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

Fri Oct 25 11:22:27 UTC 2002

Hi everybody,

I agree with Franz. Without having read detailed studies of the
sign/communicational behaviour of Washoe and her family, Fouts and his
collegues show that it is far more sophisticated than just making some
signs. The number of signs and the coining of these signs seems to be
small, but this may be do to the severe testings that have been used (if
these would be used on the sign or word sequences of people, the difference
between the symbolic communication of the chimps and people may not be so
great...). Moreover, it appears that Washoe even taught her foster son to
sign.
Another thing is that humans have been using 'language' for thousands of
years, and have different interests as chimpanzees. Thus, it is logical
that utterances of chimpanzees will not be totally equal to those of
humans. I would hesitate to say that the signed communication of these
chimpanzees is not language, but rather await more detailed studies an
comparisons.

Best,
Inge Zwitserlood

At 12:58 25-10-02 +0200, you wrote:
>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
>

***********************************************************
Inge Zwitserlood, UiL OTS
Trans 10                                     Fort Orthenlaan 13
3512 JK  UTRECHT                 5231 PZ 's-HERTOGENBOSCH
030 - 253 83 13                        073 - 642 40 43
inge.zwitserlood at let.uu.nl     izjo at knoware.nl
***********************************************************