Karen Winter wrote:
> usual suspect wrote:
>
>> Karen Winter wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>> It's difficult to discuss animal cognition
>
>> It's an issue which continues to be debated among researchers:
>
> And some people still claim the earth is flat.
I'm not one of them. The fact remains that you choose to *believe* in
something, and even lie that it's *established*, despite controversy and
bitter disagreement between experts in the relevant fields.
> Why did you not address the issue of primates teaching each other
> sign language and conversing with each other in it?
I did when I posted the bit about Nim Chimpsky, but you, naturally,
chose to snip it. So here's more about the issue than you ever wanted to
address:
Efforts... focused on teaching non-human primates to
communicate using sign language. In 1966, Allen and Beatrice
Gardner began teaching American Sign Language (ASL) to an infant
chimpanzee named Washoe. The Gardner's claimed that Washoe
acquired 132 sign words within a period of 51 months. Her
development of language was compared to that of a human child.
Several other chimpanzees were introduced to the project; soon
they were reported to be signing to humans and to each other.
Washoe and the other chimpanzees even taught her adopted infant
Loulis to sign without the intervention of humans although the
validity of this claim is also disputed.
In later projects, chimpanzees were taught to communicate using
plastic symbols and computer-controlled-keyboards. The
chimpanzee Sarah was said to recognize nouns, verbs, adjectives,
pronouns, and quantifiers; she was also taught same-difference,
negation, and compound sentences. Herbert Terrace's work with
the chimpanzee, Nim Chimpsky, cast doubts on the capacity of
apes to "acquire" ASL. Although Nim learned some words, Terrace,
who had become increasingly skeptical concerning the linguistic
abilities of his subject, concluded that Nim, incapable of
understanding what he was signing, was merely imitating his
trainer.
In 1972, Francine Patterson started work with the infant
gorilla, Koko, who "acquired" 250 signs during the first 52
months of training and has become the most famous example of
"interspecies" communication. In 1998, 13,000 people
"questioned" Koko during an online session. Earlier this year,
she was taken on a "virtual" tour of Stanford University using
videoconferencing technology. Assessing ten years of work with
Koko, Patterson and her partner, Ronald Cohn, reported that 876
of her signs qualified according to emitted criteria of
spontaneous or appropriate use on one or more occasion. BUT CAN
WE ACCEPT THAT KOKO, WASHOE AND CO. COMPREHEND THE MEANINGS OF
THE SIGNS THEY HAVE BEEN TAUGHT? OR ARE THEY MERELY "APING"
GESTURES TAUGHT THEM IN A PAVLOVIAN REACTION TO STIMULI SUCH AS
FOOD? RESEARCHERS LIKE FRANCINE PATTERSON CLAIM EVIDENCE FOR THE
INNOVATIVE USE OF LANGUAGE BY APES LIKE KOKO INCLUDING
NON-INSTRUMENTAL (NOT PROMPTED BY A REWARD), AND SELF-DIRECTED
SIGNING. KOKO'S VOCABULARY IS SAID TO INCLUDE WORDS OF HER OWN
INVENTION SUCH AS "BODY-HAIR" AND "THERMOMETER". CLAIMS LIKE
THESE ARE DISMISSED BY WRITERS LIKE JOEL WALLMAN WHO ARGUE THAT
NOT ONE "OF THE APE-LANGUAGE PROJECTS SUCCEEDED IN INSTILLING
EVEN A DEGENERATE VERSION OF A HUMAN LANGUAGE IN AN APE." MUCH
OF THIS THORNY DEBATE CENTERS ON THE DEFINITION OF "LANGUAGE"
ITSELF.
What constitutes language is open to various interpretations but
using just two criteria: performance (through the production and
comprehension of speech); and competence, (in the form of
abstract linguistic knowledge), IT SEEMS THAT NON-HUMAN PRIMATES
ARE CAPABLE OF IMITATING "SPEECH" AFTER A FASHION. Of course,
this conclusion is fiercely disputed and there are other
definitions of language apart from the one used here.
PART OF THE CONTROVERSY OVER APE LANGUAGE PROJECTS ARISES FROM
THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE TAUGHT TO THE SUBJECTS. AMERICAN SIGN
LANGUAGE IS AS RICH AND AS COMPLEX AS A SPOKEN LANGUAGE AND MANY
LINGUISTS CLAIM THAT EVERY CRUDE GESTURE EMPLOYED BY AN APE
CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED AS "LANGUAGE."
The sole *native* [I think this is highly relevant] signer on
the Washoe Project reported: "Every time the chimp made a sign,
we were supposed to write it down in the log. ... They were
always complaining because my log didn't show enough signs.
"All the *hearing* people turned in logs with long lists of
signs. They always saw more signs than I did. ...
"The hearing people were logging every movement the chimp made
as a sign. Every time the chimp put his finger in his mouth,
they'd say 'Oh, he's making the sign for DRINK,' ... When the
chimp scratched himself, they'd record it as the sign for
SCRATCH.... When [the chimps] want something, they reach.
"Sometimes [the trainers] would say, 'Oh, amazing, look at that,
it's exactly like the ASL sign for GIVE!' It wasn't." [quoted in
Steven Pinker The Language Instinct p. 337-8.]
ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE APES' USE OF "LANGUAGE" IS THAT IT LACKS
GRAMMAR, NOT AS IN SYNTACTICAL RULES, BUT IN THE WAY THAT
CHILDREN ARE ABLE TO CONSTRUCT MEANINGFUL SENTENCES AND TO
DECODE THE MEANING OF SENTENCES OTHERS MAKE, SOMETHING EVERY
HUMAN CHILD LEARNS WITHOUT ANY DIRECT INSTRUCTION.
SOME DETRACTORS OF THE APE LANGUAGE PROJECTS POINT OUT THAT THE
SUBJECTS ARE PRONE TO MERELY REPEATING A SENTENCE OR PART OF A
SENTENCE THE TRAINER HAD JUST SIGNED.
MANY OF THE SIGNS ARE ONES THAT ARE FAMILIAR TO THE APE AND ARE
USED REPETITIVELY TO CONVEY SIMPLE DESIRES (FOOD, CHASE, FRIEND)
RATHER THAN THE COMPLEX THOUGHT PROCESSES OF A HUMAN CHILD'S
MIND.
http://www.languagemagazine.com/inte.../mj99/p12.html
I found the transcript for Koko's "interspecies webchat" from 1998. What
strikes me most about it is how much interpretation is required, and the
subjective nature of it, on the part of Patterson. A few examples:
PENNY: We're going to be on the phone with a lot of people who
are going to ask us questions...
KOKO: Nipple. (Koko sometimes uses 'nipple' as a 'sounds like'
for 'people.')
PENNY: ...about you and about me. . . Lots of people.
"Nipple" has nothing whatsoever to do with "people," unless she was
calling Patterson a tit -- a point with which I may agree if Patterson's
interpretation of "nipple" is "people." Don't tell me it's like when a
young child misspeaks or through poor vocalization slurs a L into a W
sound. Sign language doesn't exactly allow for physical "slurring" in
the sense that a "widdle" kid might vocally.
The "communication" got pretty weird at times:
PENNY: Questions about colors or how you're feeling. OK?
KOKO: That red. (Indicating her own hair.)
PENNY: Honey, this is black.
KOKO: XXX XXX. (XXX looks like 'sun'.)
Koko is trying to sign 'black.' Penny touch prompts 'black'.
KOKO: Black. There hurry. (Indicating Penny's pocket.)
K has one ape doll kiss the other.
KOKO: Kisses.*
KOKO: Lips lipstick.
PENNY: Yes, 'lips lipstick,' right.
KOKO: Lips fake candy give-me. (Then Koko reaches for Penny's
pocket.)
I'm unconvinced from the following exchange that Koko had any concept at
all about the chat:
KOKO: Bad hear (left hand on lt. ear) hear.(left hand on rt.
ear) Hurry. (Koko reaches for Penny's hand.)
AOL: Is Koko aware that she's chatting with thousands of people
now?
PENNY: I just explained it to her so she has some idea.
KOKO: Hear. (Koko reaches for Penny's treat pocket.)
PENNY: You want to hear? . . . OK. Koko is ready.
AOL: Welcome, Dr. Patterson and Koko, we're so happy you're
here!
PENNY: They said 'Welcome.' . . . That was me actually. I'm
translating for her. . . . I gave Koko an explanation of what
we're doing and she said 'Good hear.'
Koko pulls Penny close and kisses her cheek.
KOKO: Pink this. (Grasping Penny's shirt sleeve.)
PENNY: She's just signed 'pink' and she's looking . . .
KOKO: Pink this pink. (Indicating Penny's shirt sleeve.)
"Some idea" my ass. Koko wanted a treat and was signing color names in
hopes of getting one. I would also bet that Patterson taught her to kiss
by conditioning her with treats -- hence all the heavy petting. Then we
get to the questions. Tell me how responsive you find this gorilla:
AOL: MInyKitty asks Koko are you going to have a baby in the
future?
PENNY: OK, is that for Koko? Koko are you going to have a baby
in the future?
KOKO: Koko-love eat ... sip.
So the question is asked again, and this time Patterson again interprets:
PENNY: What about a baby? You going to have baby? She's just
thinking...her hands are together...
KOKO: Unattention.
PENNY: Oh poor sweetheart. She said 'unattention.' She covered
her face with her hands..which means it's not happening,
basically, or it hasn't happened yet. . . I don't see it.
How does Patterson know "unattention" refers to not mating or to
Patterson paying more attention to the phone and computer than to Koko?
And in the following exchange, how does Patterson know Koko is happy or
responding to *English*?
KOKO: Listen.
PENNY: Koko just signed 'listen' and she wants to hear the phone
so I'm going to hold it to her for a second. Did you hear them?
(to Koko.)
KOKO: Huff.*
PENNY: She just made a vocalization. Did you hear that? That was
her talking on the phone.
AOL: Hi Koko! I can hear her! She breathed at me! This is so
cool!
PENNY: I'm working to create a family here in Woodside which
would mean that we would need to add an additional female at a
minimum. So I've been working with the zoo community to do that.
And in Hawaii, we'll have much more space which means we will be
in a much better situation to welcome additional gorillas to our
family and then she's almost assured to have a family of her
own.
KOKO: Purr.*
AOL: So she really is looking forward to this!
PENNY: That's a happy sound when I said 'a family of her
own'...Yes, she seems to be responding to my English.
Another round of non-responsive answers followed:
AOL: SBM87: ask What are the names of your kittens? (and dogs?)
KOKO: Candy give-me.
PENNY: OK.
Penny gives treat.
KOKO: See give-me. (Indicating the phone?)
PENNY: What's the name of your kitty ? Kitty's name and dog's
name?
K picks up the foot of the large stuffed gorilla doll she is
sitting on.
KOKO: Foot... (Many times, first on the doll's foot then on her
own foot.)... Foot. (Twice on the doll's foot.)
PENNY: 'Foot' isn't the name of your kitty.
KOKO: Hear lip.
PENNY: She wants to hear the lady on the phone. Maybe you can
ask her that question.
Penny puts the phone to K's ear.
AOL: Koko, what's the name of your cat?
KOKO: Huff* no. (Headshake.)
Contrary to the claim above that Koko was so excited to chat, she turned
away, demanded more treats, and required more interpretation:
AOL: Question: Do you like to chat with other people?
PENNY: Koko, do you like to talk to people?
KOKO: Fine nipple.
PENNY: Yes, that was her answer. 'Nipple' rhymes with 'people,'
OK? She doesn't sign people per se, so she may be trying to do a
'sounds like...' but she indicated it was 'fine.'
K climbs up on lg. box & PP asks her to turn around.
KOKO: Give-me. (For more treats.)
Not only does "nipple" mean "people," but apparently "lip" means "woman"
and "foot" means "man."
AOL: Are there any birds out there now?
PENNY: She's looking out the window and one just flew by. She
[expresses herself] with actions and this is very characteristic
of young children. Actually, the newer ways of studying very
young children is to look at very subtle behaviors. She's
looking out the window...
KOKO: Lips.
PENNY:... and signing 'lips', which is her word for 'woman'. I
can't see what she's seeing completely. I'm at an angle with the
window and can't leave where I am.
Then Koko pretty much shut down:
AOL: JAM6860 asks, You like your trainer a lot don't you? I
think she means you, Dr. P!
PENNY: Do we want to ask that (laughing)? This is asking for it
(laughing). Koko, do you like Penny? Do you like me? No comment.
Hey Koko, at least you can give me a bad review. Do you like me?
Penny? She's thinking about it (laughing)? Maybe not with all
these questions. You like me normally.
KOKO: (No response)
AOL: Question: Hi Koko, you are a beautiful gorilla. Was it hard
to learn sign language? OceanFish asked that one! I agree --
she's the most beautiful gorilla I know!
PENNY: Somebody says you are a beautiful gorilla. Was it hard or
easy to learn sign? Was it hard or was it easy? Easy or hard...
KOKO: (No response.)
PENNY: She's not really - neither here nor there. She's not
answering.
AOL: ReBeL1999 asks, do you dream at night? Wouldn't it be
amazing to know what a gorilla dreams!
PENNY: I think I may have asked her his once. Do you dream at
night when you sleep? Do you dream? I asked her this once and I
had to explain it . I asked her if she - what senses that might
be used - did she hear things smell things, see things. So I
needed to explain what a dream was and I don't remember. I could
ask her again. Koko, when you dream, do you hear things, smell
things, see things? Do you dream?
KOKO: (No response.)
PENNY: Are those too hard? Let's go for an easy question.
AOL: What do you like to do best, for fun, asks TrukkasW?
PENNY: What do you like to do best for fun?... How do you have
fun?...What's the most fun thing to do?...Do you have something
that's fun to do?...Can you show me, maybe, what you like to
do?...Do you like to tickle or chase or you like watch TV? What
you play?...What do you do?...What's your favorite game?
KOKO: (No response.)
The rest of the chat was uninteresting, with more "give candy" and
"nipple" remarks. I saw nothing in this that demonstrated much more than
standard conditioning, especially considering how many times in the
session Koko wanted treats. Much of her behavior was consistent with
doing the kinds of things which have probably been rewarded with treats
before -- kisses, playing with toys, doing certain tasks -- and done in
anticipation of treats.
http://www.koko.org/world/talk_aol.html
The following article from a Smithsonian Zoo publication favorably
addresses some of the primate communication stuff, which I've addressed
above with the article from Language magazine. I think it's of further
relevance to our discussion because it quotes Pepperberg as saying that
Alex is NOT using language.
...As with humans, animals use more than just vocal signals to
convey information or emotion. Animals may use body movement,
odor, posture, change in color, facial expression, or other
gestures to communicate anger, warning, fear, uncertainty,
subservience, willingness to mate, and other messages. Does this
alone suggest language use? EUGENE MORTON, AN EXPERT ON BIRDS,
AND NATIONAL ZOO BIOLOGIST, SAYS NO.
"THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND AND COMPREHEND WHAT THEY'RE SIGNALLING,"
ARGUES MORTON. HE CRITICIZES CERTAIN SCIENTISTS' PREOCCUPATION
WITH THE CONTENT OF ANIMAL COMMUNICATION ("THE INFORMATION
IMPEDIMENT," HE LABELS IT). INSTEAD, MORTON ASSERTS, ANIMALS ARE
SIMPLY DEMONSTRATING MOTIVATION THROUGH THEIR SIGNALS.
"[RESEARCHERS] HAVE GONE OVERBOARD IN THEIR INTERPRETATIONS,"
says Morton. In his book, Animal Talk, co-written by Jake Page,
Morton urges "an understanding of animal communication as what
it seems to accomplish, not what it symbolizes.'" Morton
emphasizes that the use of such communication is innate to
animals; they react to stimuli in "pre-programmed" ways, without
real thought. Following this argument, WHILE ANIMALS MAY BE
AWARE OF THE ENDS THEY SEEK VIA SIGNALLING, THEY MAY NOT BE
CONSCIOUS OF THE SYMBOLIC NATURE OF THE MEANS THEY USE TO REACH
THOSE ENDS. However, many animals, from birds to apes, may have
a thing or two to say about that.
Although genetic programming can explain much of animal
communication, certain species have shown a remarkable ability
to use languages novel to them, EITHER THROUGH TRAINING OR
SIMPLY THROUGH IMITATION. Parrots, mynahs, and other birds can
reproduce literally hundreds of human words. Yet most show no
understanding of the words they copy. Some animals, though, seem
to have demonstrated a more profound comprehension of human
language. Irene Pepperberg of the University of Arizona has
worked with an African grey parrot named Alex. Alex apparently
is able to "request, refuse, identify, categorize, or quantify"
more than 50 items, and label them according to color, shape,
and material. He also has learned concepts of sameness and
difference. Shown a red triangle and a blue triangle, Alex will
say they are same in shape and different in color. Alex uses
some syntax, always saying "green wood" not "wood green" for
example. HOWEVER, PEPPERBERG ADDS, "UNTIL ALEX GIVES TALKS FOR
ME, IT'S NOT REALLY LANGUAGE...."
Ronald Schusterman, of the University of California at Santa
Cruz, has worked with a female sea lion named Rocky. As with
Louis Herman's tests on the dolphins, Schusterman and fellow
UC-Santa Cruz biologist Robert Gisiner taught Rocky a
language-like system of signals, and then tested how she
responded to unfamiliar combinations. Rocky too could respond to
syntactic structures properly after grammar training. The
authors emphasize the importance of reinforcement in Rocky's
coming to understand the structure of the commands given.
ROCKY'S "LANGUAGE" ABILITY, IN THEIR OPINION, COMES FROM THE
"GENERAL LEARNING ABILITIES" OF ANIMALS RATHER THAN ANY INNATE
LANGUAGE COMPREHENSION....
[C]OMPLEX COMMUNICATION DOES NOT A LANGUAGE MAKE. BIOLOGISTS,
PSYCHOLOGISTS, AND LINGUISTS ALIKE EMPHASIZE THAT LANGUAGE
REQUIRES RULES THAT GUIDE HOW SIGNALS ARE COMBINED TO RELAY
MEANING. Donald R. Griffin, one of the founders of the study of
animal cognition, and the author of the book Animal Minds,
writes that "rule-governed combinations of words convey a much
wider array of meanings than would otherwise be possible if each
word were entirely independent, and its relationship to the
other words did not convey any additional meaning." Few studies
of animal communication in the wild have attempted, and even
fewer have succeeded, in showing such a rule-bound system in
operation among animal societies. SHORT OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE
OF SUCH STRUCTURED ARRAYS OF COMMUNICATIVE SIGNALS, WE CANNOT
COMFORTABLY SAY THAT A GIVEN SPECIES OF ANIMAL USES "LANGUAGE."
http://tinyurl.com/cle3r
> There's also many examples of parrots using human words to communicate
> their own ideas to humans. I can look up links to at least two I am
> thinking of right now,
Please do.
> but I assume you will dismiss any evidence I
> present on animal thought.
Unlike you, my mind is open -- but at the same time I'd like to see
something more convincing than "nipple" and "candy give-me."
> There was the case of the parrot who
> gave evidence in a murder trial as the only eye-witness,
No. I found a purported NYT article from ~1993 in a usenet posting
(
http://tinyurl.com/acaev):
A defense lawyer in a Northern California murder case says he
believes Max the Parrot may be more than just an ordinary bird
-- that Max may, indeed, hold the answer to who smothered Jane
Gill to death in her bedroom two years ago.
Max, the lawyer says, may be a witness. But the jurors in the
trial in Santa Rosa, 55 miles north of San Francisco, will not
hear from Max. An attempt to get the African gray parrot's
testimony -- rather, testimony about the bird's testimony --
into evidence this week was blocked by the judge.
Max was found dehydrated and hungry in its cage when the body of
Ms. Gill, 36, was discovered two days after her death in
November 1991.
After Max was coaxed back to health at a pet shop, the shop's
owner said the bird began to cry out, "Richard, no, no, no!"
The man charged in the case is Ms. GIll's husband, and his name
is not Richard. He is Gary Joseph Rasp, and he says he is
innocent.
Mr. Rasp's lawyer, Charles Ogulnik, brought up the parrot in
court when he was questioning the defense's private
investigator, Gary Dixon.
"Why did I ask you to follow up on the bird?" Mr. Ogulnik asked.
Mr. Dixon began, "The bird was making some spontaneous
statements to its keeper -- "
An emphatic objection by the Somoma County deputy district
attorney, Phil Abrams, was sustained by Judge Raymond Giordano
of Superior Court.
Mr. Ogulnik said in a telephone interview that he wanted to
introduce evidence about the bird, not put Max on the witness
stand.
No one will disclose where Max is now, but there are plenty of
stories around the courthouse. Mr. Dixon, the private
investigator, deadpanned that the bird was in a witness
protection program. "Max's identity has been changed and he is
now a macaw," he said.
> and there
> was the case of the parrot who asked where his owner was after the
> owner died.
Just another anecdote.