Vocal Learning and Behaviors in Birds and Human Bilinguals: Parallels, Divergences and Directions for Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparisons between the communication systems of humans and animals are instrumental in contextualizing speech and language into an evolutionary and biological framework and for illuminating mechanisms of human communication. As a complement to previous work that compares developmental vocal learning and use among humans and songbirds, in this article we highlight phenomena associated with vocal learning subsequent to the development of primary vocalizations (i.e., the primary language (L1) in humans and the primary song (S1) in songbirds). By framing avian “second-song” (S2) learning and use within the human second-language (L2) context, we lay the groundwork for a scientifically-rich dialogue between disciplines. We begin by summarizing basic birdsong research, focusing on how songs are learned and on constraints on learning. We then consider commonalities in vocal learning across humans and birds, in particular the timing and neural mechanisms of learning, variability of input, and variability of outcomes. For S2 and L2 learning outcomes, we address the respective roles of age, entrenchment, and social interactions. We proceed to orient current and future birdsong inquiry around foundational features of human bilingualism: L1 effects on the L2, L1 attrition, and L1<–>L2 switching. Throughout, we highlight characteristics that are shared across species as well as the need for caution in interpreting birdsong research. Thus, from multiple instructive perspectives, our interdisciplinary dialogue sheds light on biological and experiential principles of L2 acquisition that are informed by birdsong research, and leverages well-studied characteristics of bilingualism in order to clarify, contextualize, and further explore S2 learning and use in songbirds.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".