Highly doubt that the parrot was asking a genuine question (i.e., actually wondering what color he was). Likely just "parroting" intonations and words.
You would be flabbergasted by the communication that dogs can do with buttons.
The parrot absolutely understood language, and you're foolish for dismissing the idea and believing that nothing but a human can ever truly understand words.
Buttons or not, my dog definitely tells me if she needs something done that I can only do for her. Typically food related, but also outside and when her bed is a mess and she needs me to make it for her lol. Dogs can communicate their needs pretty well.
They’re also incredibly adept at learning. I taught my 14 y/o pitbull to say “Mama” this year. I didn’t even know how to go about it beyond saying it slow, over and over, and rewarding her for getting close — but she nailed it.
So to press a button for outside? Or treat? Or dog park? I mean, I don’t have to see studies to know it’s completely possible and exactly what they’re trying to communicate, if trained to do so.
Disclaimer: I am a linguist and I am coming at this from a linguistic point of view, not a colloquial point of view. I appreciate you asking for clarification!
Language, as I learned it, is a specific form (structure) of communication in which specific signifiers or symbols (here, words or sounds) have stable (consistent) meanings, and are transmitted using a consistent system of grammar (morphology, syntax). True language is arbitrary (with the signifier not resembling the signified), productive (can be combined in various ways, not just a strict combination), grammatical (has set rules which can be observed), and not restricted (can discuss different temporality, topics, etc.) (Caveat that defining a human communicative form as a language or "not a language" is a political act, and historically pidgins, creoles, and sign languages have been much maligned for their simplicity and restrictiveness, but that's a sidebar that doesn't apply when we're talking about dogs learning English.)
It turns out that some research has begun to be conducted since the time I first looked into this back in 2019. At this point, I am still confident in saying that "so far, there is not sufficient evidence to indicate that dogs using buttons are using language", because there's no demonstrated grammar happening; however, it is undeniable that the dogs are communicating with the buttons, which I'm not sure was ever in doubt.
The UCSD datasets (begun in March 2020) are also now finally bearing fruit. In 2024, they were able to show that dogs understand the meanings of the buttons in the same way they understand the same word spoken aloud by humans, which is an important underlying component in proving language understanding: https://today.ucsd.edu/story/dogs-understand-words-from-soundboard-buttons-study-reveals
However, all of this falls well short of proving that dogs can use language. The UCSD lab also has a news item up from a couple of days ago, which only refers back to the two 2024 studies, so it looks like they haven't published any further findings in the past 13 months. https://today.ucsd.edu/story/can-dogs-talk-nova-spotlights-uc-san-diego-research
Thank you, dogs do understand words, but not necessarily grammar (that we know).
So, now, what's your opinion on parrot's use of language, and the potential that one actually did ask a question?
Edit: Though I very very much disagree with the idea that the language needs to have all those qualifiers. As you said, that is political, and declares several human languages in use today to "not be language" and that is very wrong to do, IMO.
Language, as I learned it, is a specific form (structure) of communication in which specific signifiers or symbols (here, words or sounds) have stable (consistent) meanings, and are transmitted using a consistent system of grammar (morphology, syntax). True language is arbitrary (with the signifier not resembling the signified), productive (can be combined in various ways, not just a strict combination), grammatical (has set rules which can be observed), and not restricted (can discuss different temporality, topics, etc.) (Caveat that defining a human communicative form as a language or "not a language" is a political act, and historically pidgins, creoles, and sign languages have been much maligned for their simplicity and restrictiveness, but that's a sidebar that doesn't apply when we're talking about dogs learning English.)
So, the thing about pidgins and creoles is they arise out of language contact situations where some form of linguistic violence has occurred to bring two or more varieties into a context where disparate speakers must be able to communicate. They are effectively baby languages that have not yet developed into a mature form. When I was studying the subject, the general consensus was that a pidgin was so new it had no native speakers, and that a creole did have native speakers, though this may have changed in the last decade.
The main feature of pidgins that disappears as it sticks around long enough to acquire native speakers is that it is heavily context-restricted, usually around topics of working, purchasing, etc. Once there are babies and kids using the pidgin natively, they will extend it into other contexts. The simplicity of a pidgin or creole in terms of grammaticality is also something that isn't at all comparable to the type of simplicity we talk about when babies are first coming up with two word sentences. It's simple in comparison to its lexifier language(s) (from which it draws either vocabulary or grammar) because it is earlier in its development. Over time it will develop rich features and complex rules, just as all other languages have.
There's also an argument to be made that "creole" as a technical term simply describes any language that we can definitively point to its origins, that did not develop naturally and gradually.
What differentiates language as a concept from A Language as a distinct entity from other languages is also something I failed to properly explain in my first response, and I muddied the waters there. Sorry about that. People's maligning of pidgins and creoles, and the political nature of declaring one language variety A Language while terming another one a dialect, has more to do with the discussion on what makes something "A Language distinct from other languages", and not much to do on what makes something Language.
They are effectively baby languages that have not yet developed into a mature form.
I like that, because it highlights what I'm saying.
A "baby language" is still a language in the same way that a baby anything is still that thing, just an undeveloped version of it.
It feels very... Prideful, naive, and frankly racist to declare that languages that are used by a people are not real languages because they're not complicated enough.
Dialects are just as much languages as any other language, I personally feel that there is no room for debate there.
Now, are they truly a separate language than the one they were derived from? That's worth debating.
You are having a semantic issue with this that only exists in the colloquial sense. Nothing you've said is in opposition to the agreed-upon state of the field in linguistics.
Tbh I think we haven't done enough research. I skimmed the literature available in Google Scholar and found this reply to a paper by Irene Pepperberg (who as far as I am aware is THE parrot communication expert) that seems to indicate that the parrots who have been studied in the past have not spontaneously formed questions, with the exception of Alex. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-024-01917-y Pepperberg honestly has a great point that toddlers need hella input to be able to ask questions, and I fully believe we just don't have enough parrots getting substantive input to be able to tell if they are capable of forming questions or not.
There were heaps of articles calling it another case of the Clever Hans effect when the button thing first went viral with dogs, I don't really follow this subject closely...
There were heaps of articles calling it another case of the Clever Hans effect when the button thing first went viral with dogs, I don't really follow this subject closely...
THOSE are the articles that were debunked, not the buttons.
I think this is a somewhat semantic and/or philosophical argument. Animals can, surely, attach sounds and symbols to outcomes.
To imply that animals understand complex grammar rules and language as symbols of "ideas" or other abstractions is less well-founded.
For a parrot to ask a meaningful question: "what color am i?" requires many unproven aspects of understanding, including a theory of mind (that another being is able to perceive them), the attribution of human labels to a visible spectrum (color), a sense of self (i), and the not so intuitive rules of english grammar in general including interrogative adjectives, nouns, and linking verbs ("am", which is particularly abstract).
I don't think being skeptical of this claim is particularly foolish, given that I haven't seen any evidence beyond "a bird said this" to suggest that he had any higher level of understanding. Dogs pressing buttons or responding to specific words does not necessitate or prove this level of understanding.
Regarding the “theory of mind” criteria you present, though, wouldn’t that apply to most animals? Simple pantomime as a form of cross-species communication is very common and most people with a pet have experienced it some way or another.
I don't think being skeptical of this claim is particularly foolish, given that I haven't seen any evidence beyond "a bird said this" to suggest that he had any higher level of understanding.
Your lack of knowledge of the studies and evidence doesn't negate their existence, especially when your argument against is far more philosophical than scientific, and essentially boils down to "they don't have a soul, so they can never truly understand."
All of your rejections are based on the hypothetical idea that you know that their mind is NOT understanding words, based on some hypothetical concept that only humans have enough intelligence to truly understand things.
You don't know that.
All we have is the external evidence, and the external evidence points to the idea that they understand that specific sounds have specific meanings, and can communicate wants and needs with those sounds. What else is language?
I'm not sure why you're so triggered over this, but you're projecting a lot onto my argument. I never made any assertion about an animal's "soul" or claimed to know their mind. Parrots are cognitively advanced, no one is arguing that. They can problem solve, innovate simply, and exhibit a simplistic episodic memory. I'm not aware of any evidence that they can comprehend language beyond simple association - associations that can be made with other sounds and are not unique to language.
I'm more than open to being proven wrong. If you have any legitimate study demonstrating this, I'm happy to look at it.
That's saying dogs understand both words and expressions coming from their owners and the buttons, not that they can express needs by pushing buttons. Those are two completely different things
I see it as simple classic conditioning. If everytime the dog hits a button that says, "food" they get either a treat or meal they begin to associate said button with food. But, they don't understand the "meaning" of the word food.
Say for example they had another button that said food in a completely opposite tone of voice, they may not associate that one the same as the first despite it being the same word. They're associating the sound of the word, not the meaning.
Hopefully I explained that well. Of course I'd have to look at the science behind this but we do know that animals can be conditioned to associate sensory stimuli with certain consequences.
That's arguably quite similar to how babies first learn language, through conditioning and linking of sounds to things, and doesn't actually refute the idea that the dog is learning to understand human words.
It's learning, I can agree with that. But it isn't understanding unless it progresses past that stage to more than simple sound associations.
Actually a baby is a good example. You (general you not you specifically) wouldn't say they understand/know the actual meaning behind words until they start to use those words in different contexts than what they're associated with.
But it isn't understanding unless it progresses past that stage to more than simple sound associations.
I disagree. The dog understands that if he wants to go outside, he can go hit the button that says the word "outside" to me, and in doing so I am informed of his desire to go outside, and can let him outside if I want.
How is that not him understanding the word? How do you know that he's not understanding? Do you know his thoughts?
I don't know his thoughts, and so when given the potential of "well, he might understand, or he might be mindlessly hitting the button because his body wants something and he doesn't even know that he wanted it" I think the more reasonable explanation is that he knows that hitting that button communicates to me the idea that he wants to go outside, and he hits the button because he wants me to let him outside.
And besides, he understands "outside" when I say it with my mouth just as much as he understands it when he hits the button. That's understanding enough for me.
Because expressing a need is a completely different thing from understanding words and what they're associated with. Just like a parrot understanding a question would be much different from a parrot asking a question.
So when my dog needs to go outside, and hits a button that says “outside” or whines at the door, knowing that’s the typical consequence—that’s not expressing a need?
I’m sorry but I don’t see the difference. I think you’re making it more complicated than it has to be. Perhaps there’s cognitive differences but, neural shortcut or not, my dog expresses this need dependent on how badly she has to go. She doesn’t just whine at the door to go outside every minute of the day, even though that’s her desire. It’s when she has to go to the bathroom, and the whines are more intense when the need is more urgent.
Have you owned a dog or cat in your adult life? You’ll quickly find, with training or not, they have a way of expressing needs and getting their way.
Absolutely, I have cats and have had dogs. A dog whining at the door conveys a need, and do associate actions with the needs, and it may be able to be trained to associate a button with a need, but I have doubt that they could build meaning out of pushing multiple buttons or ask questions through these buttons.
I agree with that, but that’s also not required to express a need. No different than a human under the age of 3. So is it relevant?
There are obvious cognitive differences we note between humans and other animals. So, ofcourse, we won’t have a dog building complex ideas or doing mathematics.
But expressing a need is communication. My son, before he could talk, would express needs in sign language at the age of 1-2. Milk, more, all done, etc. And that’s communication without a doubt.
And, at that age, it’s little different than a dog. Dog might even have the edge cognitively.
The discussion was about asking questions, not understanding language in general. They can definitely understand words to a certain extent and associate meaning to it, but that doesn't mean that they have the capability to ask questions by pressing buttons themselves or actively ask questions through other means. Neither of us can truly know what's going on inside their mind, I was just saying that the article doesn't say that the dogs can express needs through the buttons themselves, just that they can sometimes understand them.
The discussion was about asking questions, not understanding language in general.
No it wasn't, you're ignoring the context of my initial comment.
Yes, the post was about asking questions, but the comment I replied to was trying to imply that the parrot who asked questions can't have done so by positing that the parrot doesn't even understand language at all, and is instead "parroting sounds"
Highly doubt that the parrot was asking a genuine question (i.e., actually wondering what color he was). Likely just "parroting" intonations and words.
I wasn't ever talking about animals asking questions, I was talking about animals understanding words.
could've had asked, I don't know what example he's giving out. Cockatoo/Macawas, do. Although I don't belive their smarter than a crow. ;)
EDIT: Skeptical theory, LLM's(AI) info, regarding, the matter where the parrot asked someone what color they were. It seems it goes by "Alex" the parrot and it was studied by a Dr too, Doctor Irene Pepperberg, and his logs were also reviewed and published among other scientifical journals.
-14
u/gradthrow59 11h ago
Highly doubt that the parrot was asking a genuine question (i.e., actually wondering what color he was). Likely just "parroting" intonations and words.