Right, but that misses my point. What we normally think of as human language exists independently of the human-primate call system that we also use to communicate with. You can probably communicate a lot of "tactical" information by using non-language vocalisms such as grunts, sighs, chuckles, gasps, and so on. Call systems are still very limited in the type of information that they can convey. Birdsong also exists as a second type of vocalization that is outside the call systems of birds, but there is no evidence that their second system of communication functions like human language to convey detailed information about status, goals, plans, desires, etc.
I understand that... I'm not talking about birdsong, but more general communication abilities. In corvids particularly there is some evidence that they can convey information about status, plans and so on... they even practice deception. Sure it's not as detailed as with us, but i never suggested it was or would be.
All of this research is very exciting, and parrots do seem to have very highly developed brains. They may show some predilection for linguistic skills that most other animals do not have.
I tend to be skeptical about claims made by researchers in the area of language. We have a strong
Clever Hans bias when it comes to animals, and even highly-educated researchers can lack rudimentary knowledge of linguistics. So it is easy to get away with facile claims about similarities between human language and animal communication. What is needed is a good description of the precise nature of the claimed similarity. News stories about scientific breakthroughs in this area are notoriously unreliable.
Agreed... and you need to be very careful in such studies.. however one of the nice things about the parrot work, is that they are speaking English... rather than simply using vaguely interpreted signs.
It's hard to argue that the parrot doesn't understand the concept of "Red" when they can consistently use the verbal word across different situations.
Now, if it can be replicated outside of Alex (the continuing goal of the project) then you can further reduce the "clever hans" possibility.
Some of the modern language experiments are doing much better are reducing the chances of the "clever hans" effect. Mostly by not having single individuals working with the animals and removing ambiguous linguistic devices like sign language. The Orangutan Language Project is a good example:
Think Tank Photo Gallery: Orangutan - National Zoo| FONZ
The animals don't have humans interacting directly with them, but interact mostly with a computer screen, reducing the chance that there are unconscious signals being given by the humans.
Devices like the iPad may prove to be the biggest thing in ape cognition research, further reducing the need for direct human interaction. They are already a hit with Orangs.
wa:do