Contextual correlates of syntactic variation in mountain and western gorilla close-distance vocalizations: Indications for lexical or phonological syntax?
The core of the generative power of human languages lies in our ability to combine acoustic units under specific rules into structurally complex and semantically rich utterances. While various animal species concatenate acoustic units into structurally elaborate vocal sequences, such compound calls do not appear to be compositional as their information content cannot be derived from the information content of each of its components. As such, animal compound calls are said to constitute a form of phonological syntax, as in the construction of words in human language, whereas evidence for rudimentary forms of lexical syntax, analogous to the construction of sentences out of words, is scarce. In a previous study, we demonstrated that the repertoire of close-distance calls of mountain and western gorillas consists of acoustic units that are either used singularly or non-randomly combined. Here, we investigate whether this syntactic variation provides indications for lexical or phonological syntax. Specifically, we examined the differences between the potential information content of compound calls and their components used singularly through investigating the contexts in which they are used. We found that the gorillas emitted compound calls in contexts similar to some but not all components, but also in a context rarely found for any of their components. As such, the investigated compound calls did not appear to be compositional as their information content cannot be derived from the information content of each of their components. Our results suggest that combining acoustic units into compound vocalizations by gorillas constitutes a form of phonological syntax, which may enable them to increase the number of messages that can be transmitted by an otherwise small repertoire of acoustic units.
KeywordsSyntax Mountain gorilla Western gorilla Close-distance vocalizations
We thank the Uganda Wildlife Authority and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology for permission to conduct our research in Bwindi Impenetrable National Park and the Ministry of Education and Water and Forests of the government of CAR for permission to work in Dzanga-Ndoki National Park. We also thank the Institute of Tropical Forest Conservation in Uganda, as well as the Dzanga-Sangha Project in CAR, for logistical support. We are grateful for useful comments on the manuscript by Catherine Crockford and two anonymous reviewers. Special thanks go to the local Ba’Aka trackers of the Primate Habituation Program at Bai Hokou camp, Dzanga-Ndoki NP, and all ITFC field assistants for their irreplaceable help, great humor, and courage. This research was financially supported by the Leakey Foundation and the Max Planck Society.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2013) Lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.0-4Google Scholar
- Chomsky N (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Cleveland J, Snowdon CT (1982) The complex vocal repertoire of the adult cotton-top tamarin (Saguinus oedipus oedipus). Ethology 58:231–270Google Scholar
- Dobson AJ (2002) An introduction to generalized linear models. CRC Press, Baton RougeGoogle Scholar
- Field AP (2005) Discovering statistics using SPSS. SAGE, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Fox J, Weisberg S (2011) An R companion to applied regression, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
- Goldsmith ML (2003) Comparative behavioural ecology of a lowland and highland gorilla population: where do Bwindi gorillas fit? In: Hohmann G, Robbins MM, Boesch C (eds) Feeding ecology in apes and other primates: ecological, physical and behavioural aspects. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 358–384Google Scholar
- Harcourt AH, Stewart KJ, Harcourt DE (1986) Vocalizations and social relationships of wild gorillas: a preliminary analysis. In: Taub DM, King FA (eds) Current perspectives in primate social dynamics. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, pp 346–356Google Scholar
- Hurford JR (2011) The origins of grammar: language in the light of evolution II. Oxford Studies in the evolution of language. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Marler P (1977) The structure of animal communication sounds. In: Bullock TH (ed) Recognition of complex acoustic signals: report of the Dahlem workshop. Abakon Verlagsgesellschaft, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- Marler P, Mitani J (1988) Vocal communication in primates and birds: parallels and contrasts. In: Todt D, Goedeking P, Symmes D (eds) Primate vocal communication. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–14Google Scholar
- Portner PH (2005) What is meaning? Fundamentals of formal semantics. Blackwell, MaldenGoogle Scholar
- R Core Development Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
- Robbins MM (2010) Gorillas: diversity in ecology and behaviour. In: Campbell CJ, Fuentes A, MacKinnon KC, Bearder S, Stumpf R (eds) Primates in perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 326–339Google Scholar
- Salmi R, Doran‐Sheehy DM (2014) The function of loud calls (Hoot Series) in wild western gorillas (Gorilla gorilla). Am J Phys Anthropol. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.22575
- Schaller GB (1963) The mountain gorilla. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Schassburger RM (1993) Vocal communication in the timber wolf, Canis lupus, Linnaeus: structure, motivation and ontogeny. Paul Parey Scientific Publishers, BerlinGoogle Scholar