AUSP320 1st EditionExam # 2 Study Guide Lectures: 9-18Lecture 9 (February 20th)I. Language Learning Studies on Non-Human PrimatesA. Primates are genetically the closest animals to humansB. Gua and Vicky, 1930s and 40s: 2 separate instances of a husband and wife pair attempting to teach chimpanzees to produce (i.e. actually speak) human language. Both chimps were raised just like human children, but didn’t achieve success even after 6 years; Vicky could only barely approximate a very few human words. This showed a failure of the Behaviorist paradigm-the chimps were rewarded for approximating words but this positive reinforcement didn’t improve their abilities.C. Washoe, 1960s: Removes obstacle of anatomical impossibility of chimp producing human speech-chimp was taught sign language using Behaviorist operant conditioning techniques. After 6-8 years the chimp could sign about 100 things, but there was no real morphology or syntax; no reference to non-immediate objects or desires; no creative language use.D. Koko, 1970s: Again, used Behaviorist operant conditioning techniques and sign language. Koko purportedly learned over 1000 signs and understood over 2000 words-Controversy over whether or not Koko really used signs creatively or not; when she saw a picture of a swan in a lake and made the signs for “water” and “bird,” was she creatingher own way to say “swan” or just identifying two things she saw?-In 1998 AOL chat room experiments, Koko’s responses were non-contingent: they didn’t necessarily depend on what had been said before. She didn’t seem to understand thelanguage that was directed at her.E. Nim Chimpsky: Scientist behind experiment believed the failure of other experiments was based on their use of Behaviorism as a language learning model-he thought they should treat the chimp like family/a human person and see if it would learn language naturalistically was raised with a human family and taught ASL, learning over 100 signs.a. Chimp could sign, but whether he was just mirroring what his keepers did and his ability to use signs creatively was not clearly established-another failure-Failure of the experiment was seen as proof by Generativists of their concepts of human-exclusive innate Universal Grammar and Language Acquisition DevicesF. Kanzi the Bonobo: Represents the best success in teaching non-human animals language thus far. Multiple bonobos were being attempted to teach pictograms on a board, including Kanzi’s mother-without any training, Kanzi started spontaneously using the pictogram board (incidental learning).a. Pictograms=Generic symbols with no correspondence or likeness to what theyrepresent. Included nouns, adjectives, emotions, wishes, abstract concepts.b. Learning exclusively through listening and observing (no formal/Behaviorist training), Kanzi follows simple conversations, has a vocab of several hundred words, makesrequests/expresses desires, correctly responds to commands, distinguishes between words, understands sentences as well as words, has awareness of and can “talk” about objects he can’t see, sometimes responds creatively to problems-Doesn’t just read lips, expressions, or eye gazec. Questions remain about just how much Kanzi understands: all we have certainevidence for is that he knows a lot about affordances (understand what objects are for and what they can or can’t do) and has a good amount of vocab, but we are unclear about if he understands syntax and, if so, to what degree- Given Kanzi’s experience with objects and what to do with them maybehe is just recalling these associations and acting that out as opposed to actually having understanding.-Does he understand syntax? Scientists didn’t test any reversible structures where understanding of syntax would have made a difference in the outcome; for example, observing which toy he makes “kiss” the other when told “make the doggie kiss the kitty” could show knowing the distinction between subject and direct object.-Some have suggested that Kanzi lacks an important part of language development called Reference/The Naming Insight: The realization that objects/entities/events/ actions actually have names and that’s what language is for; having reference between sounds and what they are referring to; knowing “this is called ____” vs. just saying that word in repetition, to complete a task, for a reward, because someone wants you to, or as a reflexive response to a certain environment/condition. Critics say when Kanzi asks for something (“let’s go pick strawberries”) it is because of context or an association with something (like seeing a basket that is used for collecting strawberries), so it’s just Behavioral conditioning.Lecture 10 (February 25th)Language Function and CommuniationI. Animal vs. Human Communication SystemsA. There are differences between what humans can do that animals can’t that set human communication systems apart. B. Human language is symbolica. Reference: Arbitrary signs are used to name objects/refer to some object; this is the same as The Naming Insightb. Behavioral states vs. mental states: The purpose of animal sounds are to influence behavior, while humans make sounds to influence the mental states of others, not just to create a reflexive, Pavlovian responsec. Perspectival: Humans can understand/adopt the perspective of other people and have different perspectives for the same symbol. Animals can’t do this.-Example: Distinction between “dog”-“pet”-and “Golden Retriever”=matter of perspective. “Running” vs. “Fleeing” and “Coming” vs. “Going”=same acts, different perspectivesC. Human language is grammaticala. Animal communication systems do not show rules and structureb. Grammar is conventionalized: it differs by group and is culturally determinedD. Human language is socially shareda. Human language is not innate like it is in animalsb. Grammar is acquired during ontogeny: the process of development; infants don’t understand and use grammar from day 1. We acquire grammar socially from the language of those around us II. Communication as a Reason to Learn LanguageA. Most agree that communication is the basis/foundation of language and the reason for learning languagea. Some suggest that we learn language as a tool for social interaction, while others (Chomsky) say that it’s circumstantial that we use language for communication, arguing that we can communicate without