It sounds like they showed the dolphin a picture, just using an auditory representation rather than graphical. Then the dolphin pointed to the depicted object.
I'm pretty sure that a human baby, without any language skills, could do the same if the depiction were graphical.
It seems to me that they've found out something about the dolphin perceptual system. This is interesting, but I don't see what it has to do with language.
The trick is that they've observed the dolphins doing the same thing. We've just demonstrated that they can coherently transfer nouns. That's a big deal.
I agree that it's interesting. I just don't see that it's language.
Consider this [1] article on language, discussing the properties of language. It seems that what has been discovered fails this in at least two ways. We haven't demonstrated, or even claimed, any sort of grammar; and what's being communicated isn't symbolic, but directly representational.
- - QUOTE - -
Languages are not just sets of symbols. They also contain a grammar, or system of rules, used to manipulate the symbols. While a set of symbols may be used for expression or communication, it is primitive and relatively unexpressive, because there are no clear or regular relationships between the symbols. Because a language also has a grammar, it can manipulate its symbols to express clear and regular relationships between them.
...
Another important property of language is the arbitrariness of the symbols. Any symbol can be mapped onto any concept (or even onto one of the rules of the grammar). For instance, there is nothing about the Spanish word nada itself that forces Spanish speakers to use it to mean nothing. That is the meaning all Spanish speakers have memorized for that sound pattern. But for Croatian speakers nada means hope.
>Another important property of language is the arbitrariness of the symbols. Any symbol can be mapped onto any concept (or even onto one of the rules of the grammar). For instance, there is nothing about the Spanish word nada itself that forces Spanish speakers to use it to mean nothing.
How about "mother", "no" sounding so similar in multitude of completely different languages? Your quote mistakenly attributes a property of human's mind - the ability to separate meaning from symbol - as a property of language.
Shaka, when the walls fell.
How about "mother", "no" sounding so similar in multitude of completely different languages?
How many languages are we talking about. The Indo-European languages cover most of Eurasia excluding the far east. They are similar because they are related.
I imagine other large language families on other continents are also related. How similar are "mother" and "no" or "yes" in languages which share no relation? Aboriginal and Spanish? Basque and Japanese? Bantu and Inuit? The click language of the bushmen and Mandarin Chinese? Etc..
Africaans is a dialect of Dutch - European language.
Albanian - European.
Arabic - the first non Indo-European language in this list and what do you know, no leading "m-sound". More like the opposite of that.
Aymara, Azeri and Basque are also all non Indo-European and what do you, also no leading "m-sound".
The list continues with a whole pile of Slavic and other European language, holy crap "mother" in Bosnian and Bulgarian sounds really similar - what a shock!
I'm just scanning through the list now, Hawaiian seems to be the firs non Indo-European language to have the "ma" sound. I bet if you look you'll find the "ma" sound in whole pile of other Hawaiian words too! Are they all about sucking?
Hungarian is in Europe but is a Finno-Uguric language and again no "m-sound".
Indonesian no "ma" sound. And I'm tired of proving my point.
This "the sound of the world for mother is similar to suckling" seems like utter bullshit to me.
Leading with the m-sound just happens to be common in the Indo-European language family.
And I don't even know what the heck your second link is!?
It sounds like they showed the dolphin a picture, just using an auditory representation rather than graphical. Then the dolphin pointed to the depicted object.
I'm pretty sure that a human baby, without any language skills, could do the same if the depiction were graphical.
It seems to me that they've found out something about the dolphin perceptual system. This is interesting, but I don't see what it has to do with language.