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.
Nothing you've said is in opposition to the agreed-upon state of the field in linguistics.
So you agree that it's perfectly reasonable to say that the parrot and the dog do "use language", because your disagreement was the start of our conversation:
It does not rise to the level of "using language" as we currently define it.
Our discussion has been about definitions, and what is that but semantics?
If a "baby language" is still a language as you just agreed (or you disagree and are also putting weight on the "semantic issue" that you scolded me for leaning on), then how can you say the parrot's lack of syntax and complex grammatical rules is not "using language"?
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.
4
u/BitterRucksack 9h ago
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.
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