computer', will we be able to deduce if that person knows what a computer is. Likewise, we need to ask a question where the meaning is dependent on the understanding of grammar before being able to determine of an individual possesses grammar or not.
Is that more clear? This will be about the fifth time I've given such a similar example.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by ringo, posted 09-29-2007 8:21 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by ringo, posted 09-29-2007 10:44 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 268 (424999)
09-29-2007 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by ringo
09-29-2007 10:27 PM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
He might not be able to speak complex sentences, but if he can understand complex sentences, isn't he using language?
He was never shown to understand complex sentences where the meaning was dependent on grammar. Read my last reply to you.
And besides, the answer's still no:
ABC.net.au: Page Not Found
quote:
Understanding gives an inflated impression of language processing.
quote:
One thing that is missing is grammar. The great apes, including Kanzi, have shown the ability to use word order in novel ways to create novel utterances, but only in very simple combinations of two or three words. They are not the only species to have done so, incidentally: dolphins, sea lions, and an African grey parrot have shown a similar ability. It is unlikely that this ability is a language ability.
Mere understanding and response doesn't = language. Read that source above. All of it. It answers a lot of your questions.
Jon
Edited by Jon, : adjustements

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by ringo, posted 09-29-2007 10:27 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by ringo, posted 09-29-2007 10:50 PM Jon has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 163 of 268 (425000)
09-29-2007 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Jon
09-29-2007 10:28 PM


Re: More Defining Moments:
Jon writes:
This will be about the fifth time I've given such a similar example.
That should be your first clue that you're not answering what's being asked.
It's not my job to prove their is no grammar... it is your job to prove that there is.
First, you seem to be under the impression that I'm disagreeing with you and therefore have to provide some "proof" that you're wrong. I'm just asking you to support your position. I haven't taken any particular position of my own.
Second, it really isn't about grammar at all. It's about how to distinguish speech from non-speech. If you choose to use grammar as the be-all and end-all requirement for what makes speech, that's fine. But I'm looking for an empirical distinction, not a hypothetical one.
As an exercise, how about coming up with a speech/non-speech test that doesn't rely on your favorite definition of grammar?

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 10:28 PM Jon has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 164 of 268 (425001)
09-29-2007 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Jon
09-29-2007 10:39 PM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
Jon writes:
Mere understanding and response doesn't = language.
We're trying to determine a way to distinguish human "kind" from other animals. Are there not apes, etc. whose "mere understanding and response" is better than that of some humans? As long as there's overlap, it's not a difference of "kind" but of degree.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 10:39 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 11:09 PM ringo has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 165 of 268 (425002)
09-29-2007 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Jon
09-29-2007 1:05 PM


possible equivocation, moving goalposts, and denial ... take two
All completely irrelevant. 'Speech' and 'language' have been used as synonyms throughout this thread.
BZZ! Sorry, that's where you're wrong. Can I give it to you all again:
Message 1 (the OP)
In many messages IamJoseph asserts that speech is a marker of the "human" kind. A typical post is ...
The question is how do we ascertain this "speech endowed" characteristic using science.
Now to determine whether this "speech endowed" characteristic appears in other animals we need a definition of what we mean by "SPEECH" that we can agree on.
quote:
... 1. the faculty or power of speaking; oral communication; ability to express one's thoughts and emotions by speech sounds and gesture: Losing her speech made her feel isolated from humanity. ...
I think we can agree that definition (1) is the appropriate definition, and that this corresponds with the "Speech is the expression of ideas and thoughts by means of articulate vocal sounds, or the faculty of thus expressing ideas and thoughts" under synonyms. Thus a member of the "speech endowed" kind of organisms would have the "ability to express one's thoughts and emotions by speech sounds and gesture."
If you will look at the opening post and who wrote it, then you will realize that I don't care what games you have been playing with the language issue, the topic deals with speech. You WILL ALSO note that I quoted from Message 1 in the previous post, so it de facto CANNOT be irrelevant to the topic.
This is the definition used for language:
Now that AND your definition for grammar ARE irrelevant, for the issue is speech and speech alone to determine what IamJoseph means by the speech-endowed.
BTW -- I also note that you go down to the 4th definition for grammar to meet your needs, while you ignore others that don't:
gram·mar -noun 1. the study of the way the sentences of a language are constructed; morphology and syntax.
2. these features or constructions themselves: English grammar.
3. an account of these features; a set of rules accounting for these constructions: a grammar of English.
4. Generative Grammar. a device, as a body of rules, whose output is all of the sentences that are permissible in a given language, while excluding all those that are not permissible.
We don't need complete grammar, and we certainly don't need a specialized definition (Generative Grammar) when a general one is sufficient. We most are definitely NOT speaking of a study of all the rules possible for all possible languages. The first definition gives us "the way of connecting simple concepts into more complex concepts," and the second is the appearance of syntax within the speech connecting simple concepts into more complex concepts.
All we need is syntax in the communications for it to qualify as speech, and not all the rules of grammar for a whole language. Nor does one need a vast knowledge of the words of the language to to "express one's thoughts and emotions" and meet the needs of speech. And the language used can be any language with any syntax -- the least it needs to be is a "pidgin" language to still qualify as speech by the definition given:
pidg·in -noun A simplified form of speech that is usually a mixture of two or more languages, has a rudimentary grammar and vocabulary, is used for communication between groups speaking different languages, and is not spoken as a first or native language. Also called contact language.
(American Heritage Dictionary)
Note the emphasis on speech there. This is definitely what we are talking about in regards to communication between humans and any other species, not just speech between people of different languages and cultures.
As noted in Message 145, Alex's use of english has a simplistic syntax (for it is a pidgin english):
She (Dr. Pepperberg) says Alex has simple syntax.
syn·tax -noun 1.a. The study of the rules whereby words or other elements of sentence structure are combined to form grammatical sentences.
- b. A publication, such as a book, that presents such rules.
- c. The pattern of formation of sentences or phrases in a language.
- d. Such a pattern in a particular sentence or discourse.
2. Computer Science The rules governing the formation of statements in a programming language.
3. A systematic, orderly arrangement.
(American Heritage Dictionary )
... talks about 'speech' in terms of its uniqueness to humanity, he is, I am ALMOST CERTAIN, talking about what most would call 'language'.
And I am certain he is not, for he has denied anything but it being a human trait. His only definition is that "speech" is human speech, so that then "speech-endowed" shows you are human. Nothing but trite tautological self-serving nonsense. If you can get more out of him, by all means go for it.
As far as we can tell in time, IaJ is right; language is perhaps the most unique of all features to humanity, ...
Aside from being off topic, this too is patently false, for the only way to come by it is to make the same tautological, begging the question, definition(s) of language -- you are requiring animals to use human language to show that they have the capacity for language -- and completely ignore the communications between animals in their own languages.
The fact that humans have yet to comprehend the intricacies of those languages of other species does not reflect poorly on them so much as on us -- if we truly are superior. If it were only simple syntax and sounds -- as you seem to claim -- then we should be able to decipher it easily. It should be a done deal ... unless it is as complicated and intricate as a human language if not more so.
But we can teach some languages\symbols\sounds\etc that we know and then speak with them in a pidgin language, communicate in a fashion that would be totally impossible if they had no native language of their own and no capacity for one.
RAZD Message 154
So, do you want to equivocate, move the goalposts, deny the obvious or admit reality?
What part of that (definition of speech) is missing in Alex?
Want to try again?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 1:05 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 11:27 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 176 by IamJoseph, posted 09-30-2007 5:21 AM RAZD has not replied
 Message 222 by IamJoseph, posted 10-12-2007 2:52 AM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024