Antw: Re: Fwd: Question for the Weakest Link game show

[Franz Dotter]

Dear colleagues,

As I am a little bit disappointed by the very harsh responses to the
question posed, I try to show the extension of the circumscriptions of
language given below:

>>> "Niki Lamproplos" <nsl at icubed.com> 10/25 6:21  >>>
The definition of language that I am familiar with is that

it is a rule-governed system which is used to express and perceive
information,

rule governed are almost all our behavioral systems; the description is
valid for all communication systems


has a community of users,

this is valid for all communication systems


possesses infinite production possibilities,

this is definitely incorrect


 is passed from generation to
generation,

this is valid for almost all our behavior and culture issues


and changes over time.

this is also valid for a big set of behavior and for all culture
techniques



So, how to describe "Language"?



 Primates are certainly able to communicate - as are all animals - but
even when years are
spent teaching them signs, they are not able to incorporate grammatical
rules,

In order to falsify or proof such a huge hypothesis, we would need much
more sophisticated and expensive experiments (like whole groups of
primates being used; a more intensive control and interpretation of the
learning process, an improved delivery of language, etc.)
Additionally, I found Fouts' publications very inspiring where he also
discusses the fact that it is at least very difficult to interprete the
cognitive processes of primates at this stage of research development).


 teach younger primates, etc.

Wasn't there a new announcement (cf. the publications of the Fouts
team)?


 The key missing link is that primates do not develop syntax.

Can you describe syntax? If you take it as the faculty to combine
menaingful items, the primates seem to have it. If you mean structures
being automatised to some extent, there has not been enough research; if
you mean abstract syntactic models, we do not know whether we use those
ourselves.


Washoe, Koko, and Nim Chimpsky used symbols to communicate, but did so
without rules.  Their abilities are easily attributed to training.

They used symbols, combined them and managed to transpose them to other
situations. In my eyes these are constitutive parts of an evolutionary
early stage of languiage, somewhat which we may call itself 'Language'
or not. And, maybe - from a perspective of constructive realism - we may
not be aware of THEIR rules.


Additional comment: Is there some fear that these primates may be not
too far from us?

Best Regards


Franz Dotter

University of Klagenfurt
Research Center for Sign Language and Communication of the Hearing
Impaired
(of the Faculty for Cultural Sciences at the Department of Linguistics
and Computational Linguistics)
Funded by: Provincial government of Carinthia, Bundessozialamt
Kaernten, European Social Fund
Head: Franz Dotter
Collaborators: Elisabeth Bergmeister (deaf), Christian Hausch (deaf),
Marlene Hilzensauer, Klaudia Krammer, Christine Kulterer, Andrea Skant,
Natialie Unterberger (deaf).
Homepage: http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/fzgs
Deaf server (in German): http://deaf.uni-klu.ac.at
Fax: ++43 (0)463 2700 2899
Phone: ++43 (0)463 2700 /2821 (Franz Dotter), /2822 (Andrea Skant),
/2823 (Marlene Hilzensauer), /2824 (Klaudia Krammer), /2829 (Christine
Kulterer)
Email addresses: firstname.lastname at uni-klu.ac.at




Niki Lamproplos

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 10/24/2002 at 8:02 PM Kelly Stack wrote:

>Dear Mr. Eilenberg,
>
>I am copying your message to the Sign Language Linguistics
email list,
>which is a discussion list for issues regarding the linguistics
of signed
>languages.  I am hoping some of my colleagues may be able to
add to the
>discussion.
>
>Sticking strictly to the questions you asked, it would not be
correct to
>say that someone who has been taught American Sign Language has
been taught
>English.  That would be similar to saying that if someone is
taught French,
>they have also been taught Chinese.  As to your second
question, although
>American Sign Language has been referred to in the past with
other names, I
>would say that most contemporary researchers refer to it as
American Sign
>Language or ASL.
>
>Your first question assumes that it is possible to teach a
natural human
>language to a non-human.  There is no evidence that I am aware
of that any
>non-human has ever mastered a human language, including both
spoken and
>signed languages.  Therefore, to say that a primate has learned
American
>Sign Language would be (in my opinion) a gross misstatement of
fact, and
>would also be insulting to the human beings who use ASL in
their daily
>interactions.
>
>In my opinion (and I hope my colleagues will offer their own
opinions),
>primates such as the ones you refer to have learned a symbol
system that is
>nowhere near as complex and powerful as human language.  I wish
people who
>have poured their resources and energies into teaching primates
>communicative gestures would have instead devoted themselves to
finding out
>more about the native communicative abilities of animals, or to
finding out
>more about how humans acquire human languages.
>
>Given that the question you want to ask would promote further
>misunderstanding of ASL and its status as a natural human
language, I would
>like to ask you to consider NOT asking the question about
primates, and
>instead asking some other question, such as:
>
>- Given that the left side of the brain controls language and
the right
>side controls spatial perception, which side of the brain do
Deaf people
>use for sign language?  (studies show it is the left side)
>- Is sign language a universal language?  (No; there are
hundreds, perhaps
>thousands, of different sign languages that are mutually
unintelligible.)
>- If you have trouble learning languages, should you try to
learn American
>Sign Language?  (if you have trouble with spoken languages
chances are
>you'll have trouble with signed languages too)
>- Can all Deaf people read lips?  (no)
>
>I hope this has been helpful.
>
>--Kelly Stack
>
>
>>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>>Reply-To: <beilenberg at weakestlinktv.com>
>>From: "Ben Eilenberg" <beilenberg at weakestlinktv.com>
>>To: <stack at ucla.edu>
>>Subject: Question for the Weakest Link game show
>>Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:27:01 -0700
>>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
>>Importance: Normal
>>
>>Dear Professor Stack,
>>
>>My name is Ben Eilenberg, and I am a researcher for the
Weakest Link game
>>show.  We are researching a question involving American Sign
Language, and I
>>was hoping that I could consult with you about its content.
Basically, we
>>are asking a question about the primates that have been taught
American Sign
>>Language at Washington State's Chimpanzee and Human
Communication Institute,
>>and the issue raised during our read-through was whether that
means that
>>they have been taught English.
>>
>>I will admit that I am uncertain what the answer is.  I was
hoping that you
>>could answer two questions for us:
>>
>>1.  If somebody has only been taught American Sign Language,
is it at all
>>correct to say that they have been taught English?
>>2.  Are there any other official names for American Sign
Language?
>>
>>Thank you very much for your help.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>Ben Eilenberg
>>NBC - Weakest Link
>>Research Department
>>818-526-6369
>>beilenberg at weakestlinktv.com