What Do Monkey Calls Mean?

Abstract

Abstract.A field of primate linguistics is gradually emerging. It combines general questions and tools from theoretical linguistics with rich data gathered in experimental primatology. Analyses of several monkey systems have uncovered very simple morphological and syntactic rules, and they have led to the development of a primate semantics which asks new questions about the division of semantic labor between the literal meaning of monkey calls, additional mechanisms of pragmatic enrichment, and the environmental context. We show that comparative studies across species may validate this program, and may in some cases help reconstruct the evolution of monkey communication over millions of years.Keywords: primate semantics, primate call evolution, primate implicatures, primate linguistics, evolution of meaning, evolution of communication The importance of monkey callsAlthough numerous species use vocalizations to transmit information to conspecifics, a great deal of research has been specifically devoted to studying primate calls. The original hope was that these studies might provide clues about the evolution of human language ([1][2][3] [4]). Connections to human language remain elusive, but a rich body of field experiments combined with new theoretical work has made it possible for a field of 'primate linguistics' to start emerging [5], with new insights into the structure and especially meaning of monkey calls. (Ape calls are currently less well understood.) Extant results about monkey call syntax (see Glossary)(i.e. rules by which monkey calls are put together) are modest, but new findings about their semantics (i.e. rules by which monkey calls are interpreted) have yielded precise hypotheses about what individual calls mean and how these meanings can be combined in sequences. In addition, there are striking similarities among the calls of monkey species that diverged millions of years ago. This makes it possible to use information about the evolutionary history of monkeys (obtained by DNA methods) to reconstruct the history of some calls over millions of years -which might pave the way for an evolutionary primate linguistics. The formal approachHow should monkey calls be studied? We argue that a key idea should be borrowed from contemporary linguistics: monkey call sequences should be studied as formal languages with syntactic rules (pertaining to their form) and semantic rules (pertaining to their meaning). From the standpoint of formal language theory, it takes extraordinarily little for something to count as a 'language': any set of strings will do. But treating an object as a formal language forces one to make precise predictions about the form, use and structure of expressions. From this methodological (and terminological) stance, it does not follow that the specific rules one will uncover are similar to those of human language -for the most part, they are not. On the other hand, this methodology makes it possible to state and test precise hypotheses about the grammar of monkey communication. Human lan...

Internal states and extrinsic factors both determine monkey vocal production

“…Some believe that primate vocalizations are inextricably linked to internal states like arousal and thus cannot represent precursors to human speech as such vocalizations are not volitional (6)(7)(8). Others believe that this is not the case, that many primates can use their vocalizations strategically, demonstrating a degree of volitional vocal control (9)(10)(11). For example, the presence of different predators triggers the production of different alarm calls by vervet monkeys, suggesting that external cues determine which vocalizations are produced (12).…”

Non-communicative functions can be equally important for studies of language evolution

“…It is also unclear whether bird syntax has such typical structural properties of human syntax as recursiveness and endocentricity (headedness). Studies of primate alarm calls point to more or less a similar conclusion (Schlenker et al, 2016). In a nutshell, animal communication can be combinatorial but not compositional, as far as available evidence goes.…”

The face of animal cognition

“…More recent examples include investigation of the use and function of gestures by chimpanzees Pan troglodytes (Hobaiter & Byrne 2014), bonobos Pan paniscus (Graham et al 2017) and other apes (e.g. olive baboons Papio anubis: Bourjade et al 2014), which has led to the consideration that such gesturing may have been a precursor to human language (Arbib 2017), the nature of prosocial behavior (Tennie et al 2016) and the development of the field of primate linguistics (Schlenker et al 2016).…”