http://www.k9capers.com/petnews/petfeaturearticle.asp?pfid=907
Rico the superdog is an example of an animal that can understand human language but they themselves can not respond. According to the article, Rico is able to name over 200 toys and can understand simple syntax. This is remarkable to see this happen, especially because the animal can only bark and growl in response. Professors are currently researching why these dogs can understand the human language while humans themselves may have difficulty.
There is a gene in humans that helps code for the ability to understand language. Individuals who have trouble with speech have a deformed version of this gene. Therefore one can assume that animals have a perfected version of this gene to understand the human language.
However, skeptics say that Rico is only understanding these topics because Rico herself have been en-culturated because she lives among humans .
This dog shows what being in a culture can do to communication. We saw earlier how birds living in different parts of the country learn their own twist in their language. Well it also shows how they are able to react with species not related to theirs. They are able to interact and learn other animals calls and signals. This is a skill that can help in survival.
I just wonder how come humans aren't as good as other animals. Other animals are able to analyze and figure out why certain calls are made without any high tech instruments. What happen through evolution that changes between early-mammals/primates to humans?
Jobin Oommen (3)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your last point about how woefully incapable humans are at understanding other species/ languages without high-tech equipment really hits home. It seems like, since we have the luxury of our instruments and modern lifestyle, we have lost many of our basic survival skills such as keen observation and attention to our surroundings. Also, in humans, since we have such advanced mental capabilities, we have a corresponding lack in other areas such as our senses compared to other animals (eyesight, hearing, sense of smell and taste, etc.) When you look at humans v. other animals in this light, it is easy to see why other species are capable of mimicking human speech and understanding simple human language syntax while it is less easy for humans to do the same for other species.
ReplyDeletePosted by Johanna Brophy
Hi Jobin,
ReplyDeleteI sorta agree with the skeptics on this one. This is because Rico could have been trained to know what humans are saying. Even though Rico just barks and nods, he is still getting a response elicited from him. He could of had operant training, where he was rewarded every time he responded correctly to a signal and now all Rico wants to do is to get the treat and will respond however the master wants it too. It does not seem that Rico would be learning if this was the case.
Posted by Whitney Huynh
This ties in quite well with my article about Orangutans communicating with charades, actually. There are animals that are all too capable of understanding our languages, or being taught to communicate in more primitive, but understandable ways. Pigs, for instance, are just as capable as dogs to be trained, and taught. And crows are capable of tool use, counting, and intense problem solving.
ReplyDeleteIt is a true statement to say that humans are still animals. We merely have differently evolved ways of communicating.
Posted by Jacob Lane
I agree that Rico probably understands our language because of the community he was brought up in. An experiment could be conducted to see if this was the case, in which a wild dog that had not been brought up in captivity was taught these words in the same way Rico was. If the wild dog was able to learn the word just as well, it would show that dogs do indeed have the brain capacity to learn these works and it was not just culture that influences learning in dogs.
ReplyDeletePosted by Sara Corey
I think that humans still understand some basic signals of animals, just as animals can understand some of our basic communication. No species can completely understand another species language, so I don't think its that humans lost the ability to understand other animals. What would be interesting to see is if a person who was devoid of socialization would be able to learn language still, sort of a Tarzan situation. Like how birds who do not learn calls in a certain period of time can not learn them, do you think humans would not be able to learn a language if they had no interaction until later in life?
ReplyDeletePosted by Caitlin Descovich O'Hare
I think alot has changed this our days living in the wild. If we still had to worry about a lion attacking us when we were walking down the road, I am sure we could recognize an attacking posture and sound. Over time, some of these things are lost, while better interpreting human communication takes it's place
ReplyDeletePosted by Jake Lafauce
I am guessing that Rico can understand our "language" because we have bred for intelligence in dogs. Some species, or breeds, of dogs have been bred to hone in on certain characteristics, intelligence is one of them. Only certain breeds are used for service animals because of the way we breed them. I'll continue with Rico. She is a border collie, if I am not mistaken. Border collies can interpret whistles and hoots that correspond to behaviors when they are herding sheep or any other kind of animal. This breed is "designed" to do this. They are genetically modified to be smarter; so it is no surprise that Rico can understand and identify over 200 toys.
ReplyDeletePosted by: Em Arsenault
There are many different animals that have been said to understand human language, but a lot of professionals in the area of linguistics have shot this idea down. One of the more famous examples is Koko the gorilla. Some people believe that what Koko did was not true language because she did not seem to have a concrete idea of syntax and word order. Is Rico a new finding? Because if so, experts will have to reconsider everything they know about animals and the human language.
ReplyDeletePosted by Janelle Hayes
I have watched several documentaries on dogs and one of them talks about how we have shaped domestic dog populations. Dogs are one of the most responsive animal to our body language because we have selectively bred the dogs that better understand human language. For instance, dogs can understand by watching a humans face and eyes to determine where a treat might be hidden. Dogs can also tell emotions by facial expression.
ReplyDeleteThe reason why we are not as good is that there was no evolutionary pressure to select for genes that better understand dogs.
Posted By Caroline Adams
Response to Janelle,
ReplyDeleteIts interesting to me that linguistics shot down the idea that Koko couldn't understand the human language. I just find it interesting they consider that the only understanding of the language is exactly how we perceive language. We learned that communication is when a sender sends a signal to a receiver and that modifies their behavior. This is exactly what happens when Koko or Rico in this situation hears a human talking . The fact that they are able to pick up on some things and react towards it is exactly the basis of language and communication.
Posted by Jobin