JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum Alex the Gray Parrot... look at this!

I just learned today about a 31-year old parrot named Alex who learned interactive language during his lifetime. Apparently he passed away last September, and thousands of people sent condolence emails... so he's already famous. Research on his ability to communicate was documented throughout his life, and he has been featured on the Discovery Channel and PBS. He knew well over 50 words and broke preconceived scientific notions about animals and language learning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6KvPN_Wt8I&feature=related
I was pointed to video of this amazing parrot from another author-friend's blog today, and was so surprised by the footage. In the middle of getting all these answers right, he'd stop and say, "Want lunch. Want a nut."

I found a nice interview with the researcher who started looking into teaching language to birds, Irene Pepperberg, here:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pepperberg03/pepperberg_index.html

Here's a brief quote:
"There are some things that the birds do that, colloquially speaking, "just blow us away." We were training Alex to sound out phonemes, not because we want him to read as humans do, but we want to see if he understands that his labels are made up of sounds that can be combined in different ways to make up new words; that is, to demonstrate evidence for segmentation. He babbles at dusk, producing strings like "green, cheen, bean, keen", so we have some evidence for this behavior, but we need more solid data.

Thus we are trying to get him to sound out refrigerator letters, the same way one would train children on phonics. We were doing demos at the Media Lab for our corporate sponsors; we had a very small amount of time scheduled and the visitors wanted to see Alex work. So we put a number of differently colored letters on the tray that we use, put the tray in front of Alex, and asked, "Alex, what sound is blue?" He answers, "Ssss." It was an "s", so we say "Good birdie" and he replies, "Want a nut."

Well, I don't want him sitting there using our limited amount of time to eat a nut, so I tell him to wait, and I ask, "What sound is green?" Alex answers, "Ssshh." He's right, it's "sh," and we go through the routine again: "Good parrot." "Want a nut." "Alex, wait. What sound is orange?" "ch." "Good bird!" "Want a nut." We're going on and on and Alex is clearly getting more and more frustrated. He finally gets very slitty-eyed and he looks at me and states, "Want a nut. Nnn, uh, tuh."

Not only could you imagine him thinking, "Hey, stupid, do I have to spell it for you?" but the point was that he had leaped over where we were and had begun sounding out the letters of the words for us. This was in a sense his way of saying to us, "I know where you're headed! Let's get on with it," which gave us the feeling that we were on the right track with what we were doing. These kinds of things don't happen in the lab on a daily basis, but when they do, they make you realize there's a lot more going on inside these little walnut-sized brains than you might at first imagine."

The rest of the article talks about how this compares to primate language research, and was fascinating.

This article tells more about what Alex could do with his speech, and who Irene Pepperberg is:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/12/080512fa_fact_talbot?currentPage=all

I know - this doesn't have much to do with music, but I thought it was way cool, and wanted to share Alex's gift with you all.

Linda

If you are interested in very smart birds, then check out N'kisi, an African Grey parrot with a vocabulary of about 950 words. This is comparable to the best chimps and gorillas that have been taught to communicate with humans. Jane Goodall made a point of going to see N'kisi and having seen a picture of her with a chimp prior to her showing up, N'kisi said to her when he first saw her in person, "got a chimp?"

The story of N'kisi simply blew me away when I first read about him.

Cool, Jack! I'll look him up. Do you have a link handy?
Alex's vocabulary was much smaller.

It all makes me think there is very likely more going on in animals' heads than we give them credit for. We try *not* to anthropomorphize things... but... maybe we should.

Linda

Linda,

Here are some links to learn about N'kisi and some of the things that have been done with him. One of the links have some recordings of his speaking.

http://www.sheldrake.org/nkisi/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N'kisi

http://www.sheldrake.org/nkisi/nkisi1_text.html

As a linguist I can tell you straight up that none of this proves that animals can learn human language. All non-humans have their own unique communication system which associates meanings with signs. Just because these animals are classically conditioned to associate meanings with signs doesn't mean that they can be taught human language. Every single attempt to teach human language to animals has been a complete and utter failure.

Oh, I just a documentary on PBS about this little guy. Very moving. Regarding teaching the animals language. I think that is incorrect. There have been experiments with our distant cousins. Some apes or gorillas (can't remember which) were able to communicate with sign language.

There have been studies done with both chimpanzees and gorillas who were taught to use sign language. Washoe was a chimp who actually began using sign language while still a young infant because his mother had been taught to use it and he began picking it up from her. He was one of the best known longest running subjects of study of the chimpanzees who used sign language. A gorilla named Koko was also an interesting subject of study using sign language.

There are people in the scientific community that challenge the conclusions of some of the research, just as Ralph does, but there are other highly respected members of the community that believe there is more to it than Ralph's claim.

Notice that those Dr. Dolittle 'I can talk to the animal' PBS specials never interview linguists. They talk almost exclusively to animal researchers whose funding is dependent on results. The chimps you mention never learned how to use sign language. they learned the meaning of a select number of signs and were trained by their handlers to use them in certain ways in order to receive rewards (food). that is simple classical conditioning. The chimps never showed any evidence that they could use the system in creative and innovative ways, they way a deaf child can. Washoe and Koko are major failures from the 60s and 70s.

All those signs that these chimps supposedly learned were signs associated with concrete things in their environment, like food, which were necessary for their survival. None of the signs in question were related to abstract concepts, suggesting that these animals did not possess the necessary cognitive ability to process them. Also, there has never been a single example of a chimp using an existing sign to create a new sign, something humans do all the time. If they cannot manipulate the system to create new words, THEN THEY CAN'T REALLY BE SAID TO BE LEARNING THE SYSTEM.

Making a sign in order to receive a peanut or a banana is hardly REAL communication.

Another significant problem in the chimp research involves how they string signs together. Once a human child has reached the two-word or three-word stage, they show the ability to combine words in ways consistent with he word order of the particular language they are learning to speak. For example, a child in an English speaking environment will put modifiers in front of nouns (e.g., big ball), while a child in a French speaking environment will do the exact opposite (e.g., ball black). THEY NEVER STRING SIGNS TOGETHER IN RANDOM ORDER.

This shows that children are processing the system -- that they have an innate grammar that they are using to learn the particular variety of human language spoken in the speech community in which they live.

Chimps NEVER SHOW THIS KIND OF KNOWLEDGE. They will often randomly string signs together in any order until they receive their reward. The following is an example chimp sentence:

ME BANANA YOU YOU YOU BANANA YOU ME ME YOU BANANA ME

A child would NEVER produce a 'sentence' like this. This clearly shows that the chimps lack grammar, without which they cannot learn human language. This is a HUGE point and one that Joan London will never tell you about on the PBS specials. The use of human language requires innate human grammar, something children are born with, something that cannot be taught, and something that is 100% lacking in non-humans. Without grammar there can be no understanding or processing of human language.

Hi All I think it might be some time before chimps or parrote explain the theory of relativity. The point about not being able to express themselves and only being programmed for reward is not quite true. I saw a documentary where a chimp clearly understood pictures and signs and language. It communicated quite lucidly about many abstract things using signs and pictures. It did indeed make up new complex words using existing language and signs. It even had a sense of humour playing jokes with the trainer. Linguists were studying this chimp and agreed that it was not down to learned behaviour or copying for a reward. It knew happy and sad and tired and hungry and would interupt what was going on to express these feelings.

No, it didn't. I am sure that the documentary you watched made that point. They all do, but they are way short on substantive evidence. I teach courses in this stuff. I am very familiar with the research and I can tell you that there is not one single example of a non-human using sign language to 'create' new words with new meanings. There are occasional examples cited in the literature, but these turn out to be misinterpretations of data. If a chimp could do this once, it could do it a thousand times. One example over several years is evidence of nothing.

It would appear that your opinion is very much disputed. There are two distinct camps on this subject. One accepts the principals that animals can communicate through various ways including signs and noise. The other does not think that animals are capable of such things because God designed them that way. Evolution is still being disputed. If you believe in evolution, and the facts are pretty unquestionable, then it is only a tiny step to get to animals speaking either vocally or by using signs.
Interesting to note that most people who dispute the evidence that animals have intelligence are doing so from a religious dogma POV. Here is a link giving some evidence of what animals can do.

http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/psych26/language.htm

Keep in mind that this is something in which I have expertise. I am familiar with all the relevant literature and will tell you right now that there is NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT NON-HUMANS CAN BE TAUGHT TO PROCESS HUMAN LANGUAGE.



Nobody disputes this. All living organisms have their own unique system of communication, varying from quite simple (e.g., silk moth) to extremely complex (e.g.., honey bees).



'..... because god designed them that way' is not exactly what you would call a scientific argument.

You completely miss the argument. Animal researchers believe that animals have the capacity to learn how to to process human language. Their goal is to show this through research. THEY HAVE FAILED time and time again to show this.

Linguists, who are the REAL experts on language, almost universally dispute this argument, arguing instead that there is an innate component, namely the Grammar, that is biologically pre-existent in humans. Humans thus come with the mental faculties which will allow them to learn and use human language. There is not a single shred of evidence that shows animals have any type of Grammar in their heads.



Not by reputable scientists, it isn't -- only by people who build creationist museums in Kentucky.



Sorry. I believe in evolution and I reject the idea that animals can learn human language. There is simply no evidence for it. The evidence, in fact, goes the other way. YOU CAN'T LEARN HUMAN LANGUAGE WITHOUT HUMAN GRAMMAR AND ANIMALS DON'T HAVE A GRAMMAR.



Where did I say that animals have no intelligence? They do. Some of the systems of communication employed by lower life forms are incredibly complex and show that the organisms that use them are highly intelligent. All I am saying is that the kind of language that human beings have is unique to humans because of the uniqueness of the human mind. That doesn't automatically mean that I have a religious perspective on this.

Say God built humans that way or say that they evolved over millions of years. The point is that humans are unique among all living organisms.

Yep I agree with you on a lot of what you say. Interesting discussion. I love a good argument and am always willing to exchange ideas and POVs. Interesting to hear your thoughts on the following.
If I tried to have a conversation with someone from a different culture and country who spoke a language I did not understand then I would not have the grammer and would have to resort to signs and gesticulations only being able to talk in primitive terms. Interesting to see how this is in any way different from animals trying to communicate with us and vice versa. I am no expert in this field and bow to your knowledge. However it is still funny to see the reaction from my dogs when we say certain words and they even try to say "out" when they want a walk.

I have always thought it incredibly conceited that we humans set ourselves so far apart from animals when genetically there is very little difference. Am I wrong? LOL

Most animals tend not to be as violent and self destructive as humans.

When a linguist uses the term GRAMMAR, they are generally referring to an abstract set of parameters in the human mind that are set based on the specific rules of the language to which the child is exposed. The theory is that all humans have the exact same set of parameters in their brains and that differences among specific languages is due to differences in how those parameters are set.

Humans are the only living organism with the ability to reason and think in abstract terms.

Ooooh! I sparked a debate! Unintentional I assure you.

Interesting to hear what both sides have to say on this.

What I want to know is, why *do* we tend to think animals can't possess as much intelligence as we do, only based on our capacity for spoken language?

Why, just because an animal's brain may not possess the power of grammar, is it hard to believe they might *want* to communicate with us if they could?

Why do we spend so much time researching and training and hoping animals can learn *our* language, instead of investing the same amount of time & investment into learning how to communicate using *their* systems?

Back to Alex the parrot for a moment... one of the quotes I read said if he asked for grape and you gave him banana, you'd be wearing the banana. I'm not a linguist, but that seems clear to me that he had at least learned to relate the sound-label "grape" to the food "grape" to get the food he wanted.

Irene Pepperberg chose parrots for her research subject because an animal with a long life span necessarily has to possess memory and intelligence in order to observe its environment and survive that long in it. I can't weigh in on the science - both rblight and Big Jim have made excellent points. (RB - I assume you're feeling better now, BTW? That's good news!)

Just because animals cannot speak a verbal, intelligible language, doesn't mean they don't or can't have complex thoughts, emotions, or a good deal of intelligence.

To fuel the fire even hotter the links on N'Kisi the parrot pointed me to studies which say the bird may actually be telepathic.

How about that?

What if all the animals ARE talking - with their minds, and think we're pretty stupid just using our primitive mouths? LOL Maybe it's they that think WE don't talk. Ah-Haaaaaaa...

(Don't throw the rotten oranges, remember, I'm a FICTION author and stuff like that makes fodder for interesting storytelling!!)


Linda

"Humans are the only living organism with the ability to reason and think in abstract terms."

Where I come from that is open to debate. Some folk I know are incapable of thinking ...period. LOL

Seriously I am very interested in this subject but not well read can you recommend some reading material.

The best book on the subject (written for non-linguists)

The Language Instinct
by Steven Pinker

That's why they give out the Darwin Awards.

Thanks I will get a copy.

Humm,
This all reminds me of a person that had a Bird Dog. One time he and a friend went bird hunting. After a while they got a bird out over the water.
The dog calmly walked on the water and fetched the bird.
This happened two more times. The other person said, Thats Amazing! I never seen a dog do that before.

Yeah, said the dog's owner. I never could teach that dog to swim.