Friday, April 28, 2006

Starlings and Recursion

UPDATE: The actual linguists at Language Log have posted on the Gentner et al. paper, here and here, and they're less impressed with the results than I am. Since they're linguists, you should probably just read their post instead of this one.

UPDATE II: A really good discussion (much better than mine, and no, I'm not just being modest), and critical evaluation of the experiments can be found here. The one thing I wonder is whether the explanation there (simple counting) would account for the generalization to
A3B3 sequences. It might, but I'd have to think about it a bit more.

A few years ago, Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch wrote a paper in which they argued that the "only uniquely human component of the language faculty" is recursion, and on top of that, recursion is the only component of the language faculty that is not co-opted from other perceptual systems (though they believe that even recursion evolved for other purposes). It turns out that recursion recursion may not be uniquely human after all. A paper by Gentner et al. published in yesterday's issue of Nature shows that, in the authors' words:
European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) accurately recognize acoustic patterns defined by a recursive, self-embedding, context-free grammar.
What does that mean? I'll try to explain. Since I'm not a linguist, I'll probably get something wrong. Feel free to point out my errors.

In Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Chomsky specifies a hierarchy of grammars for formal languages, with those at the top being the most inclusive grammar, called Type-0, or unrestricted grammars, and at the bottom, the least inclusive, called Type-3 or finite-state grammars, which are grammars that can be decided by a finite-state machine. In essence, a finite-state grammar includes rules that allow you to add elements (words, morphemes, phrases, or whatever) either at the beginning of a string or at the end. For example, you could start with the word "Chris," and at each step add a new word after the last word in the sequence, perhaps based on a rule specifying which word you should choose based on the last word, and come up with a sentence, like say, "Chris should stick to psychology."

Two steps up from finite-state grammars in the hierarchy is the Type-2 grammar, or the context-free grammar (the next level up is context-sensitive, at Type-1). Context-free grammars can have rules that add elements (again, these can be any linguistic element) at the beginning and end of strings, but also in the middle of strings. So, a context-free grammar would allow you to produce the sentence, "Chris should stick to psychology," and then add, in the middle of the sentence, "Chris really should stick to psychology."

One of the important arguments in Aspects is that the grammars of natural languages are not finite-state grammars. In order to model natural languages, you need at least a Type-2, context-free grammar. It's upon that argument (and the work done based on it between 1956, when Aspects was published, and 2002) that Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch are building. The type of recursion they're talking about is the type that is possible in context-free grammars. They are arguing that the only uniquely human component of the language faculty is the recursion of context-free grammars.

If that description doesn't make sense, then check out this graphic presentation from the Gentner et al. paper (Figure 1):


Gentner et al. used two elements of starlings' songs, rattles and warbles (here's a recording of a starling song, which also contain whistles not used in the stimuli), and produced two grammars, one finite-state grammar defined as ABn in the figure above, and the other a context-free grammar, defined as AnBn in the figure (an example sequence might be rattle-warble-rattle-warble). They then used operant conditioning to train half the birds to respond to the A2B2 (e.g., rattle-rattle-warble-warble ) sequences, and half to the AB2 (e.g., rattle-warble-rattle-warble) sequences. If the starlings could tell the difference between the two grammars, and thus can accurately respond to one or the other, it would mean that humans are not unique in this ability. And though it took the birds bit longer (about 3000 trials) than it usually takes for starlings to be trained to classify songs, nine out of the eleven birds they trained did learn to classify the two types of grammars. Furthermore, all nine of the birds who learned to classify the two types of grammars were also able to classify A3B3 (e.g., rattle-rattle-rattle-warble-warble-warble) and AB3 (e.g., rattle-warble-rattle-warble-rattle-warble) sequences, though not A4B4 or AB4. This implies that the birds who had learned to recognize the grammars were able to generalize that learning, and recognize longer strings. So there were memory limitations (most humans can recognize strings with more than 6 elements).

What does this mean for Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch's claims? Well, here's what Gentner et al. concluded:
Although uniquely human syntactic processing capabilities, if any, may reflect more complex context-free grammars or higher levels in the Chomsky grammatical hierarchy, it may prove more useful to consider species differences as quantitative rather than qualitative distinctions in cognitive mechanisms. Such mechanisms (for example, memory capacity) need not map precisely onto strict formal grammars and automata theories. There might be no single property or processing capacity that marks the many ways in which the complexity and detail of human language differs from non-human communication systems.
In other words, the Hauser et al. claim that the recursive component is unique to the human language faculty needs to be qualified. The recursive component itself is not unique to humans, though the complexity of that component may be. This may mean that the language faculty (in Hauser et al.'s narrow sense) involves more than just recursion.

While the authors don't address it, I think their research might also say something about one of the other major claims of Hauser et al. It's unlikely that starlings use context-free recursion in their everyday singing and song recognition, as evidenced by the fact that it took them longer than usual to learn to recognize the context-free grammar sequences. So it's also unlikely that starlings evolved the ability to recognize recursion for the purposes of singing/song-recognition. Instead, the ability probably evolved for some other reason. Hauser et al. suggest that it may have evolved in humans for faculties other than language as well, and give as possible examples number computation, navigation, and social relations. I don't really know anything about European starling social relations, or their ability to compute numbers, but navigation certainly seems like a possibility for the evolution of recursion in birds. While it's not direct evidence, the fact that recursion may have evolved in birds for reasons other than language production and comprehension means that, even if it evolved separately in humans (and it likely did, as Fitch and Hauser found no evidence that cotton-top tamarins could recognize context-free grammar sequences), it could have evolved for use by faculties other than language in our evolutionary history too.

12 comments:

Christopher Trottier said...

It turns out that Derrida is laughing in his grave.

eWraith said...

Oh dear! The life of a linguist {hand up.. I'm one] with a bee in his bonnet is a strange one. The problem is that many linguists start from a position which assumes the superiority of the human condition, especially with regard to "language". This is, of course, the narrow position that Chomsky, et al, take. The problem being that humans dictate the form that language and communication must take and apply that to other species, which is mere academic fodder, but little else.

This study shows, clearly, that starlings, like the mynah birds they are, are tremendous mimics, who are more than ready to perform for food. Mynah birds would have been better subjects, you could have trained them to repeat words in finite-state form and context-free form. The cost of course would be prohibitive, mynahs are expensive. The result would be the same. Mynahs are great mimics.

Studies into parrots and their semantic use of language are much more interesting. See Dr. Pepperberg's studies with 'Alex'. There's a Macaw here that regularly uses deictic terms in appropriate contexts. see http://foostie.blogspot.com

Chris said...

eWraith, glad to have a linguist comment without pointing out something I got wrong.

I'm very familiar with Alex and other African greys. It's fascinating stuff, and certainly challenges one of the requirements of a uniquely human language, the use of Saussurian signs.

Oren said...

I would like to point out that the experiment is wrong.

The sequences Starlings had to respond to were of the sort AABB or AAABBB, for instance. This means that rather than internalizing the concept of recursion, all they had to do was to count. If two B's were preceded by two A's, then they pressed a bar and were rewarded. But even that could be argued against. The birds could just detect a change in pattern, say a change from A to B. If they detected it an adequate amount of times when it was (accidentally) "recursive" (note that there were 10,000 - 50,000 trials), this would become statistically significant, enabling to falsely argue that they succeeded in recognizing recursion.

The conclusion must be that Starlings do not possess anything similar to the core property of human language (recursion). The above comments are also valid to studies of Tamarins (by Hauser). In fact, experiments involving self-embedding (AB)^n do not show anything about recursion because of this complication

Ron Sullivan said...

Oren, I believe that conclusion is overstated. If the experiment proved nothing, then it proved nothing -- not that any other thing it true.

I might quibble by saying that it's more accurate to call a mynah a starling than to call a starling a mynah, if you're going by the family name, but a bigger point is that I'd have thought by now that people would have given up on that "uniquely human" statement about pretty much anything, because, like the "only God could have..." statement, it's characterized mostly by the number of times it's been squashed flat. I'm sure there are uniquely human things, but I'm not inclined to say I know what they are, beyond some genetic arrangements that I'm still merely assuming.

I wouldn't want anyone to conclude from this that I'm a starling myself or have an inordinate fondness for the European starling, of course, though I've heard that in sufficient quantities it makes a decent gumbo.

Chris said...

Starling gumbo? Eww...

There's definitely something "uniquely human" about human language, at least when compared to all of the animal species we know, but whether that uniqueness comes from unique computational mechanisms, or from a unique combination of fairly common mechanisms, is far from clear.

Anonymous said...

maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons
maadloons

Anonymous said...

看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,美髮儀器,美髮,儀器,髮型,EMBA,MBA,學位,EMBA,專業認證,認證課程,博士學位,DBA,PHD,在職進修,碩士學位,推廣教育,DBA,進修課程,碩士學位,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,課程介紹,學分班,文憑,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,日式料理, 台北居酒屋,日本料理,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,造型系列,學位,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,SEO,婚宴,捷運,學區,美髮,儀器,髮型,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,房子,捷運,學區,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,學位,碩士學位,進修,在職進修, 課程,教育,學位,證照,mba,文憑,學分班,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,居酒屋,燒烤,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,小套房,小套房,進修,在職進修,留學,證照,MBA,EMBA,留學,MBA,EMBA,留學,進修,在職進修,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,关键词排名,网络营销,網路行銷,關鍵字排名,关键词排名,网络营销,PMP,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,PMP,證照,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,EMBA,MBA,PMP
,在職進修,專案管理,出國留學,EMBA,MBA,PMP
,在職進修,專案管理,出國留學,EMBA,MBA,PMP
,在職進修,專案管理,出國留學

住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,住宿,民宿,飯店,旅遊,美容,美髮,整形,造型,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林,林志玲,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林,林志玲,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林

wow power leveling said...

cheap wow power leveling buy wow gold cheapest wow power leveling CHEAP wow gold BUY power leveling CHEAPEST wow powerleveling
wow goldwow goldwow goldwow goldweiwei

polo shirt said...

Do not mean bad.Thank you so much! I just want to show some fashion wedding dress, cheap wedding dresses to all of you. I like wedding dresses, because wedding for a girl, it is the most special day in her life. Do you want to have the beautiful wedding dresses and designer wedding dresses in perfect day?? Here are the most popular discount wedding dresses and lace wedding dresses even plus size wedding dresses for all of you. Also the cheap evening dresses and evening formal dresses are a great choice for you. Let you dream come ture!! When you take part in a party, you can choose party cocktail dresses, also fashion but cheap cocktail dresses and cheap prom dresses here. Besides, the cheap bridesmaid dress and cheap flower girl dresses are also provide to you!

zhuneilixu said...

On New Year's hottest r306c SONY Ericssoncheap cell phones

wholesale
, r306 first win in shape, give a person the feeling of professional and heavy. Its

design clamshell has hidden qualities. Although the low-end market positioning, introduction, SONY

Ericsson R series launched two must let those radio enthusiasts. And there are cheap ones, let the

public mobile phonewholesale of delight

The word "shanzhai" is very popular in China. It is industry phenomenon of imitation, high quality

and low price. Moreover, cell phones are the

representative of them.The global financial crisis led to a significant shri10:25 2009-12-26 nkage

of assets for people. "china wholesale" demonstrate the

might. most of them would like buy the cheap cell phonesnow .

Through google search engine, when you put in "discount cell
phones", you will find more than 15,000 pieces of related information.Cell phone china has been

concerned in the world. Many

international sellers can get a considerable profit by ways of wholesale cell phones from China

and switch selling. So it is a very

good job on cell phones wholesale in the current cosplay costumes

financial crisis.

Afiz said...

Successful Internet Marketing
Targeted Internet Marketing
Online Forex Trading
Automated Forex Trading