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?
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.
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:
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:
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.
... 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.
Re: possible equivocation, moving goalposts, and denial ... take two
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.
Yet you have not demonstrated that. Nor have you demonstrated a great understanding of IamJoseph:
Message 177 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'.
Message 179 What? What source? What are you talking about? Especially... what does this mean?
It also doesn't look like IamJoseph is agreeing with you (is anyone agreeing with you?), ergo it looks like your version of his position OR your version of the OP is a strawman that you have invented.
The OP does not assume what his position is for the simple reason that he had not stated it in any defined way at the time (and still hasn't), it talks about what the definition of the term speech is and asks how that can be applied to determine "speech enabled" to distinguish humans:
quote: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.
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."
Please explain how this cannot be considered "speech endowed" by the above definitions.
IamJoseph's response is basically that it is not speech because it does not come from a human. This lead to the demonstration that his argument was a trite tuatology involving begging the question in his definition of speech as human speech. He has not presented any qualifications for the term speech other than it comes (uniquely) from humans.
Of course. We need a 'system of rules' to have language.
But we don't need to demonstrate grammar to have rules, just syntax. Again, as I pointed out in Message 143
ZD
Yes, they made it quite clear in the report. I shall quote it again:
And just before your quote the part you ignored:
quote:She continued: ''What little syntax he has is very simplistic.
She says Alex has simple syntax.
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'.
Or those working with him don't think the language he's learned would be enough for an interview conversation. Meanwhile they aren't making conclusions one way or the other.
You can, on the other hand, interview Koko. It's all a matter of degree.
You seem to be looking for a whole complete and entire language with a complete lexicon and wholly formed grammar in the conversation of two beings, and this is just irrational no matter which two beings you include, and how long and intellectual their discourse.
To demonstrate speech - vocal communication of ideas and feelings - at a minimum from one individual to another all you need is a rudimentary vocabulary and a simple syntax. Where individuals come from different cultures and languages (each with different lexicons and grammar) you sometimes need a pidgin language to translate those ideas and feelings from one individual to the other across the language barrier - a pidgin language with simplified lexicon and syntax. This is still speech (by the only definition of speech we have yet on this thread that is usable). This is the minimal test to distinguish speech. Alex has these.
To exclude Alex from "speech endowed" then we would need a different definition of speech with a different test of what is the minimum requirement.
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.
I read them, but the issue is not language, seeing as we can have speech between people with two entirely different languages. Your sources, being about language, are irrelevant to the issue of speech.
Let me be very clear: until IamJoseph presents a clear usable definition of what he means by "speech" LANGUAGE is off topic. If you want to talk about it start another thread.
be totally impossible if they had no native language of their own and no capacity for one.
*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.
And yet you have outposted me by over two to one. Alex (and Koko and others) have syntax and vocabulary. Syntax and vocabulary combined into phrases that communicate ideas and feeling. You don't need to demonstrate the whole lexicon or all the rules of grammar in every communication, just the ones necessary to communicate the ideas and feelings.
Consider the analogy of human\other species communication to the communication between two people from different cultures and languages -- we know they both have language (lexicon and grammar), but each is totally incomprehensible to the other. Over time, with the use of trial and error testing and retesting they develop a rudimentary lexicon and a simplified syntax (dropped plurals, simplified or eliminated pronouns, adjectives etc) - a pidgin language - that allows communication from one to the other.
Can you deny this communication of thoughts and feelings even though you - as a member of one group - have no idea of the language, lexicon and grammar, of the other?
Can you distinguish between this speech communication between two such groups of humans and that between humans and animals?
Can you deny that Alex meets this criteria for the verbal communication of ideas and feelings?
Would you agree that this is just a difference in degree of communication compared to two people who have the same culture and language?
Article below represents more relevent scientific positations, which state that aside from being a unique human trait, speech appeared suddenly and in an already advanced state [a contradiction of ToE];
quote:Complexity of Language”Uniquely Human
Are you now saying speech == language, that they are interchangeable? If not, what is the relationship between one and the other? We can talk about whether or not it contradicts ToE later.
Message 190 IMHO, this gives the point made in genesis full scientific legitimacy, even more than I would have ventured. Had this been the view countenanced by some more participants, we could progress to other subsequent factors. And of course, there are other factors which result from here.
But first you need to demonstrate that the trait is in fact unique.
Dodging the issue once more ... the Creationist tapdance around reality ...
I correctly steered away from the definition quest, genuinely and coherently seeing this as inapplicable and counter productive in the understanding of the premise.
Meaning that you kept it untestable and unverifiable.
Thanks for making that distinction between your position and science.
There is no need to get quagmired again in semantics and runaway deflection under the guise of science. If the factors debated mean anything, it is that speech and language are, if not quite the same issue - or so alligned that is falls in a category of two solely unique phenomenons alligned together - with no alternative application. Its like intelligence and scienctific thought are alligned. I;ve no notion of what is speech w/o language: grunts?
So you are saying you cannot have speech without language, fair enough, but are you saying you also cannot have language without speech (being so "alligned")?
Note example: a frenchman and an italian converse in english. Do they need their respective native languages? Do they need complete knowledge of the english language?
Are calling fellow humans apes now? I specified two humans so we could see where the language distinction from speech is relevant.
The two you used would have no problem with or w/o the language variances and deficiencies, ...
So you are in effect saying that the frenchman and the italian do not need a common language to speak together?
... and would use compensatory improvisations based on the principle of logic.
Do you mean that they could develop a pidgin language to speak with or do you mean that they could speak by the use of mimicry, and pantomime or by "mimicry of sound repitition (SIC) combined with the action"[1] eh?
But nothing of late, and nothing of use. We did get this tidbit from Message 192 though:
I correctly steered away from the definition quest, genuinely and coherently seeing this as inapplicable and counter productive in the understanding of the premise.
Looks like a refusal to present a definition. Or ... a realization that anything he put forward would necessarily be a tautology (human speech = speech by humans) that begs the question OR that it would apply to animals and show a difference in degree and not in kind.
for when you get back from suspension for not providing a definition of speech ....
French and italians can - apes cannot perform that trick.
The problem is how can you tell without first knowing that the french an italians are human?
Let's say it is a blind test -- you have a list of questions you can pick from to ask an intermediate, they take it into the next room and ask the subject, then return to you with the answer: how do you tell that the subject is human?
Re: for when you get back from suspension for not providing a definition of speech ..
What is the nature of these questions?
How much 'translation' is performed by this intermediate?
Does it matter? Remember that the subject could be a human that does not understand the language at all, but communicates by other means.
What do we know of the other subjects possible? Are they birds? Apes? Cats? Fruit flies?
Does it matter? The purpose is to show that "speech" can be distinguished as a uniques human trait, so some animal subjects would be needed.
Also, simply because someone cannot see the difference does not mean that the difference isn't actually there. What's the cliché? Looks can be deceiving.
But we're not using looks, we're using speech, and the purpose is to distinguish speech as a uniques human trait.
Re: possible equivocation, moving goalposts, and denial ... take two
Why do you think prominent and non-creationist scientists [specially biologists] state that speech, aside from it not being a subsequence or extension of communications seen in all life forms, is a problem in defining speech?
They don't. You are the one who keeps saying it is a problem in defining speech.
IOW, there is no shying away from the declaration speech is formidable to describe in technical terms, and it may be a correct, honest and relevant reality. Is there another way of discussing this issue?
But speech has been defined several times, and there is no conflict between those definitions and observations.
You are left with three basic possibilities:
(1) Speech is definable (you then give definition) and we can test whether this is observed in animals as well as humans. The definitions that we do have all end up with animals capable of speech, and no special difference between human speech and animal speech ... it is a difference in degree and not in kind.
(2) Speech is not definable, in which case there are conflicts between observations that show this conflict. So far no such conflicts have been noted. If this is so then speech cannot be measured in humans or animals and your claim of uniques speech cannot be verified or tested. If this were so it does not make your claim true.
(3) Claim it is indefinable when in fact it is (ie self delusion), so that you can avoid\deny the consequences of (1) that it is a difference in degree and not in kind. This leaves your argument one of silly denial instead of based on reality.
You have moved from tautological definitions that beg the question to the claim that speech is not definable when many definitions have been offered. The conclusion is that you are avoiding the reality of the situation, which is that animal speech is a difference in degree from human speech and not a difference in kind.
With the latter, no speech in any other life form, is a manifest and indisputable fact.
But this is false according to the common definition of speech as noted and discussed in Message 1 of this thread:
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.
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."
This has not been shown to be a false definition, nor has a different definition been provided that could be compared to it (that does not invoke a tautological begging the question falsehood) to show any uniqueness of kind in the speech of humans rather than a difference in degree.
This thread is now at 263 posts and IamJoseph has been totally unwilling or unable to either provide a distinctive definition or withdraw his assertion of uniqueness, and argument that relies on a definition of speech to be valid.
This is not debate in good faith, rather the obstinate denial of reality.
... conclusion: this is casino science.
Like palming the pea, this kind of steadfast obfustication rather than clarity of argument (with definition and logical development) is meant to hide the bankrupted argument.
There is no debate here, the issue of speech being a difference in degree and not in kind is settled by the arguments that have been put forward and the lack of refutation.
™ Version 4.2