Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind

You did not present the evidence. Your position has no support. This debate is finished.{ABE}
You haven't shown that the bird understands.
You haven't shown that understanding = grammar.
You haven't presented the list of linguists agreeing with you.0 for 3, mate.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Of course we are not debating that at all. Yes, they made it quite clear in the report. I shall quote it again:

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.''

---

It's quite clear that those working closest with the bird do not feel what he's done to be 'language'.Jon
__________
A Thinking Bird or Just Another Birdbrain?Edited by Jon, : Bad grammar... but still.. grammar

'material' = noun.
'blue' = adjective.The grammar test can be reformatted depending on what questions you plan to ask.We could could say that adjectives get infixed with nouns. So, if we showed the bird what 'material' was, and then showed him what 'blue' was, and then showed him what blue material was, and told him it was 'matbluerial' Then did the same thing with several other colours, such that he had been given the following:Blue + material + matbluerial
Green + material + matgreenrial
Pink + material + matpinkrialAnd 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.Teaching in English makes it too difficult to tell, since the grammar is so syntax-based. And often (especially with just adjectives and nouns) those rules can be completely ignored without changing ANY meaning. We know that 'green block' = 'block green', even if the other is 'ungrammatical'. Even 'hill went up the Jack' can be seen to mean 'Jack went up the hill', showing that the meaning (understanding) is not always dependent on the grammar, which is point 2 I gave to Rrhain:

quote:

---

You haven't shown that understanding = grammar.

---

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. Clearly, we do not use grammar to get meaning from 'block green' because the grammar isn't correct”i.e., it's missing”; our understanding comes solely from knowing 'green' and 'block'. 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.Plain!
And!
Simple!Jon

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 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

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

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. 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

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. 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

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.JonEdited by Jon, : adjustements

I don't think humans are of a different kind. Language is uniquely human, though. 'Speech' in this thread has become synonymous with 'language'. So, one way I'd distinguish language from non-language would be to do a grammar test. But grammar is one of the two key components for language. We know the bird understands block; he has a lexicon. Now we need to test for the second component: grammar. Unfortunately, none of the trainers were clever-enough to perform an experiment that tested the second component of language. You asked me: I explained to you how I would distinguish language from non-language. What the hell more do you want? First, you say you don't want a hypothetical, now you say you want a hypothetical. Next, you've asked me to use a different definition of grammar than what grammar means. Wikipedia made it clear...

quote:

---

...grammar, or system of rules, used to manipulate the symbols.

---

Grammar is the system of rules. How the hell else do you want me to define it? Whatever the word is; we must show that there exists an understanding of 'a system of rules used to manipulate the symbols' if we are to show language. Again... I'll remind you that that 'system of rules' is one of the two key components of a language. The system of rules is separate from the lexicon, and, in humans at least, they are stored in separate areas of the brain as a result. What is, then, being asked? Jon

Then you are arguing a strawman against IaJ, using a word for a meaning that you know he didn't intend for it to have. If that's the case, the admins need to scold you and shut this thread down.If you want to argue that the bird 'speaks' as you've defined the word then I have no problem with it. However, as I see the issue, I do not think that is the way IaJ intended for the word to be used. I am convinced he used it to mean 'language' (as people often do, by the way), in which case all the points you're presenting are moot to his point. Of course. We need a 'system of rules' to have language. Read #166. Read the Wiki article on language. I don't care if you call the system of rules the 'hoobaba-kish', you need the system of rules. I use the word 'grammar' in its linguistic context to denote that system of rules.But this is just arguing semantics. We're talking about a 'system of rules'. I made that clear in Message 88 that I was talking about a system of rules. It's the rules that are important, what you call them is your own deal.Any proof the bird grasps a system of rules? Or are you going to not make the argument that the bird has language and just revert back to strawmanning IaJ? We are talking about the system of rules. Period. I call it grammar. I say grammar and mean 'system of rules' Linguists say grammar and mean 'system of rules'. Educated people who talk about language say grammar and mean 'system of rules.' System of rules is required for language. I call it grammar... you call it what you want, but don't take how I use the word and rework it to mean something else. You already did that with poor IaJ when you took how he used speech to mean language and then used the word differently than he intended it to be used and proceeded to build your strawman.I ain't a crow. And I ain't scared.As for the rest of what you said...READ MY SOURCES!You people reply to my posts in seconds flat. I cannot imagine how you are even clicking on my sources let alone reading the damn things. Most of your misunderstanding of language would be cleared up if you'd just READ MY SOURCES. *sigh* Language = lexicon (word bank) + grammar (system of rules). You still can't show how any other animal possesses the rules. You are just being an argumentative ass. I'm sorry, but you win... you outposted me. You outdid me in my ability to rebut your same points over and over and over again. Congrats... here's a cashew.Jon

Okay, wise ass. You tell me just what kind of a test you want that wouldn't 'smack too much of a test for "proper" grammar.'You ask me to invent the test, then say 'nope, not good enough'. I invent another test and you say 'nope, not good enough.' If you want something specific, tell me what it is. I'm not going to play your damn guessing games.Jon

Can you demonstrate that the bird knows 'green' is a modifier of 'block'? Why is 'green' a modifier of 'block'?

The burden of proof rests on the prosecution. The defence needn't participate but to rebut the evidence given by the prosecution. No one's shown evidence that the bird possesses grammar. Bird's dead. Besides, I have no access to the bird to carry out my tests anyway. And you won't let me use my tests, because you know that they would prove you wrong.This is all the billionth time I've said this. I'm going to bed now. I don't plan to participate any more, unless I see some new evidence. Until then, you're just likely to repeat the same [already] refuted arguments over and over again.G'day,
JonEdited by Jon, : The admins really need to start enforcing forum rules equally to both the creos and evos on this site... they let you lot get away with murder, and the others can't even make a single post without getting banned. But, I don't want to stand up for them, else I might get a week suspension too.

---

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

No... language has been well-defined. You're wrong. Well, you can't just break them up like that. Then we could get 'non-dog communication' and 'dog communication'. You need to break it up as:1. non-language communication
2. language communicationThen, we can go about grouping the various creatures on Earth into 1, or 2 based on their abilities. We will, of course, find that there is only one creature in group 2: humans.Jon

What? This all seems wrong.