LIN 455, Term Paper

Dr. Alan Beretta

Shivani Pandya
Dec. 6th 2013

Have the Starlings Actually Learned Recursion?

ABSTRACT
In a paper written by Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch, it was hypothesized that whatever is in the
FLN would be unique to human language. Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch believe that, at
minimum, recursion is present that recursion is uniquely human. Gentner et al. conducted an
experiment in response to this. They tested starlings on their capacity to learn recursion. Based
off of Gentner et al.s results, they believe that recursion has been achieved by the starlings.
However, Corballis disagrees with Gentner et al.s findings. He believes that the songbirds may
not have learned the general rules behind center-embedded recursion and instead have utilized
subitizing. Ergo, Corballis supports HCF in their assertion that recursion is uniquely human due
to there not being sufficient evidence proving otherwise.

INTRODUCTION
Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch (2002) believe there to be two parts within the faculty of
language (a term used to refer to the mind/brains processing of language): faculty of language
broad and faculty of language narrow (1570). Faculty of language broad or FLB contains the
sensory-motor system, the conceptual-intentional system, and the faculty of language narrow
or FLN (Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch, 2002: 1570-71). The FLB is shared between humans and
non-human species. The FLN, which is a part of the FLB, is believed to be what is unique to
human language. There is much debate over what FLN contains but it is generally accepted that
recursion, at minimum, is present (Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch, 2002: 1571). Recursion is the
ability to produce sentences ad infinitum this can be done by embedding sentences within one
another or simply adding to a sentence. Gentner et al. (2006), at the University of Chicago,

contest HCFs (2002) claim. The results of their experiment on starlings seem to indicate that the
starlings were able to learn recursion ergo invalidating HCFs (2002) assertion that recursion is
unique to human language. However, the results of Gentner et al.s (2006) study can be
explained by subitizing, which would then provide more evidence that recursion may be a part of
the FLN.
To test non-human species on whether they can learn recursion, the use of artificial
language is required. There are two grammars that are commonly used: finite state grammar
(FSG) and context free grammar (CFG). FSG can be depicted as (AB)n or ABAB, ABABAB,
ABABABABAB, etc. CFG can be depicted by AnBn or AABB, AAABBB, AAAABBBB, etc.
Center-embedded recursion, which was used in Gentner et al.s (2006) study on starlings, is a
form of CFG. Center-embedded recursion is when a phrase is embedded within another phrase.
In English, an example of this, given by Corballis (2007) displays the difficulty of
comprehending center-embedded recursion:
(a) The malt that the rat ate lay in the house that Jack built
(b) The malt that the rat that the cat killed ate lay in the house that Jack built.
In (a), it is the phrase that the rat ate that is within the larger sentence of The malt lay in the
house that Jack built. In (b), it is the phrase that the cat killed that is within the phrase that the
rat ate which, in turn, is embedded in the larger sentence of The malt lay in the house that Jack
built. In Gentner et al. (2006), center-embedded recursion was tested on starlings using As and
Bs, which represent two types of sound: As included eight different song rattles and Bs
included eight different song warbles (Gentner et al., 2006: 1). Using these sounds, Gentner et
al. (2006) tested the starlings on both FSG and CFG (1).

Eleven starlings were trained to codify the FSG and CFG sequences presented, using a
go/no-go operant conditioning procedure (Gentner et al., 2006: 1). The starlings were given eight
rattle sounds and eight warble sounds that came from a single male starlings repertoire (3).
Because these sounds shared a common vocabulary, the only variance in this experiment would
be the patterns of (AB)n and AnBn. This resulted in nine out of the eleven starlings successfully
discriminating between FSG and CFG (1). The starlings were then trained to respond to one
grammar and reject the other. Half the starlings were trained to respond to (AB)n and reject AnBn
and the other half were trained to do the opposite (3). How these starlings were divided is
unclear, as eleven is not an evenly divisible number it would be assumed that 5 were trained
one way and 6 were trained the other. Both groups learned to do this at around the same rate (4).
For the purposes of validity and to ensure that the starlings did not use rote memorization to
distinguish between FSG and CFG, the first four starlings who achieved stable acquisition were
additionally tested with 16 novel sentences from FSG and CFG (1). The first five 100-trial
segments resulted in a mean d of 1.14 0.20, which indicates that the results were not due to
chance (1). To further test the starlings to understand why they were able to discriminate
between FSG and CFG sequences, Gentner et al. (2006) reduced the classifications of AA and
AB or BB and AB to initial and terminal pairs (3). The starlings would have to codify the FSG
and CFG sequences by listening for B/A transitions and AA/BB pairs or counting the number of
A/B transitions (3). The results of this experiment showcase that this was not the reason for the
discrimination. Ergo, the starlings acquired a basic knowledge about the FSG and CFG
grammars and were able to apply it when codifying other sequences.
Another possibility for the results was that the starlings only learned the FSG sequences
and treated the CFG sequences as its complement. To rule this scenario out, Gentner et al. (2006)

created 16 sentences predicated on four separate agrammatical motifs: AAAA, BBBB, ABBA,
and BAAB. These four distinct motifs were displayed both within FSG and CFG grammars as
probe stimuli (1). These new sentences were tested on those same four starlings. The results of
this was that the four starlings were able to distinguish (AB)2 from the agrammatical probes.
Three out of the four starlings were able to distinguish A2B2 from the agrammatical probes.
According to Gentner et al. (2006), the starling who did not distinguish A2B2 was also the only
starling out of the four who was tested with FSG as the S+ stimuli this means that this starling
was trained to recognize (AB)n and reject AnBn while the other three were trained to do the
opposite (2).
The experiments prior to the one about to be discussed all had a maximum of n=2. So, to
see whether the starlings could generalize A2B2 and (AB)2 to a higher n-value, Gentner et al.
(2006) presented them with n=3 and n=4 sequences (2). Sixteen sequences were presented for
each n-value, with there being eight sequences for each grammar type. As the starlings were
presented with the n=2 baseline stimuli, the n=3 and n=4 sequences appeared as probes (4). The
starlings were able to correctly identify n=3 and n=4 FSG and CFG sequences. This result shows
that the starlings, using the baseline n=2 training, can go into higher-order grammars (2). An
explanation for this result could be that the starlings actually learned a simpler grammar that
resembles the recursive qualities of the AnBn sequence. The AnBn sequence actually is part of a
subset in which the n-values can vary for the As and Bs A*B*. However, CFGs cannot
construct A*B* structures because the n-values have to match. FSGs, on the other hand, can (2).
The starlings were tested on if they can learn A*B* to a AnBn by looking at their responses to
particular A*B* sequences. The ones that were presented in this study were: A1B3, A3B1, A2B3,
and A3B2 (2). The A*B* stimuli, as well as the AnBn and (AB)n, were presented as probes for the

same sessions. If the results delineate that the starlings learned A*B* to AnBn, it would indicate
a correlation between the response pattern of A*B* and AnBn. However, the results of this
experiment showed that all the starlings distinctly differentiated between A*B* and AnBn. The
starlings still continued to classify AnBn and (AB)n sequences accurately regardless of the A*B*
probes (2). What most likely is that the starlings just learned AnBn (3).
Gentner et al.s (2006) study seems to indicate that starlings can and have learned at least
a simple form of recursion, thereby supplying evidence that recursion would not be in the FLN
but instead in the FLB contrary to Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitchs (2002) claim. Gentner et al.
(2006) go on to state that there may not be an FLN at all that there might not be any difference
that distinguishes human language from non-human species (3). These are bold claims. Corballis
(2007) proffers an alternate reason to explain Gentner et al.s (2006) results. While Gentner et
al. (2006) believe that their results are indicating that the starlings followed a center-embedded
recursion rule, Corballis (2007) posits that the starlings may have used subitization (701).
Corballis (2007) presents two tree structures in his paper that are beneficial in delineating how
the starlings might have learned recursion (700). Tree structure (a) portrays the results of
Gentner et al., which follows the center embedded recursion rule. Tree structure (b) is an
example of double iterations without any centerembedding. Tree structure (b) is what the starlings
might have been doing instead of tree structure (a).
The starlings, following tree structure (b), would
just need to count the As, then the Bs and, if the
numbers were equivalent, accept them as the nvalue for AnBn. This is not an FSG structure but it

also not an example of center-embedded recursion (Corballis, 2007:701).

Gentner et al. did consider that the starlings might have been counting from B-to-A but
they ended up ruling it out (3). Corballis argues that, especially in terms of tree structure (b),
there is not a need to count in the strict sense to still be able to match the lengths this is
where subitization plays in (2007: 701). Subitization is matching quantities without actually
counting and is actually quite common amongst animals, so it would not be unlikely if starlings
used it too. Corballis makes another good point discussing how even if the starlings were not
subitizing, they are already known to be sensitive to pattern sequences (701). Therefore, another
explanation of the results could be attributed to this sensitivity the starlings could have used a
pattern template, without any rules in place, for the sequences. Because of the difficulty of
center-embedded recursion for humans, Corballis ventures that it is more possible that
subitization or pattern-sequencing is why it looked the starlings learned recursion (2007: 701-2).
The FLN, at minimum, contains recursion according to Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch
(2002). Gentner et al. attempted to prove that non-human species, too, had the capability of
recursion with an experiment done on starlings. Unfortunately, their experiment does not prove
that the starlings learned center-embedded recursion. However, this does not refute the evidence
that the starlings do have the capability of differentiating CFG and FSG sequences; it is just that
their results are not indicative of the fact that they learned recursions. In fact, their results can
easily be explained by subitizing or pattern-sequencing. The question to be asked is how to
actually prove recursion for non-human species. Corballis believes that to ensure validity and
reliability, it would be necessary to have center-embedded sequences be differentiated between
those that do not obey the rules as well as those that are matched (2007: 702). What this means is

that the sentences have to be comprehensible, even with all the constituents that are embedded
within each other. Corballis provides another valuable example to demonstrate this (2007: 702)
(a) The man that the cat that the dog that the children loved chased scratched slept.
For English speakers, this sentence would be difficult to parse who is doing what? It is hard to
connect the verb to the nouns in this sentence. The noun-verb pairs in this sentence are: the man
who slept; the cat that scratched; the dog that chased; and the children who loved (Corballis,
2007: 702). If non-human species were to do the equivalent of this (with an artificial language),
it might be difficult considering the function words (e.g. that, on, to) that are so integral to the
sentence structure. The sentence man cat dog children is ambiguous if there are not any function
words to elucidate what the sentence is about. It might be beneficial to test animals who have
some knowledge about non-verb pairs.

Reference(s)

Corballis, MC. (2007). Recursion, language, and starlings. Cognitive Science 31, pp. 697704.
Gentner, TQ. Et al. (2006). Recursive syntactic patterns learning by songbirds. Nature
440, pp. 1204-1207.
Hauser, Mark, Chomsky, Noam and W. Tecumseh Fitch. (2002). The Faculty of
Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve? Science 298, pp. 1569-1579.