3 ms·

This is most accurate top-level comment on the page. I once TAed an animal cognition class for Herb Terrace of Nim Chimpsky fame (or infamy), and I can say, we

This is most accurate top-level comment on the page. I once TAed an animal cognition class for Herb Terrace of Nim Chimpsky fame (or infamy), and I can say, we have yet to demonstrate any non-human language use. Non-human communication is common, but language is different, and requires syntax. Syntax (plus vocabulary) is what enables you to meaningfully say a sentence you've never spoken before, and for another person to understand a sentence they've never heard before. If you look at the corpuses of non-human communication, they're incredibly small compared to humans. A meercat has a few distinct vocalizations to warn their group depending on the type of a predator, but they can be counted on one hand. A songbird's song is ballistic once learned; it will never vary, even if they go deaf.

famouswaffles 3y ago
You can't demonstrate what you don't understand. We've yet to rule it out in dolphins/orcas/whales etc like we have in lots of other animals. That alone is a pretty big deal. And there's research that dolphins understand syntax. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342706263_Language_Research_Dolphins https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342706263_Language_... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0010027784900039 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/001002...
- KingMob 3y ago
  Cool finding. I'm more familiar with the primate literature, so I looked over the study and the book summary. The Herman study was published in 1984, which was already a few years after the collapse of most of the primate language efforts. So, the author tries to compensate for many of the flaws that spelled doom in the primate teaching efforts. In particular, they do a decent job of focusing on comprehension rather than language generation, and wisely test primarily novel sentences. On the other hand, they make the same error as the primate researchers in not fully addressing if, and to what extent if so, operant conditioning could also be the method of learning. The response to novel sentences and the 5-word sentences seems suggestive of language, but conditioning can also do a LOT. (E.g., look up rats trained to do Rube Goldberg-style mazes involving dozens of steps to see how complicated behaviors can be achieved by conditioning smaller subpieces and then chaining them.) The novel sentence tests might still be explainable by conditioning as: the dolphins are rewarded for correct answers, and by combining operant conditioning with object identification, are able to infer the correct answer. E.g., they trained a dolphin to answer yes/no on whether a hoop was in the pool, and then asked the same question for items used in earlier studies. This could still be a generalization of a conditioning response from a smart animal receiving rewards for correct answers, and not a demonstration of syntactical understanding.

famouswaffles 3y ago

You can't demonstrate what you don't understand. We've yet to rule it out in dolphins/orcas/whales etc like we have in lots of other animals. That alone is a pretty big deal. And there's research that dolphins understand syntax. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342706263_Language_Research_Dolphins https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342706263_Language_... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0010027784900039 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/001002...

KingMob 3y ago
Cool finding. I'm more familiar with the primate literature, so I looked over the study and the book summary. The Herman study was published in 1984, which was already a few years after the collapse of most of the primate language efforts. So, the author tries to compensate for many of the flaws that spelled doom in the primate teaching efforts. In particular, they do a decent job of focusing on comprehension rather than language generation, and wisely test primarily novel sentences. On the other hand, they make the same error as the primate researchers in not fully addressing if, and to what extent if so, operant conditioning could also be the method of learning. The response to novel sentences and the 5-word sentences seems suggestive of language, but conditioning can also do a LOT. (E.g., look up rats trained to do Rube Goldberg-style mazes involving dozens of steps to see how complicated behaviors can be achieved by conditioning smaller subpieces and then chaining them.) The novel sentence tests might still be explainable by conditioning as: the dolphins are rewarded for correct answers, and by combining operant conditioning with object identification, are able to infer the correct answer. E.g., they trained a dolphin to answer yes/no on whether a hoop was in the pool, and then asked the same question for items used in earlier studies. This could still be a generalization of a conditioning response from a smart animal receiving rewards for correct answers, and not a demonstration of syntactical understanding.