Slashdot Mirror


Bird Brains Explain How Humans Learn to Talk

eaglebtc writes "A team of neuroscientists at MIT have made tremendous progress in understanding how birds learn to sing: a part of the brain called the basal ganglia is primarily responsible for controlling the learning of movement and the production of speech. This circuitry is also present in humans, and it is the same way that a baby's random babbling eventually becomes the proficient speech of adults. It is hoped that this research can provide further insights into Parkinson's Disease, an inherited genetic condition that causes rapid breakdown of motor control and speech production. The full research study is available as a downloadable PDF."

200 comments

  1. But does this explain... by xenocide2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Does this explain the propensity of birds in trees near parking lots to mimic the random yuppie's car alarm?

    --
    I Browse at +4 Flamebait

    Open Source Sysadmin

    1. Re:But does this explain... by simcop2387 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      actually i believe it should since the patterns that the basal ganglia uses to learn how to connect things would be affected by the constant listening to car alarms while young making them a part of the bird "vocabulary." which means that car alarms are bird slang, what for i have no idea.

    2. Re:But does this explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      actually i believe it should since the patterns that the basal ganglia uses to learn how to connect things would be affected by the constant listening to car alarms while young making them a part of the bird "vocabulary." which means that car alarms are bird slang, what for i have no idea.

      Based on my observation, I can only conclude it's bird slang for shit. More specifically "shit here".

    3. Re:But does this explain... by nametaken · · Score: 4, Funny


      Maybe, but it might also explain how that smartass Owl can tell us how many licks it takes to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop.

    4. Re:But does this explain... by Ieshan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, but a good number of birds are mimics or partial mimics.

      No idea if you were being serious. The family Mimidae (Mockingbirds, Thrasher, etc.) and others copy wild song into their own songs.

    5. Re:But does this explain... by bleckywelcky · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Exactly. This is why parrots that grow up in human environments can learn to talk. Now they aren't necessarily able to produce complete sentences, but they'll say 'bye' when you leave, 'hello' when you arrive, 'food' when they're hungry, and tons of other action-related words. They'll even mimic your actions to get other animals (or people) to come. They'll call the cats by saying "here kitty kitty", whistle for the dogs, or mimic the phone ringing to get a human :)

    6. Re:But does this explain... by threaded · · Score: 1

      Notice how they tend to go for blue cars to sh1t on?

      Or maybe that it just shows up more on blue cars.

      Or maybe that is why they go for blue cars.

    7. Re:But does this explain... by LadyLucky · · Score: 2, Interesting
      They've got nothing on the Kea, which is a Parrot native to New Zealand.

      These are sufficienly curious and smart that they are capable of opening a zipped up bag, pulling out a lunch box, opening that lunchbox and eating what it finds inside.

      That's a non-trivial achievement. I've known people that couldn't get that far.

      --
      dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
    8. Re:But does this explain... by fvbommel · · Score: 1

      Let me guess: you have a blue car? ;)

    9. Re:But does this explain... by funkydom · · Score: 1

      Definitely, I have a blue car and it always seems to have a splodge of shit on it somewhere.

      I have a theory that the blue may look like water to them. Maybe they like to go in water for some weird evolutionary reason?

    10. Re:But does this explain... by rowanwise · · Score: 1

      Quite possibly. I have crows that come around my house in the morning, and they mimic dogs. Apparently, the canines in my neighborhood are the only ones that have anything intelligent to say.

    11. Re:But does this explain... by Hasai · · Score: 1

      I suspect so. That reminds me of this bird that nested outside my barracks window at Fort Devens; evidently he spent far too much time hanging around the 30-cal range:

      Ch-ch-ch-ch-chirp!
      Ch-ch-ch-ch-chirp!
      Ch-ch-ch -ch-chirp!

      He really made my mornings.
      :D

      --

      Regards;

      Hasai

    12. Re:But does this explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good, Quick, Cheap; Yo momma.

    13. Re:But does this explain... by lawpoop · · Score: 1
      What makes that even more interesting is that birds usually have a terrible sense of smell. If that's true for this parrot that means that he wasn't smelling out the lunch.

      So if he went straight for the lunch, he either saw this bad being packed, or deduced a plan of action from seeing other similar situations.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    14. Re:But does this explain... by BoogieChile · · Score: 1

      Many birds do have the ability to mimic sounds - The Australian Lyrebird is one - it's been known to mimic everything from steam whistles to typewriters (complete with the little bell at the end of a line and the sound of the returning carriage) and chainsaws.

      I once visited a wildlife park that had a group of aviaries where were kept larger predator-type birds like Kookaburras, Magpies and Butcherbirds. The Butcherbirds and the Magpies could both laugh like the Kookaburras. They would start laughing back whenever the Kookaburras started doing their schtick.

      I had a really incredible experience with birds mimicking different sounds, in a geeky kind of way - it all started when I was playing with VirtualDub for the first time. I was mucking about trying all the different compression types, filters and everything and the video I had chosen to play with was a clip of the opening titles of Doctor Who.

      The title sequence was from the middle years of Tom Baker's stint as the Doctor. There's a clip of it here.

      So, with all fiddling about I was doing, the music for the titles got played a lot that afternoon. I mean a lot. Try one set of filters, with one particular type of compression, process it, play it several times examining the results, change the filters/compressor, process, play another several times, over and over again.

      The thing was, when I was playing the results, I tended not to play the whole clip, but just the first 13 seconds or thereabouts. That much of the clip includes the first measure of the melody line - the first four notes.

      Some time later, I realised that I could hear what sounded like the music from the clip coming from the garden outside the window. I discovered that two different species of birds had copied different parts of the theme and now my front garden was echoing with the sounds of Doctor Who!

      There was a songbird out there that was repeating the first four notes of the melody line, while a family of Indian Mynas gathered in a grove of trees were mimicking what I can only describe as the the "sparkly" bits - not the bass riff, but the ascending scale of sort of tinkly sounds.

      It was really, really cool.

    15. Re:But does this explain... by BoogieChile · · Score: 1

      Many birds do have the ability to mimic sounds - The Australian Lyrebird is one - it's been known to mimic everything from steam whistles to typewriters (complete with the little bell at the end of a line and the sound of the returning carriage) and chainsaws.

      I once visited a wildlife park that had a group of aviaries where were kept larger predator-type birds like Kookaburras, Magpies and Butcherbirds. The Butcherbirds and the Magpies could both laugh like the Kookaburras. They would start laughing back whenever the Kookaburras started doing their schtick.

      I had a really incredible experience with birds mimicking different sounds, in a geeky kind of way - it all started when I was playing with VirtualDub for the first time. I was mucking about trying all the different compression types, filters and everything and the video I had chosen to play with was a clip of the opening titles of Doctor Who.

      The title sequence was from the middle years of Tom Baker's stint as the Doctor. There's a clip of it here.

      So, with all fiddling about I was doing, the music for the titles got played a lot that afternoon. I mean a lot. Try one set of filters, with one particular type of compression, process it, play it several times examining the results, change the filters/compressor, process, play another several times, over and over again.

      The thing was, when I was playing the results, I tended not to play the whole clip, but just the first 13 seconds or thereabouts. That much of the clip includes the first measure of the melody line - the first four notes.

      Some time later, I realised that I could hear what sounded like the music from the clip coming from the garden outside the window. I discovered that two different species of birds had copied different parts of the theme and now my front garden was echoing with the sounds of Doctor Who!

      There was a songbird of some sort out there that was repeating the first four notes of the melody line, while a family of Indian Mynas gathered in a grove of trees were mimicking what I can only describe as the the "sparkly" bits - not the bass riff, but the ascending scale of sort of tinkly sounds.

      It was really, really cool.

    16. Re:But does this explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they investigated the bird brain, perhaps they find out why Slashdot editors post so many dupes?

    17. Re:But does this explain... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting
      We have a patagonian conure that is learning to greet people by holding up one foot and saying "hello", and a citron cockatoo who will [occasionally] whistle for your attention (I'm no musician so I don't know the notes, but it's the classic up-down-up slide whistle sound that normally means pay attention.) She also will occasionally refer to birds other than herself as "pretty bird", which is cute. She DOES know what pretty means, and what bird means, separately.

      My other parrot just mutters, I'm not sure she knows what talking is actually about...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:But does this explain... by Verteiron · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Budgies, parakeets and cockatiels will also imitate the phone ring, especially if your phone has a high-pitched (electronic) ringer. My parents' budgies would both do the "ring" sound, and then proceed to apparently fight each other to see who could do it louder.

      On another note, what struck me as odd is that when a cockatiel learns new sounds, it's almost as if these "overwrite" certain reflexive noises. As a baby, the 'tiel would shriek or squawk when startled. As an adult, she will now make a particular learned sound, over and over and over, when she's startled or spooked. When she's hungry, she'll imitate the dryer buzzer. Essentially all of her "built-in" sounds have been replaced by learned ones.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    19. Re:But does this explain... by nametaken · · Score: 1

      They've got nothing on the Kea, which is a Parrot native to New Zealand.

      These are sufficienly curious and smart that they are capable of opening a zipped up bag, pulling out a lunch box, opening that lunchbox and eating what it finds inside.


      Yeah, but Yogi Bear had this beat HANDS DOWN!

      On a more serious note, I was watching some PBS or Discovery special on the Kea. They developed all sorts of puzzles. One was a big tube with all kinds of pegs and levers that the bird had to figure out to get food to drop to the bottom. They figured it all out, and even more impressive was their memory retention. They could see a puzzle solved once and do it over and over.

    20. Re:But does this explain... by Audacious · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This reminds me of one of my aunts who had a cockatiel. The thing learned how to call the dog's name in the exact same voice as my aunt. It would then wait for my aunt to go into another room, walk up to the screen door, and begin tormenting the dog by calling its name as if it were time for my aunt to feed it.

      After the dog was frothing at the mouth, barking hysterically, and slamming into the back screen door, the bird would calmly walk away and hide under the nearest table while my aunt (upon hearing all of the racket) would confront the dog with a puzzled "What's the matter with you?"

      It took her about a month to catch the bird in the act. The bird was that sneaky.

      --
      Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke. :-)
    21. Re:But does this explain... by xpatiate · · Score: 1

      And if they grow up listening to grindcore, you get Hatebeak

      --
      (music + neurology) * fiction = feedback
    22. Re:But does this explain... by bleckywelcky · · Score: 1

      That's funny, the one I grew up around would always call herself "pretty bird" ... stuck up, that's for sure :)

    23. Re:But does this explain... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I meant to say that she would sometimes refer to other birds that way, in addition to it being her usual cry for attention. She has issues, though, as she came from a less than loving home to ours.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. If bird brains explain how humans talk, then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ... does bird dope explain how humans... um, never mind.

  3. Brainz by MarkRose · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have a bird brain, but I'm too chicken to admit it.

    --
    Be relentless!
    1. Re:Brainz by daeley · · Score: 4, Funny

      That was a really fowl joke, you turkey.

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    2. Re:Brainz by MarkRose · · Score: 5, Funny

      It was there for the plucking!

      *ducks*

      --
      Be relentless!
    3. Re:Brainz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *ducks*

      Gotta love it when someone can work that into part of the joke...

    4. Re:Brainz by sdsichero · · Score: 1

      I'm cuckoo you insensitive clod!

    5. Re:Brainz by daeley · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, as the old saying goes, what doesn't quill us makes us stronger.

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    6. Re:Brainz by fallendove · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was waiting for a Tux joke, but whatever suits you...

    7. Re:Brainz by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      That was just brutal! I salute you!

      --
      Be relentless!
  4. Quick, get me a corticle stimulator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Their basal ganglia are starting to depolarize!

    1. Re:Quick, get me a corticle stimulator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judging by the late +Funny moderation, somebody FINALLY got the Star Trek:DS9 reference. (Or else, it just wasn't that funny).

    2. Re:Quick, get me a corticle stimulator by Pillowthink · · Score: 3, Funny

      all your basal ganglia are belong to us?

  5. Proficient speech? by __aaitqo8496 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...it is the same way that a baby's random babbling eventually becomes the proficient speech of adults.

    Proficient speech? Have you heard the way people talk? Sometimes I'm surprised they can dress themselves in the morning.

    1. Re:Proficient speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      hey now! I'm insultified by the misrepresentationisms you been copulatin all up an' around my speechial deliverisations! And yes I can most certaintifically clothify my undeniable self in the mourning!!

    2. Re:Proficient speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don King? Is that you???

      I didnt realize you read slashdot!

    3. Re:Proficient speech? by RailGunner · · Score: 1
      Those people have at least one thing in common with the birds...

      Flying / running into closed windows.

      *thump*

  6. Valid hypothesis by Muhammar · · Score: 3, Funny

    Bird brain people talk all the time

    --
    I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
    1. Re:Valid hypothesis by Adrilla · · Score: 1

      and it's amazing how many of them end up on slashdot.

      --

      "Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
    2. Re:Valid hypothesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and it's amazing how many of them end up on slashdot.

      Me no see no bird brain!

      ---
      OSS GOOD!
      Microsoft BAD!

  7. we need brain by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Funny

    for smart-making

  8. Birds and Humans by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Considering our common ancestor was so far back, what's more likely: parallel and independent development of speech in more recent years, or a singular development WAY back in the day? If the case is the latter, we should expect to find this evolutionary trait in quite a few species out there.

    --
    Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
    Africus aut Europaeus?
    1. Re:Birds and Humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YAY!! PROOF GOD EXISTS!!!

    2. Re:Birds and Humans by Pfhorrest · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What I find interesting is the connection between motor control and speech abilities.

      In the philosophy paper I'm writing, I go on a bit about communication as a source of knowledge being the ability to recognize certain observations as being indicative as originating from other like entities, i.e. when I hear certain sounds, that indicates not just something about my environment, but about another being like myself.

      This applies pretty clearly not only to sound-making (speech) and hearing, but also to other forms of behavior (see sign language in humans for a pretty incontroversial example of non-spoken communication behavior). The reason I find this 'motor control' / 'speech ability' link interesting is that motor control indicates that it's not the systems responsible for causing movement, but he systems responsible for controlling movement, for selecting specific actions for specific reasons.

      It seems to me that this biological link between communication abilities and a sort of 'willed' (controlled) action makes perfect sense; on the one hand it's responsible for putting meaning into things the individual is doing, instead of a blind stimulus-response, and on the other hand it's responsible for assigning meaning to what other individuals do.

      In a sense, it seems to be somewhat responsible for any type of 'social' thought and action at all, both for understanding that when I do this, I mean that, and that when I see this, it means that; as opposed to making observations of the world and reacting to them without any meaning associated. This is not limited only to vocalization but to any type of behavior which may by association convey information to another; dog marking their terrirory is communication by scent, sign language and writing is communication by sign, all sorts of noise-making is communication by sound...

      From a simple beginning like this it's possible to see how more advanced social mechanisms could build. Once the individual has begun to recognize on some level that other things it sees and hears are not just a part of its environment but other beings like itself, possible with useful information: from there you can begin to develop empathy and sympathy and whole forms of social interaction not often seen outside of mammalian and avian species. Which makes perfect sense, if this neural feature is found in common between both humans and birds.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    3. Re:Birds and Humans by dirtsurfer · · Score: 5, Funny

      To summarize the parent: Words mean things. ps. Good luck on that philosophy degree. Looks like you're most of the way there.

    4. Re:Birds and Humans by Decaff · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Considering our common ancestor was so far back, what's more likely: parallel and independent development of speech in more recent years, or a singular development WAY back in the day?

      Independent development, I would think. The main article here is wrong. The same circuitry is NOT present in humans. As the original article says, the circuitry has a 'human counterpart' - most likely independently evolved.

  9. Sesame Street by BlazeQ · · Score: 0

    Big Bird has been showing us how we learn to talk for a while now...

  10. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are you serious?

  11. Re:FP by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Funny

    This circuitry is also present in humans, and it is the same way that a baby's random babbling eventually becomes the proficient speech of adults.

    and here folks, we can see that this circuitry can also be reactivated in "adults", when the baby babbling comes back in grown-ups under certain conditions, such as posting on Slashdot.

    However, under these circumstances, it tends to become a mass-babbling, where several adults mumble the same things over and over, such as "forsty piss", "gnaa", "soviet russia," or "yoda doll".

    An interesting subject for pedopsychiatrists to be sure...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  12. Big News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recall learning about this last semester in an intro to nueroscience class, hardly groundbreaking information, that is unless your new to the field.

  13. Mirror by alienfluid · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wow, a 5.0 MB link from the main page of Slashdot! Here's a mirror of the PDF documents if the original site goes down.

    1. Re:Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean "if"?

  14. Re:we need monkey wrench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for syntax alignment

  15. talk vs commands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    everyday we become more and more like sourcecode...

    1. Re:talk vs commands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod++;

  16. That's not what we need by v77 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now if they learned how to make people shut up, that would be worth something!!!

    1. Re:That's not what we need by Gigaplex · · Score: 1

      They did, it's called a labotomy.

    2. Re:That's not what we need by kuldkollane · · Score: 2, Funny

      Apparently, one of its side-effects is using an a instead of an o.

      --
      I was possibly drunk when writing that.
    3. Re:That's not what we need by hobbesx · · Score: 1
      Now if they learned how to make people shut up, that would be worth something!!


      Bacon isn't the only thing cured by hanging...

      --
      This rating is Unfair ( ) ( ) Fair (*) Funny
      Sigh... If only. Modding would be so much more fun.
  17. First Peep? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First Peep!

  18. parkinsons isn't very inherited. by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Informative


    Parkinson's Disease, an inherited genetic condition

    While there's some genetic risk factors, it's not know what causes parkinsons disease. According to wikipedia having a parent with Parkinsons increases your lifetime risk of getting it from 2% to 6%.

    --
    AccountKiller
    1. Re:parkinsons isn't very inherited. by Randall311 · · Score: 1

      That's correct. My grandfather had Parkinson's Disease, and it is idiopathic (of unknown cause). However I do know that Parkinson's, as well as all CNS Diseases are slowly progessive and horrible. Hopefully this research will indeed provide futher insights into Parkinson's like the article suggests.

    2. Re:parkinsons isn't very inherited. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yup, some doctors think that Parkinson's is caused by insect poison, others think it is a virus.

    3. Re:parkinsons isn't very inherited. by nanoakron · · Score: 1

      I would suspect that this work has more profound implications for the development of schizophrenia - a disease of the limbic system circuitry (including the basal ganglia) than of understanding the development of Parkinsons.

      -Nano.

    4. Re:parkinsons isn't very inherited. by kris_lang · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are also other known causes for Parkinson's or parkinson's like syndrome:

      badly brewed methamphetamines will have a high percentage of MPTP which will cause severe damage to the substantia nigra leading to Parkinson's like symptoms even in young people. It was in fact a bad batch of MPTP causing these parkinsonian tremors and symptoms in a group of 20 year old drug abusers that led to some scientific studies and discoveries and the creation of a primate model of parkinsons by injecting MPTP into primates.

      Vasular: a stroke or microinfarct to the basal ganglia or substantia nigra can cause parkinson's like symptoms.

      Toxic: I read about the insect poison thing too, but don't remember any key details or whether it has any MPTP like properties.

      Parkinson's has also been treated in the past with Fetal Cell tranplants directly into the substantia nigra and into the globus pallidus.

      It has also been treated by implanting electronic stimulating electrodes into the thalamus, more specifically into the VIM nucleus, in an attempt to disrupt the rhythmic tremors of Parkinson's. Very cool stuff.

    5. Re:parkinsons isn't very inherited. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to parkinson.org identical twins over 60 who develop parkinsons are not more likely to have a twin who has the condition then the general population.

  19. I thought it said _Bad_ Brains... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and here I was waiting for the seminal hardcore band to announce their findings

  20. Chomsky by delirium+of+disorder · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder if this research supports or refutes the conclusions made by MIT's most famous linguist, Noam Chomsky, regarding language acquisition and development.

    --
    ------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
    1. Re:Chomsky by enehta · · Score: 1

      Since this research is relatively motor-specific, the human parallel is strictly phonetic - how we coordinate our vocal apparatus to produce the sounds of our language. While this study can possibly draw parallels to some slightly higher-level linguistic patterns (say, syllables or maybe even basic words), it makes no claims that this region maps motor sequences to meaning (beyond "I sound like dad, yay!") let alone the complex syntax brought to our attention so many years ago by Chomsky (and his compadres).

      So no, the birds aren't waking up those furiously-sleeping ideas - at least, not yet.

      --
      Watch out for the penguins!
    2. Re:Chomsky by Quirk · · Score: 1

      Chomsky, who originally debated/antagonized B.F. Skinner, is now locked in debate with Steve Pinker, also of MIT, and, also a theorist attacking the problem of language learning.

      --
      "Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
      Cohen
    3. Re:Chomsky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      TFA is Slashdotted at the moment, but I don't think this has terribly much to do with Chomsky's work.

      It's important to note the difference between the acquisition of *language* and the acquisition of *speech*. Congentially deaf persons are capable of acquiring the former quite naturally, in the form of Sign, which is a language (or rather, are languages) entirely of it's own. (Signed English, etc. are "hacks" in the perjorative sense -- a congenitally deaf person does not "think" in Signed English, but in some other symbolic language [ASL generally]).

      Babies are capable of learning symbolic languages long before they are capable of learning speech. The two are distinct categories of development -- So, really, this doesn't "go as deep" as Chomsky's work, which concerns language development in general, and not speech in particular.

      [I'm a bit drunk right now, so I'm AC.}

      And since I'm AC, I'll go ahead and say that I think Chomsky is a fucking choad for his non-linguistics "work", which consists of getting insanely rich by writing books critical of every political view but his version of anarcho-syndicalism. -- but feel free do mod me independently of this viewpoint.

    4. Re:Chomsky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Pinker got picked off by Harvard last year...

    5. Re:Chomsky by a+whoabot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "And since I'm AC, I'll go ahead and say that I think Chomsky is a fucking choad for his non-linguistics "work", which consists of getting insanely rich by writing books critical of every political view but his version of anarcho-syndicalism. -- but feel free do mod me independently of this viewpoint."

      Wait, so you're saying that its bad in itself that he favors one politcal theory over others? I mean, don't lots of people do this? And just for clarity, I think it'd be best to describe his political philosophy as a form of libertarian-socialism. Anarcho-syndicalism would be a form of voluntary organization that he says works well in a truly libertarian political state.

      I don't know how rich he gets off of his books, and I wonder how you found this information.

    6. Re:Chomsky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you had read the link, you would see that it is arguing against a position that chomsky and pinker AGREE on, which is the exact opposite of what your post indicates.

    7. Re:Chomsky by grepMeister · · Score: 3, Informative

      Chomsky is not in any kind of debate with Pinker as far as I know, and as far as I can tell from the article the parent linked to. The two have very similar viewpoints on the matter.

      Chomsky put forth the following for how children learn language: it is a simple statistical fact that there are entire kinds of sentences that you understand and produce correctly that you are likely have to never heard before -- like English "Is the woman who is walking her dog Tom's neighbour?" where you are asking a question but there are two mini sentences, one about the woman walking her dog, and one about her being Tom's neighbor.

      So you couldn't possibly be learning how to speak English (and not speak non-English) just by observing how often things occur -- because you wind up understanding that perfectly even though it just doesn't come up.

      Both the claim that this really is a 'simple statistical fact' and the claim that you couldn't learn they are okay just by observing the statistical pattern have been HOTLY debated. But that is Chomsky's claim.

      Something is missing, the argument goes, and that missing chunk must be mechanisms in the brain specifically dedicated to language. This too has been hotly debated, but it is both Chomsky's and Pinker's position (less so Pinker).

      TFA bears on this issue in a tangential way. It's known that there's a circuit in bird brains that is required for them to learn their songs properly ('anterior forebrain pathway'). This research sheds some light on why it is required. The way I understand it (IANA neuroscientist), it is a keep-on-trucking circuit that says, 'okay, do it again. and again. and again.' Something like this mechanism is also found in humans, in the basal ganglia, so now we have maybe learned something about us.

      However, many people on Chomsky's side are very suspicious of any 'generic' learning mechanisms like trial-and-error. For example, the article mentions babies' repeated babbling as a mechanism of trial-and-error to get the sounds of a language right very early on. But a potential alternate 'language-is-totally-innate' -- Chomsky/Pinker -- explanation might be that babbling does not feed back on itself, and a baby doesn't learn anything from it; rather, the baby's 'language faculty' has not matured (which happens with minimal help from what the baby hears) to the point where it can do anything else. I made this up - this is not a theory about babbling that can be found in the literature -- but it is the kind of alternative to 'general intelligence' that is often proposed.

      The parent-linked article is about a book which vehemently denies Chomsky/Pinker's point of view. (FWIW I've read some of the author's other works and I think he's just a troll.)

    8. Re:Chomsky by Quirk · · Score: 1

      Sorry my bad. There's no excuse so after I post this I'll just slink away and nurse my ego. I took my info from reading Pinker's book How the Mind Works wherein he does take Chomsky to task on some essential points. He quotes Chomsky and relates the issue in some detail. I read the book late last year, but I don't have a copy at hand. I've read Chomsky's book Language and Mind and reviewed some of his earlier writings, especially as it dealt with the Port-Royalists. The Chomsky/Skinner debate referrence came out of researching Chomsky's work. I've only scanned some of Skinner work, basically taking away some idea of his take on behaviorism. While I've read The Edge repository on Pinker. I didn't adequately read the link I posted to the Chomsky/Pinker debate. I was in a hurry and gave it too quick of a read. For the issues I'll have to go back to Pinker's book: How the Mind Works. Either way I screwed up in not reading the link.

      --
      "Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
      Cohen
    9. Re:Chomsky by eclectic4 · · Score: 1

      Interesting, calling someone a choad for merely being critical of policy?

      Well Heil Hitler to you too!

      If you wish to argue his points, fine, but this is so far off the charts I had to respond. Calling Chomsky a choad bares your ignorance concerning his "non-linguistics" work. He states over and over and over, that he is not trying to persuade anyone. He states this incessantly.

      And I quote: "You shouldn't believe what I say is true. Nobody is going to pour truth into your brain. It's something you have to find out for yourself."

      Now, go do so...

      --

      "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
    10. Re:Chomsky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is a good distinction to make, but actually discoveries like this would play right into Chomsky's hands, as his "Language Acquistion Device" would require that there be a specific area in the brain that "learns syntax" because human beings don't have a sufficient learning mechanism elsewhere to learn anything as complex as it.

      Unfortunately, Chomsky's theory is complete hogwash. Take a look at Steven Pinker's work to notice how he used to be a LAD-Chomskian, and recently has changed his tune.

      Oh, and for the record, this isn't that important a discovery. I do neurolinguistics, and we were just discussing about a month ago how the basal ganglia is known to be involved in Parkinson's Disease, and has to do with motor planning for speech functions. I'm not sure if the "tremendous progress" MIT made was just linking bird's singing to human beings, which might be something new, but not necessarily that tremendous...

      anyway, thought I'd comment.

      Alex

    11. Re:Chomsky by ifwm · · Score: 1

      "He states over and over and over, that he is not trying to persuade anyone. He states this incessantly"

      Well, sounds like he persuaded you that he's not trying to persuade anyone...

    12. Re:Chomsky by eclectic4 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but you seem to not realize, that this is a good thing. Could you imagine a politician trying to convince you that he isn't trying to persuade you? Telling you to not listen to him outright, and to go and find out all of the information yourself for verification? Yeah, me niether...

      It's called the installment of critical thought. Believe it or not (and you may not), critcal thought is a good thing.

      --

      "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
    13. Re:Chomsky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's interesing (truly). I found Steven's work to be complete hogwash, and many others in the field have also stated so (could just be angerd over his move to Harvard, who knows ;-). But, one thing is without question and is something that Pinker relays quite often, and that is that Chomsky was the driving force in his life with regard to his work. He owes Chomsky his career, and he states this quite often. He was also a major force in the popularization of Noam Chomsky's work on language as an innate faculty of mind. So, call it a scientific process that each have contributed to, in the least.

    14. Re:Chomsky by delirium+of+disorder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're probably correct about Chomsky being somewhat motivated by money; I'm sure his book and lecture recording deals bring in a pritty penney. However, I think his politics go much deeper then that. First of all, he's remained politically active in several forums, and has even been arrested at protests. Second of all, there are several people who are not anarchaists who he has cited and praised the work of. NC has come out in support of much of the work of Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens is about as far from an anarchaist as you can get; he's written for the imperialist think tank Project For a New American Century. Chomsky and Hitchens have written both in support and criticism for various portions of each other's work.

      Chomsky also puts a lot of his work online for free for someone motivated by profit.
      http://www.chomsky.info/
      http://www.zmag .org/chomsky/index.cfm

      (An intresting side note: Noam Chomsky has copyrighed his more recent writting, not to himself, but to his family. Perhaps he is in worse health then he has publicaly disclosed.)

      NC has a lot of important things to say and we shouldn't dismiss it out of hand because it contradicts the more conservative popular voices. Radicals should also not take his word as the gospel truth and only use it as a starting point for their own inquiry into more primary sources.

      --
      ------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
    15. Re:Chomsky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called the installment of critical thought. Believe it or not (and you may not), critcal thought is a good thing.

      Or it could just be reverse psychology.

    16. Re:Chomsky by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Telling you to not listen to him outright, and to go and find out all of the information yourself for verification? Yeah, me niether... It's called the installment of critical thought.

      Actually, repeatedly telling someone to think for themselves instead of listening to them, but then detailing political views rather than explaining (say) Socratic questioning is more like reverse psychology (though in Chomsky's case, I'd have to give him the benefit of the doubt and say this is probably not the intent). Teaching critical thinking is a fairly complex task and requires more than just shouting "THINK FOR YOURSELF!" I respect Chomsky's work and admire the depth of his convictions-- heck, I even agree with him sometimes-- but while he may be a cheerleader for it, his political works are too invested in his particular conclusions to effectively "[install] critical thought".

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    17. Re:Chomsky by grepMeister · · Score: 1

      For the record, I hope your ego isn't *too* bruised because you are quite right that Chomsky and Pinker disagree on a number of things. The major issue that I'm aware of has Pinker saying that more of the human capacity for language is used only for language than what Chomsky says -- which I think is the opposite of what I wrote in my post.

      Chomsky either has changed his view on this or has one widely misunderstood view on it, I am not sure which. On the one hand, he has always started with the notion that we should analyse the brain like we analyse the rest of the body -- in terms of "mental organs". General intelligence, says Chomsky, is a vague and useless cover term. Thus, there is a system for vision, a system for language, another for, perhaps, navigation, and so on.

      However, it hasn't been clear until recently (at least it seems to me that it hasn't) whether Chomsky just means that that is the way we should look at it to make it approachable, or whether he is making claims about how these systems are structured in the brain. It is often interpreted, at least implicitly, to mean the latter -- that these different mental organs evolved, and operate, independently, and that they don't share mental resources. You can tell when people think it means this because they'll bring up the supposed localization of language in the brain (Broca's area) in support of what they take to be Chomsky's view.

      But Chomsky has been discussing this in more detail recently, and it seems to me from what he's been saying that he didn't mean that at all, or at least he doesn't now. Several of his recent publications take up the idea that the inborn mechanisms (claimed to be) necessary for language are in fact very much domain-general, and that in fact we can maybe even narrow it down to one specific capability (recursively nested structures). Pinker has posted a manuscript of his and Jackendoff's on his website arguing that Chomsky is wrong that we can reduce it this far; more of the things that make language work are domain-specific than that (at least that's what the abstract says :-). So, there is still a question of how much is shared between different 'organs' of the mind (and if it's shared it therefore presumably evolved as one thing). But no one, not even Chomsky -- especially not Chomsky -- says it's "nothing" as in the view I mentioned above.

      The issue has more implications for 'what kind of models can we use to talk about how language works in the brain' than for 'how do kids learn language' which, as I said, TFA is kind of (but only kind-of-sort-of) related to. Needless to say, however, the answer to each question is strongly dependent on the answer to the other. Pinker has other differences with Chomsky, but their views are usually fairly compatible. But I was wrong to say they were not debating anything.

  21. HAH! by quantaman · · Score: 1

    people always laugh at me for being bird brain!

    but see we find out what you couldn't!

    look who dummys now!

    HA HA!!

    --
    I stole this Sig
  22. Yes, but by bsartist · · Score: 3, Funny

    This circuitry is also present in humans, and it is the same way that a baby's random babbling eventually becomes the proficient speech of adults.

    Does it also explain why that said adults immediately regress back to random babbling the minute they're confronted with a keyboard and a net connection?

    --
    Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    1. Re:Yes, but by jayloden · · Score: 1

      I have a theory that there's a specific posture inherent in a computer chair and keyboard-using position. This posture subsequently causes a load shift, causing the person's brain to slide downwards to approximately the region of their feet, where lack of oxygenated blood causes reduced processing ability and intelligence.

      Geeks avoid this through bad posture and stimulants such as caffeine to stimulate blood flow.

      -Jay

  23. old news by phreakv6 · · Score: 0

    This is very old news considering it was published on Mar,2004

    --
    fifteen jugglers, five believers
    1. Re:old news by grepMeister · · Score: 1

      if you RTFA (including the one YOU linked to) you will find that your article was from UCLA from last year and this one is from MIT from this year and was "received [by the journal] February 4, 2005; ... Published March 29, 2005" (from the pdf, small print in the lower right hand corner of the first page)

  24. ba??? by slobber · · Score: 1, Funny

    the same way that a baby's random babbling eventually becomes the proficient speech of adults

    bababe baboo baeeeee bteeeink ya ma gegetting a hang of it!!!

    --
    "You mortals are so obtuse." -Q
  25. Parrot species... by RyanFenton · · Score: 4, Interesting


    The parrot and cockatoo species of birds offer some amazing insight into the likely evolution of intelligence and social interaction outside the human/mammal pathway.

    To start with, birds in general have their origins traced back to dinosaur-era reptiles. That's a pretty huge developmental shift between humanity and bird.

    Yet, many species of birds can not only learn to speak human words, but they can learn context and how to use those words to manipulate people and other creatures. The birds in my parents pet store have learned more than just how to act in order to get treats, but how to manipulate people and other animals for seemingly the sheer pleasures and social interaction of it. It's hard to think of such use of intelligence as a base condition of animals that were ancestors of both mammals and dinosaurs - it seems more likely that intelligence itself is an independantly developed extension of logic.

    As a smaller-scale example, Cockatoos are a more ancient species of bird than modern parrots. They also develop intelligence of many sorts, though of a more social nature. They can learn to speak words and immitate, but use the manipulation of those words on a more purely social level than parrots. It's somewhat amazing that such a mobile and diverse set of species as birds can each acquire different uses for language and intelligence - perhaps if it weren't for the necissary limitations of flight (weight, head-body aspect ratio), the intelligent species of our planet would have been birds, not mammals.

    This is no hard evidence, but it also seems to make the possibility of intelligent life outside our known observed environments seem less unlikely too - especially if it can develop in so seemingly independant circumstances, despite a somewhat shared environment.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:Parrot species... by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      I could go on and on about this subject, and 'really' am anxious to learn more when I get a chance. But, sleep looms for now. So I'll just add that crows and ravens also make for a fascinating study of socially interactive intelligence in non-mammals.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    2. Re:Parrot species... by ynotds · · Score: 3, Insightful
      birds in general have their origins traced back to dinosaur-era reptiles. That's a pretty huge developmental shift between humanity and bird.
      There are some things our natural anthropocentrism encourages us to leave out of Evolution 101:
      1. For viable species, selection favours those most efficient at doing what they do, which is unlikely to favour innovation except in times of stress.
      2. While there are well known examples of convergent evolution, there are a lot more examples of the loss of ancestral function in descendant clades.
      3. Of the millions of species descended from the last common ancestor (LCA) of birds and mammals, homo sapiens sapiens is but one and thus clearly atypical.*
      While behaviour does not fossilise well, it is conceivable that the LCA learnt some behaviours by imitating its parents, though a comparable level of active nurturing evolved independently in eusocial insects. Early developmental pathways tend to be much more strongly conserved than other characteristics over evolutionary time.
      Cockatoos ... develop intelligence of many sorts, though of a more social nature.
      I was unable to identify any qualitative difference between the lunchtime chatter in the cafeteria at my alma mater and the chatter of a flock of corellas roosting in red gums by the Wimmera River at Dimboola.
      it also seems to make the possibility of intelligent life outside our known observed environments seem less unlikely too - especially if it can develop in so seemingly independant circumstances, despite a somewhat shared environment.
      We also keep forgetting that orcas and elephants have very strong claims to being the other most intelligent mammals, but their bodily size and consequent food consumption has made it impossible for them to form populations on the scale needed to support our kind of culture. The cockatoos might well be a better model, particularly if we concede that evolution may have been more concerned with improving brain function per gram in flying critters.

      It may be relevant that "singing" appears to be one of the commoner examples of convergent evolution. I guess I've put off writing my "singing ape hypothesis" far too long already.

      *This may also be taken as evidence that "intelligence" is overrated.
      --
      -- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
    3. Re:Parrot species... by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      This may also be taken as evidence that "intelligence" is overrated.

      So should I mod your comment overrated or should I call you unintelligent? :p

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    4. Re:Parrot species... by celerityfm · · Score: 1

      "the intelligent species of our planet would have been birds"

      Eh? It'll happen eventually. Ever hear of the Shoe event horizon?

      --
      ...unfortunately no one can be told what The Mat^H^H^HGoatse is...they must experience it for themselves...
    5. Re:Parrot species... by hobbesx · · Score: 1
      ... how to manipulate people and other animals for seemingly the sheer pleasures and social interaction of it


      Let me guess: You don't have any cats?

      --
      This rating is Unfair ( ) ( ) Fair (*) Funny
      Sigh... If only. Modding would be so much more fun.
  26. Ah ha... a break through in speach paterns! by binaryspiral · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...is the same way that a baby's random babbling eventually becomes the proficient speech of adults.

    Obviously these scientists will need to study George W. Bush's basal ganglia, or lack thereof.

    1. Re:Ah ha... a break through in speach paterns! by binaryspiral · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I get banged as a Troll? Have you listened to your leader attempt to speak? Buy this guy a speach class forchristsakes.

      Too many brain dead republicans with moderation points on slashdot...

      Damn it.

    2. Re:Ah ha... a break through in speach paterns! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same problem as the last election.

    3. Re:Ah ha... a break through in speach paterns! by Ranger · · Score: 1

      Too many brain dead republicans with moderation points on slashdot...

      I have the same thing with brain dead Microsofties. I'll get modded to Troll if I bash them. As for Bush some suspect he is actually a Pakled as seen on ST:TNG. They have poor verbal skills and thus appear challenged, but are dangerous and warlike.

      Pakled: We look for things.
      Riker: What kind of things?
      Paklend: Things that make us go.
      Riker: I see.

      --
      "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
    4. Re:Ah ha... a break through in speach paterns! by binaryspiral · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah - I think I just saw that one on TV.

      Don't try to trick us, we will know. We are strong we have weapons.

  27. Bird Brains Explain How Humans Learn to Talk by dangitman · · Score: 0, Troll

    So, when did Dubya volunteer as a test-subject in this project? Release the papers! We want to see the President's true medical record and DNA structure.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  28. Hmmm by Sheepdot · · Score: 0

    Who came up with the names for the parts of the brain? Basal Ganglia, Medulla Oblongata, Corpus Callosum, etc? Sounds like characters from a D&D game.

    1. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually had a character called Medulla from when I played Icewind Dale. I'm not making this up. He was an elf wizard, and he kicked butt.

    2. Re:Hmmm by Daytona89 · · Score: 1

      Who came up with the names for the parts of the brain? Basal Ganglia, Medulla Oblongata, Corpus Callosum, etc? Sounds like characters from a D&D game.

      That's because many medical words derive from latin and greek. Many of the names from D&D games are latinized to sound more "ancient".

    3. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you weren't a complete fucker, you'd recognize latin! But I'm betting you're a stupid american that doesn't know shit from a shit.

    4. Re:Hmmm by alarch · · Score: 1

      it was quite a stupid name, because medulla is a feminine name. americans really do not learn a bit of latin? seems like a real bad system of education.

      --
      Deliriant isti Americani.
    5. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe you meant "stercus from feces."

      "Shit from Shit" seems to be a much older english.

  29. Grammar by xiaomonkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Some linguistics & psycholinguistics (e.g Norm Chompsky and Steve Pinker) argue the human brain is unique in that it is able to quickly master the complex grammar present in all human languages.

    In fact there is even a mathematical proof that seems to indicate that human languages should be technically unlearn-able (google: EM Gold language grammar - "Language identification in the limit"). IIRC - the synopsis being that, human languages are at least as sophisticated as context free languages (and can to some degree be modeled by context free languages) and the grammar of context free languages should not be learnable from the sort of linguistic input available to a child.

    So...anyhow, I'm not so sure if studying how birds learn a sequence of sounds really gets at the more interesting aspects of human language acquisition. I mean it's probably interesting in terms of how animals, and even people, learn to produce simple sequences of sounds.

    But, for human language? Or, at least for the interesting, i.e. uniquely human, parts of it? For that you probably need to either study people, or possibly very similar animals like other primates.

    1. Re:Grammar by enehta · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This sort of work certainly sheds no light on syntax and semantics and the visibly complicated bits of language, but there are certainly other bits which can be influenced by this research. The fields of phonetics in particular, as well as phonology, do care about the production of simple sounds - because it's not always simple.

      To take one example, try saying the words "cats" and "dogs" - notice that the "s" at the end of "dogs" sounds more like a 'z'. Is that because of a motor program, which tells the vocal folds to keep vibrating? Or is it a higher level process? At first glance, you'd probably say that it's a motor thing - why bother stopping the vocal fold vibration when it's easier to keep it going. But what of languages where it would be an 's' in that spot? Their motor "program" is different, so it can't be a "this is the only way it can be done" sort of thing. And what about perception? Clearly, English speakers recognize both as the same thing in terms of "oh, that's plural" until they think about it closely, but that's more than a motor issue. (This is only the most basic of problems, but there are plenty of others.)

      In other words, learning the limitations and capabilities of the motor system helps separate the purely physical from the higher level processes - which may indeed be human-unique.

      And birds are a heck of a lot easier to work with than small screamy children.

      --
      Watch out for the penguins!
    2. Re:Grammar by starm_ · · Score: 1

      Ah, but it has been shown by Horning in his PHd thesis in 1969 that language is learnable from only positive inputs for a propabilistic grammar. Gold only shows that it isn't learnable for a discrete rules based (categorical) grammar. There are plenty of evidence that tells us the mind works on probabilistic principles hence the argument of poverty of stimulus fails. For more on this read "Probabilistic Linguistics" edited by Rens Bod, Jennifer Hay and Stefanie Jannedy (2003).

    3. Re:Grammar by cbrew · · Score: 1

      The claim that human language is at least context-free is fairly widely accepted even among those linguists who disagree with Chomsky, but the claim that context-free languages are not learnable is much more controversial.

      Specifically, Gold's theorem is about 'learnability in the limit', in other words, precise learning of the exact set of strings that make up the language that the learner is exposed to. If the learner is prepared to accept the risk of making the occasional mistake, then Gold's theorem is not so relevant.

      From the perspective of a language learner trying to get by in a complex social world, it might be sufficient to learn the language well enough to communicate, without worrying whether the string set that you have is exactly the same as what other speakers have.

      You can still argue (and people do) about whether the Gold's theorem setup is a good way to think about learning of language by humans. Or indeed birds...

    4. Re:Grammar by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      And birds are a heck of a lot easier to work with than small screamy children.

      Though they're not as much fun to dissect.

      To clarify anyone reading the parent comment;

      in cats, the t is non-vocalized. You can have your vocal cords removed and still make the 't' sound.

      IN dogs, the g is vocalized. You need vocal cords to make the g sound. If a word ends in a vocalized consonant, the 's' will also be vocalized. A nonvocalized consonant will get a non vocalized 's.'

      Thus;

      Dogz
      Cats
      Rats
      Bugz
      Firez
      Laffs
      Coffs
      Hel ps
      Gunz

      I don't know what part of people's brains causes this. Maybe the parent knows.
      Basically the idea here is that there are rules in our phonetic language which aren't apparent from the spelling of words, but which we still 'know.'

      If I put forward the nonsense words

      Gartz
      and
      Brogs

      You'd know that the first is pronounced with a ts sound and the second with a gz sound at the end.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    5. Re:Grammar by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      Not to flame. I'm interested in linguistics, but couldn't quite make out what your posting means. What, specifically, is a 'context free' language? What do you mean 'human language is at least context free?'

      Specifically, Gold's theorem is about 'learnability in the limit', in other words, precise learning of the exact set of strings that make up the language that the learner is exposed to.

      What does that mean?

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    6. Re:Grammar by cbrew · · Score: 1

      A context-free language is one that can be produced by a context-free grammar. What that means is answered by Wikipedia's definition.

      The definition of a context-free language relies on a concept of language that will be strange for some people. Under this view a language is defined as a set of strings. For English, these strings are just sequences of words. The idea is that you describe a mathematical function from strings to booleans that will return true if the string is legal according to the grammar of the language and false otherwise. One of the ways of describing such a function is to use a context-free grammar.

      Gold's theorem is about whether it is possible to unambiguously identify the context-free grammar that produced a finite sequence of positive examples. Gold says this is not possible, since he can always construct more than one context-free grammar that is consistent with what we have seen so far. In order to prove this he has to make everything mathematical and precise. It isn't obvious that Gold's rather abstract version of the learning problem has much to do with real-life learning.

    7. Re:Grammar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and it is probably easier to do cellular and molecular level neuroscience with animal models of a system. It could very well be that the "uniquely human" features of language are experimentally intractable at the moment. That doesn't mean work cannot be done, but if you look at the level of detail known about systems that have animal models, and systems that don't, then suddenly the aspects of human language that are shared with other species start to look at lot more like tractable research problems, rather than strange mysteries.

    8. Re:Grammar by psaltes · · Score: 1

      In fact there is even a mathematical proof that seems to indicate that human languages should be technically unlearn-able (google: EM Gold language grammar - "Language identification in the limit"). IIRC - the synopsis being that, human languages are at least as sophisticated as context free languages (and can to some degree be modeled by context free languages) and the grammar of context free languages should not be learnable from the sort of linguistic input available to a child.

      Gold's proof shows that language is unlearnable given a variety of assumptions, many of which are probably incorrect. The crucial one is that any context free language is potentially a natural language that a child would have to learn. Equivalently, this proof assumes that the child knows no more about the target language than that it is a context free language. Given the range of possible context free languages, it is clear that very very few of them are possible natural languages (for instance take the two-vocabulary-item grammar of As and Bs where there are the same number of As as Bs - not conceivable as a natural language.) Children also almost certainly know more about the potential language than this.

      Also, Gold's paper is from 1959 or so, and there is a whole literature since then following up on his proof, and looking at the assumptions in more detail. State of the art on mathematical language acquisition it is not.

      (and it's "Noam Chomsky")

  30. Oh sure! by AliasMoze · · Score: 3, Funny

    When a baby babbles randomly, he's learning. When I do it, I'm drunk. Why is there one standard for the baby, another for me?

    1. Re:Oh sure! by enehta · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There may be a double-standard, true - but you're still being interesting to linguists.

      (Check out Dr. Alexander Z. Guiora's work on "The Effects of Experimentally Induced Change in Ego States on Pronunciation Ability in a Second Language." (and a few more studies in Language Learning) He and his colleagues, back in the '70s, examined the way impaired subjects (drunk, hypnotized, under the influence of valium...) pronounced foreign languages they knew. Interestingly enough, these subjects had better pronunciation when drunk etc. than sober! So it's all about making yourself interesting to someone and having their grants pay for the fun...)

      --
      Watch out for the penguins!
    2. Re:Oh sure! by evanbd · · Score: 1

      Have you considered feeding the baby alcohol?

    3. Re:Oh sure! by CoolGopher · · Score: 1

      Stop acting like a baby! ;-)

    4. Re:Oh sure! by AliasMoze · · Score: 1

      Yer crazy! Come here, I love you. (Applies headlock)

  31. Re:Hmm... by pg110404 · · Score: 2, Funny

    And here me thinking that brains couldn't talk, you learn something every day!

    And I bet 50 quatloons they glow different colours.

  32. One Area Improves, Another Area Must Suffer by StratoChief66 · · Score: 1

    Sadly, their progress in the field of gettings some has not been equally tremendous.

    --
    Frylock: "We should have cloned twenties, Jackson wouldn't have given a fuck."
  33. OH LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE

  34. is this new by dkalley · · Score: 1

    didn't chomsky and pinker already discuss this. i don't think they needed birds, so what is the lesson, birds have a generative grammar so people must too. the header to this topic is irrelevant, out of touch and out of date.

    ---
    macos keyboard viewer needs sticky shifts...

  35. Hey... by DarcSeed · · Score: 2, Funny

    Didn't they already find out that birds could talk?. This language stuff is already for the snakes...err, I mean birds.

    --
    Best death? What, die from a naked lady avalanche?
  36. Talking animals by qurk · · Score: 1

    I think the idea of genetically modifying animals to be able to learn human speech would be fascinating, if we could relate to what each other say :)

    1. Re:Talking animals by mikael · · Score: 1

      Even better, we could give them human intelligence and maybe they could fight back against poachers as well :)

      Or at least they could read 2000AD :)

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  37. Clearing the air by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To head off NFTFA (not NAFTA) /. endless drivel, the following comments are noted and not candidates for moderation upwards:

    1. Slashdoters can't speak well
    2. Random target group X cannot speak well
    3. Speech is not language and is off topic -1

    End PSA

  38. Now now by Rie+Beam · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I know /. has been getting a bit of an anti-Scientific leaning as of late, focusing more on the trend of Geekdom moreso than the reality, but you don't have to call them Bird Brains...

  39. Pentacostals by technoCon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've heard that linguistically speaking, the speech that Pentacostals utter when they speak in Tongues, resembles the babbling of baby talk. If we could get a cooperative Pentacostal to take a PET scan while speaking in tongues, we could identify which area of the brain is active during this phenomenon. I suspect that this will correspond to the same bit of circuitry this research identifies.

    Disclaimer: Even if we find a neurobiological basis for this religious phenomenon, it will neither confirm nor deny God is involved. Faith will merely assert that that deity is using this mechanism. I'm not Pentacostal, but I don't think speaking in tongues is "of the devil," either.

    1. Re:Pentacostals by andreyw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Any basis to claim these Pentecostals aren't just acting it up?

    2. Re:Pentacostals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If we could get a cooperative Pentacostal..."

      If they are anything like most birds, this will be the tough part.

    3. Re:Pentacostals by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      We'll likely find out when we scan their heads and find out if something different is happening or not.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  40. Insulting by mikeage · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I don't see any reason to describe these researchers as bird brains...

    --
    -- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
  41. Re:FP by value_added · · Score: 1

    it tends to become a mass-babbling, where several adults mumble the same things over and over

    So the singing of birds is like talk radio?

  42. please mod up by hydopower · · Score: 0, Troll

    Insert joke about bird brain/baby babbling/level of intellegence of average adult or slashdot user here.

    1. Re:please mod up by hydopower · · Score: 1

      That was actually a failed joke about how the first 90% of these posts were the same joke rehashed over and over, all modded up as funny, not a serious request.

  43. Re:FP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think you're listening to the wrong end of the bird.

  44. OT, but... by Suhas · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ...for a second I thought that Microsoft has published another research paper

  45. My observations by teh+merry+reaper · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'm the owner of a Quaker Parakeet, a breed of parrot that's known for it's verbal skill, especially among my neighbors :P

    From what I've seen, he has learned many phrases and words over the years, and is able to successfully use them in correct conversational context. For example, if you insult him, he will reply with a stinging "Cat!" He also asks "what's that?" when he sees a new item in a room, and laughs at jokes in movies.

    What relates to this article, however, is his habit of creating random vocalizations. Often he will speak in a chaotic combination of "human-like" noises and settle on a couple that pique his fancy. A few days ago he was angry with me and started his mumblings while on my girlfriend's shoulder. He leaned closer to her ear and after a couple seconds he said something that closely resembled "Bosco bites people, Bosco bites people, Bosco bites (my name)." It was quite eerie.

    My other random though was the possible connections this has to creativity. Is this the section of the brain that humans use while composing random, new music? What about scat singers who sing random combinations of sounds?

    --
    6x9=42
    1. Re:My observations by justforaday · · Score: 1

      What about scat singers...

      Can anyone tell me the origin of this term? Is it just cos the shit comes pouring out or something?

      --
      I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
    2. Re:My observations by Kesstra · · Score: 1

      I have an 7 year old African Gray parrot who has an unbelievable vocabulary. He can sing whole songs, mimic every sound and person in the house. He is quite intelligent and talks back during conversations, he tells you when he is hungry, when he wants out of his cage and even tells you when he is tired and wants to go to bed. However he talks in the third person, I suppose because that is how we talk to him. So are we now talking about a different part of the brain? One part for speech and another for figuring out HOW TO talk?

  46. Creationists... by Aggrav8d · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...when reached for comment, said that this research didn't ammount to squawk.

  47. Re:FP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yuo

  48. MIT better be careful by HillBilly · · Score: 1

    Or someone will slap an "Evolution is only a theroy" on them.

    Perhaps a job for those MIT pranksters from a previous slash dot story. ;)

    --
    "Go into the hall of mirrors and have a bloody hard look at yourself" - HG Nelson
  49. Smoke, drink coffee and avoid insect poisons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Other Parkinson's funnies:
    "Men who regularly consume caffeinated drinks have a lower risk of PD than do nondrinkers, but this relation has not been found in women."

    "Parkinsonism is a rare complication in patients with organophosphate poisoning."

    "Although our pooled estimates show that smoking is inversely associated with the risk of PD only in patients with negative PD family history, further studies evaluating the interaction between smoking and PD family history are strongly needed."

    and if you already got it, start smoking dope...

  50. Birds are not "bird brained" by threaded · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I keep Cockatoos. I never intended to have such large birds as pets, and would most certainly not encourage it. I landed up with them as a "gift" as the previous owner found them too difficult.

    I would put their overall intelligence at around the 4 or 5 year human. With the addition that they are the most expert lock pickers.

    Imagine if you will the tantrums of a 4/5 year old, add that the 4/5 year can fly, has a set of tools like a combination hammer, ice-pick, file, and nut cracker, and absolutely knows which items dotted about are the most valuable to destroy.

    Often one of them imitates the phone ringing as I am about to leave the house. I could swear the blessed things are all sharing the joke.

    I am often left pondering: who here is the pet?

    1. Re:Birds are not "bird brained" by jafac · · Score: 1

      I never intended to have such large birds as pets, and would most certainly not encourage it.

      I'm pretty sure my chickens are bigger than your cockatoos.

      But they aren't all that smart.

      But they DO produce breakfast!

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    2. Re:Birds are not "bird brained" by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      Intelligent as a 4 year old? Wow... teach it Go.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
  51. A insightful comment that, maybe by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 1

    I'm thinking one part of the fun in getting a little drunk is the challenge in moving your body members the way you want at all(and to speak clearly).

    I would not be surprised if "practising" like this while drunk would actually have a better training effect than normal movement/training.

    There'd probably be some negative learning effect too, maybe some loss of flexibility.

    --
    I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
    1. Re:A insightful comment that, maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amusing anecdote: a guy my dad knew in highschool was a gymnast and one time he was pulled over while intoxicated and was asked to walk the line. Knowing he was barely sober enough to stand, he proceeded to do a handstand and then walk the line on his hands. Whether it was because it was a skill consciously learned or what, he managed to pull it off without a problem. The cop figured anyone who could pull that off must be sober enough to drive and let him go on his way.

      He didn't get off entirely, though. The cop called up the coach and mentioned the incident. The entire team was punished sufficiently that they all made sure he didn't get to do it again.

  52. UPDATE: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Link found between praying mantis brain and the brain of the female human.

  53. 2 years later... by cuerty · · Score: 1

    As far as I remember 2 years ago in the UBA (University of Buenos Aires) two profesors discover how does that part of the bird brain works and reproduced it in a computer, with great repercution in the media (at least here in Argentina).
    I'm looking for the article in any newspaper database to post it here...

    --
    >Linux is not user-friendly.
    It _is_ user-friendly. It is not ignorant-friendly and idiot-friendly.
    1. Re:2 years later... by cuerty · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here is the link to the article (In spanish) no a too much tecnical review: http://old.clarin.com/diario/2003/01/09/s-02601.ht m and google translated for those who doesn't speak spanish: http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fold .clarin.com%2Fdiario%2F2003%2F01%2F09%2Fs-02601.ht m&langpair=es%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8.

      --
      >Linux is not user-friendly.
      It _is_ user-friendly. It is not ignorant-friendly and idiot-friendly.
  54. don't bother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this republican probably doesn't give two shits about hacks getting rich off the administration for peddling their bullshit propaganda, only those writers who don't whore themselves for a political party but actually come up with some decent crits.

  55. It's funny, laugh. by GQuon · · Score: 1

    I know /. has been getting a bit of an anti-Scientific leaning as of late, focusing more on the trend of Geekdom moreso than the reality, but you don't have to call them Bird Brains...

    The scientists doing the study explain in their paper how humans learn to talk. The poster is referring to the headline of the story "Bird Brains Explain How Humans Learn to Talk". As in The Scientists == Bird Brains. Ha, ha? Funny?

    I guess there are some dumb fouls moderating too....

    --
    Irene KHAAAAAAN!
  56. Hmmm. I wonder what they mean... by harishpa · · Score: 1

    Bird Brains Explain How Humans Learn to Talk A team of neuroscientists at MIT have made tremendous progress in understanding how birds learn to sing Does this mean Team of neuroscientists at MIT = Bird Brains

  57. downloadable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The full research study is available as a downloadable PDF."

    You can download PDF files these days?
    Amazing!

  58. And now, the punchline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, and all this time I thought it was caused by Parkinson.

  59. Hrm by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    You know, I have one particularly retarded alarm going off every fucking day where I live. Sometimes at night. If that's a bird, I swear I'm getting a shotgun :P

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Hrm by neko9 · · Score: 1

      If that's a bird, I swear I'm getting a shotgun

      and If that's a car, get RPG :-)

    2. Re:Hrm by bogado · · Score: 1

      weird times we live in, where shoting living beings is better then shoting an unanimated thing. And people keeps saying niii to defenseless old lady...

      --
      []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

      ^[:wq

  60. It's a Coral Cache link by grouse · · Score: 1

    Seems to be working fine, so far.

  61. We can talk! Next up, can we think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a part of the brain called the basal ganglia is primarily responsible for controlling the learning of movement and the production of speech

    This confirms what was previously only suspected: most Americans have prominent basal ganglia and thus it is no surprise that they learn to talk very fluently at quite an early age.

    In contrast, the parts of the brain that determine logical thought are almost entirely absent in most members of the population.

  62. Nope by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    Nope, that's called sarcasm ;)

  63. Or, humans and other creatures by CarpetShark · · Score: 1
    we should expect to find this evolutionary trait in quite a few species out there.
    While I agree, I think you do not go far enough. If we all just accepted that humans are related to other flora and fauna on the planet, we might save ourselves a lot of time proving obvious similarities. Then, we could actually investigate more of the divergence between species.
  64. Not only bird species by Moraelin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, just wanted to say I think you're right, but IMHO we need to see the bigger picture than just "human speech == intelligence."

    Honestly, most species have evolved some kinds of intelligence, far beyond what many humans credit them with. IMHO the parrots are a more interesting case because they can actually articulate human words, but I wouldn't discount the intelligence of animals who lack a suitable larynx for that. Everything you describe, except for actually articulating words, can be observed in at least half the mammal species I can think of.

    In some cases it's not even just learning by imitation.

    E.g., cats not only can learn, but are actively taught by their mother. If you've ever had a cat with kittens, you've probably noticed how she talks to them for hours. (And likely got annoyed when she does it at 4 AM.)

    And if you take a kitten from his/her mom very early, he/she'll grow up to be a bit of a retarded cat. So all that meowing at night wasn't just socializing.

    This isn't necessarily to say "cats are smart", but rather that most species evolved towards some kind of "smart". Natural selection favours adaptability, and adapting by learning is the most efficient kind.

    Sharing information with other members of the species, i.e. _some_ form of speech (even if it means meowing, barking or chirping) was also a very immediate survival advantage. E.g., for most species of animals it's a very real advantage to be able to tell your cubs "hide!" or "come here, I brought you dinner" and the like.

    In the cats' case, it's obviously a language that can transmit behaviour information to the kitten. Probably not as complex or as capable of abstraction as human language, but complex enough to tell that kitten how to act in certain circumstances, or what its priorities should be. (E.g., "wash yourself often". Cats taken very early from their mother do it less often than ones who got taught.) I.e., it might be more complex than a parrot's learning to say "hi" and "goodbye".

    So basically, yeah, I'd guess that life anywhere, in any conditions, would probably tend to evolve towards some kind of intelligence and communication capabilities.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  65. baby as Mockingbird by ImWithBrilliant · · Score: 1

    I was just commenting yesterday how my 7 mo old girl incorporated her identical twin sister's squeal into her babblings- that it reminded me of the incorporation behavior of a mockingbird.

    Interesting observation on motor skills: she is not crawling yet, while the sister is getting around nicely yet not babbling nearly as much.

    --

    Is it a rule, that there's an exception to every rule?

    1. Re:baby as Mockingbird by lcsjk · · Score: 1

      It's not a rule, it's a generality, and all generalities, including this one, are untrue.

  66. Nothing new... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm told that I've been thinking with my ganglies for years now, no surprise that they're responsible for what I say too.

  67. Bird brain and human speech? by earwiggie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are many good human speech models out there (e.g. DIVA from http://speechlab.bu.edu ). The bird brain research is interesting but one can take the comparison between birds and humans only so far. For example, it is quite well known that sound localization mechanisms in bird and mammalian brains are entirely different.

  68. That's not very nice... by Exaton · · Score: 1

    ... calling the MIT neuroscientists "bird brains" !

  69. Parkinson's not inherited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You labeled Parkinson's disease as an inherited condition. Last I heard, it was definitely not inherited - and I've been paying attention, since it is both sides of my family history. Please try not cloud a great web site with careless reporting.

  70. Parkinson's Not Rapid by Ranger · · Score: 3, Informative

    Parkinson's Disease, an inherited genetic condition that causes rapid breakdown of motor control and speech production.

    It is not an inherited genetic condition. There may be genetic factors. Nor does it cause rapid breakdown. The disease is a slow breakdown over many years. And a person can have a normal lifespan. It is treatable. My grandfather had Parkinson's. He lived to be 90. He had a shuffle walk and didn't have serious tremors like other sufferers.

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
  71. Exlain How George W. Bush Babbles: +1, Patriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    "It is hoped that this research can provide further insights into Parkinson's Disease,"

    or more succintly:

    Hopefully, this research can provide further insights into Justice Sunday: Protest Against The Filibuster Against Those Of Faiith (the American Taliban).

    Regards,
    Kilgore Trout, CEO

  72. Can you say? by Presidential · · Score: 1

    Polly want a Pell Grant?

    --
    Whenever Mrs. Fitch breaks wind, we beat the dog.
  73. Uh, excuse me, that title... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bird Brains Explain How Humans Learn to Talk

    I believe that the politically correct term is "scientists", not "bird brains". Thank you.

  74. Actually... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1
    It is hoped that this research can provide further insights into Parkinson's Disease
    Or at least it's hoped that by associated this research with Parkinson's disease, something that actually affects some people's lives even though it's unconnected to this work, we can raise some more funding or even attract enough interest to get onto /.
    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  75. Related NPR report by evilninja · · Score: 1

    There was a related NPR report not too long ago about the way birds learn to string notes together. Listen here.

  76. It Certainly Does by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


    "a baby's random babbling eventually becomes the proficient speech of adults"

    Especially on /.

    Leaving out the word "proficient", of course.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  77. I'm from MIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm from MIT and we is not bird brains!

  78. Not only that... by shahken · · Score: 1

    but some birds like pigeons are great at ranking web pages !!!

    http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html

    hehe

  79. Interesting title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Bird Brains Explain How Humans Learn to Talk ... A team of neuroscientists at MIT have made tremendous progress ..."

    Was this written by someone at Caltech, then?

  80. I'm George Bush... by Kyont · · Score: 1

    ...you insensemetive clodhopper!

    --
    You shall see a cow on the roof of a cotton house.
  81. Porky pigs by Stankatz · · Score: 1

    I wonder what sort of implications any of this information has towards the millions of stutters around the world? Not as glamorous as aiming for big name diseases.

  82. Illogical? 15 Saudis attacked U.S., U.S. hits Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suppose you are one of those people who say that it was illogical that, after 15 Saudis attacked the U.S., the U.S. invaded Iraq.

  83. How sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    hey now! I'm insultified by the misrepresentationisms you been copulatin all up an' around my speechial deliverisations! And yes I can most certaintifically clothify my undeniable self in the mourning!!

    I got more sense out of your gobbledy-gook than most government officials' speeches.
  84. Blurb makes pretty big leaps by splante · · Score: 1
    According to my wife, a practicing neuroscientist:
    The blurb is pretty broadstroking- in humans, the basal ganglia is one part of a network for language implementation- language recognition, comprehension, processing, development etc itself is carried out through a complex network in the left hemisphere involving Broca's and Wernicke's areas (among a number of other pathways and stops) so to say "and it is the same way that a baby's random babbling eventually becomes the proficient speech of adults" is pretty bad leaping even for a lay person blurb. And then lets throw in buzz word of Parkinson's disease which is not "an inherited genetic condition" contrary to the whiz who wrote the blurb. Researchers believe there is a genetic predisposition in a portion of patients that develop Parkinson's. Goodness.
    I guess it's like when we read something on Linux in USA Today.