4 ms·

It doesn't make any sense to "approach the caller" and then scan for danger. The sounds could be understood non-compositionally and the actions worked out pragm

by ppod 9y ago

It doesn't make any sense to "approach the caller" and then scan for danger. The sounds could be understood non-compositionally and the actions worked out pragmatically. It's like saying that a monkey responds to "peel the banana, eat the banana" in the correct manner but not "eat the banana, peel the banana".

sidlls 9y ago
I'm not a linguist, but this seems like a wrong analysis to me. It seems to me you're imposing a specific word order paradigm where it may not be applicable. Perhaps these birds "parse" compositions in order of most recently received (e.g. as something like a LIFO), or by some other rule that is nevertheless (compositionally) significant.
thaumasiotes 9y ago
This study's "conclusion" is grossly unwarranted. But I don't think your criticism works either; the study doesn't mention any temporal order to the actions. It only states that when hearing a recorded compound call containing the directions "look for predators" and "come closer" in that order, the birds considered as a group take both of those actions at the same level that they do when hearing either direction in isolation, whereas when hearing a synthesized compound call of the same directions in the other order, they take neither action (again, considered as a group -- the overall level of scanning-for-predators behavior doesn't rise compared to hearing background noise). They conclude that because synthesized cry YX gets a different (null) response than natural cry XY, the compound cry must conform to a compositional syntax. This makes no sense. For one thing, the compound cry carries zero additional meaning beyond that of its components -- as if hearing "the man ate the tiger" were no different from hearing "EAT TIGER MAN". But more importantly, the point of compositional syntax is that components may appear anywhere[1] within the structure of the phrase -- we can use "tiger" as the object of one sentence and the subject of another, or inside a clause embedded in a complex sentence, because the syntax will tell us which is which. All these people have demonstrated is that either (1) there is an ordering constraint on delivering two messages at once; or (2) these birds can tell the difference between recorded calls and synthesized calls. Compare the English auxiliary verb system, which is non-compositional with ordering constraints. A verb may be modified by any or all of the following: first, a modal ("can try"), second, perfective have ("has tried"), third, progressive be ("were trying"), fourth, passive be or get ("got fired"; "was eaten"). While there are several different options in the first slot, and two (plus absence) in the fourth, it is impossible to substitute a meaningful phrase in for any of these. [1] Obviously not anywhere, but inside many different component phrases.

by ppod 9y ago

sidlls 9y ago

I'm not a linguist, but this seems like a wrong analysis to me. It seems to me you're imposing a specific word order paradigm where it may not be applicable. Perhaps these birds "parse" compositions in order of most recently received (e.g. as something like a LIFO), or by some other rule that is nevertheless (compositionally) significant.

thaumasiotes 9y ago

This study's "conclusion" is grossly unwarranted. But I don't think your criticism works either; the study doesn't mention any temporal order to the actions. It only states that when hearing a recorded compound call containing the directions "look for predators" and "come closer" in that order, the birds considered as a group take both of those actions at the same level that they do when hearing either direction in isolation, whereas when hearing a synthesized compound call of the same directions in the other order, they take neither action (again, considered as a group -- the overall level of scanning-for-predators behavior doesn't rise compared to hearing background noise). They conclude that because synthesized cry YX gets a different (null) response than natural cry XY, the compound cry must conform to a compositional syntax. This makes no sense. For one thing, the compound cry carries zero additional meaning beyond that of its components -- as if hearing "the man ate the tiger" were no different from hearing "EAT TIGER MAN". But more importantly, the point of compositional syntax is that components may appear anywhere[1] within the structure of the phrase -- we can use "tiger" as the object of one sentence and the subject of another, or inside a clause embedded in a complex sentence, because the syntax will tell us which is which. All these people have demonstrated is that either (1) there is an ordering constraint on delivering two messages at once; or (2) these birds can tell the difference between recorded calls and synthesized calls. Compare the English auxiliary verb system, which is non-compositional with ordering constraints. A verb may be modified by any or all of the following: first, a modal ("can try"), second, perfective have ("has tried"), third, progressive be ("were trying"), fourth, passive be or get ("got fired"; "was eaten"). While there are several different options in the first slot, and two (plus absence) in the fourth, it is impossible to substitute a meaningful phrase in for any of these. [1] Obviously not anywhere, but inside many different component phrases.