Furthermore, Campbell’s monkeys affix an “ -oo” element onto the end of terrestrial and aerial alarm calls which serves to modify the meaning of the alarm calls in a predictable way such that they designate a less specific disturbance but in the same physical space (i.e., on the ground or in the canopy) 8, 16. In this instance, the meaning of the combination (/ move/) is unrelated to the meaning of the comprising parts (/ eagle/ / disturbance/) and therefore represents a case of combinatorial syntactic-like structuring in this species 15. For example, putty-nosed monkeys combine two distinct calls referring to predators or disturbances into a larger sequence that is produced in the context of group movement. 12, 13), could have emerged as early as in our last common ancestor with catarrhines and platyrrhines around 45 million years ago 14. An emerging body of observational and experimental data has highlighted similar abilities in the primate lineage 8, 9, 10, 11, suggesting the rudimentary capacity to sequence meaning-bearing vocal units together, the core foundations of syntax 3 (but see ref. More contentious debate surrounds its evolutionary origins, specifically whether this trait is truly unique to our species’ communication system 3, 5, 6, 7. The communicative importance of syntax and its role in the infinite generative power of language is uncontroversial 4. Compositional syntax can be further decomposed into various, more specific, configurations such as predication (e.g., “ the wolf howled”), modification (e.g., “ black wolf”), or simple coordination (i.e. Compositional syntax 2, on the other hand, designates structures where the meaning of the whole is directly derived from the meaning of the parts (e.g. Combinatorial syntax 2, for example, includes structures where the meaning generated is independent from the meaning of the parts (e.g., idioms, “ cry wolf”) 2, 3. Syntax can take different forms that can be differentiated according to the semantic relationship between the combination and the comprising units. Human language is a highly productive communication system whereby new meaning can be created syntactically through the combination of existing meaning-bearing units (or words) 1. Our work suggests that compositional structures may not have evolved de novo in the human lineage, but that the cognitive building-blocks facilitating syntax may have been present in our last common ancestor with chimpanzees. We propose the “ alarm-huu + waa-bark” represents a compositional syntactic-like structure, where the meaning of the call combination is derived from the meaning of its parts. Chimpanzees react most strongly to call combinations, showing longer looking responses, compared with both independent calls. To test the meaning-bearing nature of the call combination, we use playbacks of artificially-constructed call combinations and both independent calls. Using snake presentations, we confirm call combinations are produced when individuals encounter snakes and find that more individuals join the caller after hearing the combination. Anecdotal data suggested chimpanzees combine these calls specifically when encountering snakes. Chimpanzees produce “ alarm-huus” when surprised and “ waa-barks” when potentially recruiting conspecifics during aggression or hunting. Here, we provide evidence for syntactic-like structuring in chimpanzee communication. Data in great apes, our closest-living relatives, are central to the reconstruction of syntax’s phylogenetic origins, yet are currently lacking. Through syntax, i.e., the combination of words into larger phrases, language can express a limitless number of messages.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |