tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post3966471946794188421..comments2024-03-28T04:04:55.806-07:00Comments on Faculty of Language: A triple of readablesNorberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15701059232144474269noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-35480770032487922052016-03-12T18:04:57.942-08:002016-03-12T18:04:57.942-08:00I got the impression the D-ABC sequence might be l...I got the impression the D-ABC sequence might be like Go-Ready, if the ABC alert call means 'do nothing and look around'. Then I can see that that could be followed by D 'come', whereas the inversion would be incoherent. But that still wouldn't make it similar human syntax. Another thing is that I couldn't figure out what the behavior of the individual birds was. The data is statistic (more scans, higher likelyhood of the bird approaching).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01780379684952283129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-81382362051347046692016-03-12T12:40:55.207-08:002016-03-12T12:40:55.207-08:00The example given in the PR piece suggests it is w...The example given in the PR piece suggests it is worse than the 'go-ready' example. In 'go-ready' it's hard to see what the combo might mean in that direction. In their case 'approach and scan' seems as coherent as 'scan and approach.' The two sequnces would be used to command different behaviors but both are coherent. This suggests, at least to me, that there is really less here than they suggest. Ditto for the fact that this is used in both approaching (makes sense) and deterring (makes less snese) predators. Or vice versa. Maybe the bird is talking to itself in one of the two cases, but what exactly is being conveyed is obscure, at least to me.<br /><br />At any rate, this is piss poor stuff. Carefully and humanely done, it appears, but pointless. Hence this violates Hornstein's first rule of research: those things not worth doing are not worth doing well. Norberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15701059232144474269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-2303564592415196162016-03-12T11:30:57.876-08:002016-03-12T11:30:57.876-08:00I read the article. I now know what kind of speake...I read the article. I now know what kind of speakers were used and that no birds were harmed in the course of the experiments. I also suspect that the language of the birds lacks inversion, since they drew a blank at D-ABC. But I don't know how to read that, because it might be like we can't say 'Hardy and Laurel' or draw a blank when we hear 'Go! Ready?'. In one case the birds have constructions, in the other case they have text grammar. Ex falso sequitur quodlibet.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01780379684952283129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-32827750269821484552016-03-11T03:06:43.234-08:002016-03-11T03:06:43.234-08:00I´m a bit surprised that they didn't get anyth...I´m a bit surprised that they didn't get anything in there about binarism in Merge. The authors seem to have picked up enough terminology with some idea of how fling it around so that they could have (I've seem worse from people enrolled in relevant courses).AveryAndrewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17701162517596420514noreply@blogger.com