Literature DB >> 21635313

Recursion, language, and starlings.

Michael C Corballis1.   

Abstract

It has been claimed that recursion is one of the properties that distinguishes human language from any other form of animal communication. Contrary to this claim, a recent study purports to demonstrate center-embedded recursion in starlings. I show that the performance of the birds in this study can be explained by a counting strategy, without any appreciation of center-embedding. To demonstrate that birds understand center-embedding of sequences of the form A(n) B(n) (such as A(1) A(2) B(2) B(1) , or A(3) A(4) A(5) B(5) B(4) B(3) ) would require not only that they discriminate such patterns from other patterns, but that they appreciate that elements must be bound from the outside in (thus, in the above examples, A(1) B(1) , A(2) B(2) , A(3) B(3) , A(4) B(4) , A(5) B(5) are bound pairs). This has not been shown in nonhuman species, and sentences with this structure are difficult even for humans to parse. There appears to be no evidence to date that nonhuman species understand recursion. 2007 Cognitive Science Society, Inc.

Entities:  

Year:  2007        PMID: 21635313     DOI: 10.1080/15326900701399947

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cogn Sci        ISSN: 0364-0213


  22 in total

Review 1.  Revisiting the syntactic abilities of non-human animals: natural vocalizations and artificial grammar learning.

Authors:  Carel ten Cate; Kazuo Okanoya
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2012-07-19       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  How semantic biases in simple adjacencies affect learning a complex structure with non-adjacencies in AGL: a statistical account.

Authors:  Fenna H Poletiek; Jun Lai
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2012-07-19       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 3.  The redundancy of recursion and infinity for natural language.

Authors:  Erkki Luuk; Hendrik Luuk
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2010-07-23

4.  Animal vocal sequences: not the Markov chains we thought they were.

Authors:  Arik Kershenbaum; Ann E Bowles; Todd M Freeberg; Dezhe Z Jin; Adriano R Lameira; Kirsten Bohn
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2014-10-07       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Visual artificial grammar learning: comparative research on humans, kea (Nestor notabilis) and pigeons (Columba livia).

Authors:  Nina Stobbe; Gesche Westphal-Fitch; Ulrike Aust; W Tecumseh Fitch
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2012-07-19       Impact factor: 6.237

6.  Perception of warble song in budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus): evidence for special processing.

Authors:  Hsiao-Wei Tu; Robert J Dooling
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2012-08-14       Impact factor: 3.084

Review 7.  Sound sequences in birdsong: how much do birds really care?

Authors:  Adam R Fishbein; William J Idsardi; Gregory F Ball; Robert J Dooling
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2019-11-18       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 8.  Probing recursion.

Authors:  David J Lobina
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2014-05-10

9.  Language: the perspective from organismal biology.

Authors:  Daniel Margoliash; Howard C Nusbaum
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2009-11-04       Impact factor: 20.229

10.  What's special about human language? The contents of the "narrow language faculty" revisited.

Authors:  Matthew J Traxler; Megan Boudewyn; Jessica Loudermilk
Journal:  Lang Linguist Compass       Date:  2012-10-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.