1. Word meaning- symbolic reference (What concept is represented by the word/symbol?)

2.Syntax- Rules for combining word into sentences.

1. Iconic references- There is a physical similarity between the sign and what it signifies (eg. The drawing of whiskers in American Sign language to refer to cat. The sign takes on a physical charateristic of a cat).

2. Indexical reference- The correlation between sign and what it signifies.The sign and what is signifies does not share any physical similarity.

The sign usually precedes some event. Indexical signs can used to communicate that something is about to happen (eg. Use of different alarm calls of vervet monkeys to warn other monkeys about what predator is present, so that they know how to react depending on what predator is present).

3.Symbolic reference- The sign and what it signified is based on arbitrary rule established by social conventions.

(Eg. Cat is used to refer to that furry pet even though there is no real reason why such a link exists)

Symbolic learning occurs when we learn the relationship between the symbols using indexical reference or iconic references.

For example, we learn the word cat when our parents point to one when we see it. (Indexical reference, the sign/word, cats precedes and leads to the occurrence of seeing the cat).

Iconic references are also used. For example, photos of cats are presented to the child when he or she is learning the word cat.

Why difficult?

There is often no logical link that can be established between the symbols and what it signifies (object/event).

For example, why is the word cat used to refer to that furry pet?

It is a complex learning process:

• We learn about new words through understanding its relationship with other words.
• We learn about syntax through indexical relationships between word (eg. The word 'This' precedes 'is')
• We learn to recognise words when we can establish their iconic relationships with other words. (eg. Activate and Activation)

The chimpanzees had difficulty understanding the referential content of symbols. Could not understand that symbols could be used specifically to refer to an object/event.

They would get confuse when they were presented with multiple sets of symbols.

They could only do request tasks that link the symbol with a reward. (eg. Know that press banana symbol, they would get banana- only anticipating what reward they could get from selecting a symbol)

Know how to get a banana but did not know the symbol represents bananas.

Sue placed Austin and Sherman in a reward driven scenario, that motivated them to communicate with each other in order for them to both get the food reward.

As seen in requesting tools task in the lecture. The requestor request for the tools from the other chimp in order to open the box containing food.

See lecture slide, page 27 of the PDF with the slides and notes.

The informer learned that he needed to tell the informed what was in the fridge. This is because the informed did not see what was in fridge, so until the informed chimp was told what was in the fridge, could not select correct symbol in the lexigram.

Hence arguably, the informer learned the concept of theory of mind because he could understand the other chimp did not share his knowledge of what was in the fridge. Thus, the act of informing the other chimp was needed in order for the other to know what symbol to select in the lexigram.

Skinner was trying to argue that he could replicate what Austin and Sherman did through training under the right conditions.

He was also refuting the claim that the chimps were communicating with each other but were just engaging in trained/conditioned behaviour.

Hence he argued the pigeons could do the same task with the correct training.

Criticism

1. The chimps could communicate and get the task done on the first trial of the tool and box opening task. This arguably showed that the preceding work done to teach them about requesting,listening and naming had been effective. They understood what was require to communicate with each other.

2. The pigeon were trained in a sequence, so may falter if the sequence was altered.

3.The pigeons did not see each other and not required to know what the other pigeon was doing.

Hence the pigeon arguably were just engaging in trained behaviour rather than communicating with each other. They did not learn that in order to do the task they needed to know what the other pigeon was doing and how to respond accordingly.