bird song/conversation analysis

[Sherman Wilcox]

On Jun 18, 2010, at 2:22 PM, A. Katz wrote:

> The only way to prove that something is a language is to learn it and thus be able to use it for communication.

I'm never sure where this will lead us, or why we need to even go here. 

Saying something can be used for communication won't convince everyone it's a language. One reason may be because they define "language" to be "human language," and that is, ummm, by definition the stuff that only humans do. So, no, birdsong isn't human language.

Neither, then, is the stuff signing non-human primates do. I just spent some time at the U of Reno, though, looking at (previously unreleased) films of Washoe and her fellow chimps, and I can tell you, they were doing some pretty amazing things. Does what they were doing have everything needed to qualify it as "human language"? Well, no. Sure enough, chimps aren't humans.

Having been through this once before -- trying to "prove" that signed languages are "real human language" -- I find it all pretty distasteful. The problem in the signed language situation was that the "standard" of what counted as "real human language" was based on a biased sample: for centuries people looked only at spoken language, documented the "universal" features they all had, and then ... voila! When signed languages lacked some of these features, looked quite different in some fundamental ways, they were deemed to be "not real language."

> Is there some other way to prove that something is a language? For that matter, is there any way to prove that something isn't a language, but is just gibberish?


The problem is, there's a lot of territory between "language" and "gibberish."

-- 
Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D.
Professor and Chair
Department of Linguistics
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131




On Jun 18, 2010, at 2:22 PM, A. Katz wrote:

> Tom,
> 
> While I tend to have the same general assumptions about bird song that you have shared here, (territorial/mating function with aesthetic elaboration but no coding of complex meanings), I would be hard pressed to say where I picked up this information. Is it just folklore, or have there been scientific studies done to establish that complex bird song serves aesthetic goals by its complexity but not communicative goals?
> 
> This brings up the whole issue of proof of a negative -- or a positive. In order to prove that a particular species doesn't have language, what do we do? In order to show that it does, what do we do?
> 
> It seems that even in the case of encryption, the only way to prove that something is a code is to break it. The only way to prove that something is a language is to learn it and thus be able to use it for communication.
> 
> Is there some other way to prove that something is a language? For that matter, is there any way to prove that something isn't a language, but is just gibberish?
> 
>   --Aya
> 
> http://hubpages.com/profile/Aya+Katz
> 
> Has anybody proven that there is not someth
> 
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010, Tom Givon wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Shannon,
>> 
>> Before we send your poor colleague on a wild-goose (well, they're avian too) chase for similarities between avian & human communication, perhaps he could benefit from considering some of the fundamental difference:
>> 
>> a. *Contents/function/information*: Song-birds communication is almost entirely limited to two adaptive topics--territorial control and mate attraction.
>> 
>> b. *Reciprocity*: Most typically, the avian singer is a male, broadcasting two messages, to two different potential interlocutors, with the same-self song: (i) "I control this territory, buzz off!" directed at other males; and (ii) "I'm a big macho with good territory, come mate with me!" directed at females. The interlocutors seldom response with their own songs, they just act appropriately. This doesn't mean that duets don't exist in bird communication, like in e.g. the dual mating dances of some avian species. But in general, the sequencing and reciprocal elaboration of complex information--I contribute this; you respond, elaborate and add; I respond, elaborate and add; etc.--are not found in bird communication. (Work by Wally Chafe, Chuck Goodwin, Sue Erwin-Tripp & others elaborates on this cooperative aspect of human conversation). Orthodox CA, alas, has always tended to emphasize the sociology of turn-taking and competition for the floor over the semiotics of collaborative accretion of information. But this is predictable from CA having been developed by sociologists, not anthropologists or linguists. One way or another, it would be interesting to see how applicable EITHER aspect of human conversation is to bird communication.
>> 
>> c. *Form-function matching*: Birds song has complex phonological and syntactic structure, and is thus tantalizingly reminiscent of human language. However, there is no isomorphic matching between units of meaning/message and units of structure in avian communication Rather, it is extremely 'holisti'c (as much as I hate this word, but it fits here). Why then the extreme length & complexity (and artistic elaboration) of the songs? The conjecture is that, much like the peacock's feathers, the singing male broadcasts through this extravagant elaboration a dual message to his two audiences: (i) "I am stronger than you, don't bother to challenge me" (to competing males); and (ii) "I am a big bruiser macho, I can supply superior genetic material for your progeny" (to interested female). There is an extensive discussion of this in Dave Geary's "Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences" (2nd edition, 2009; Washington, DC: American Psych. Assoc.).
>> 
>> Cheers, TG
>> 
>> ============
>> 
>> 
>> s.t. bischoff wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> A biologist colleague of mine who works on animal communication (bird songs)
>>> is interested in learning a bit about conversation analysis (far outside my
>>> area of expertise). He hopes that he might be able to get some ideas from
>>> linguists how best to analyze certain bird song behaviour. Any references,
>>> comments, or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Below is a brief
>>> description of what he is looking at.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Shannon
>>> Behavioral ecologist seeks cross-disciplinary advice:
>>> I am seeking input from Linguists to help develop a review of
>>> answering rules in song birds. Briefly, individuals of many songbird
>>> species sing repertoires of discrete learned song types.  When two
>>> birds living on neighboring territories interact vocally (i.e.,
>>> “countersing”), the song type that one bird sings can affect the other
>>> bird’s choice of song type. In the simplest case, the second bird
>>> might match the first bird's song type. A similar phenomenon occurs
>>> when mated pairs of certain species sing rapidly alternating phrases,
>>> resulting in so-called "duet" songs.The type of phrase uttered by one
>>> partner affects the other partner’s subsequent choice of phrase. Thus
>>> during both contersinging and duet singing, birds abide by “answering
>>> rules”. Of course, these interactions have some properties in common
>>> with conversations, and answering rules bear a passing resemblance to
>>> adjacency pairs. I would be grateful if list members could suggest
>>> resources (concepts, hypotheses, or methods) from Linguistics that
>>> might be relevant to this project.  I am particularly interested in
>>> hearing from students of conversational analysis. Thank you! -- David
>>> Logue, Assistant Professor  / Department of Biology, University of
>>> Puerto Rico
>> 
>>