Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 271–298 | Cite as

Titi semantics: Context and meaning in Titi monkey call sequences

  • Philippe Schlenker
  • Emmanuel Chemla
  • Cristiane Cäsar
  • Robin Ryder
  • Klaus Zuberbühler
Article

Abstract

Cäsar et al. (2013) show that the structure of Titi monkey call sequences can, with just two call types (A and B), reflect information about predator type and predator location. Using the general methods of Schlenker et al. (2014, 2016, to appear), we ask what these observations show about the ‘linguistic’ structure of Titi calls. We first demonstrate that the simplest behavioral assumptions make it challenging to provide lexical specifications for A- and B-calls: B-calls rather clearly have the distribution of highly underspecified calls; but A-calls are also found in highly heterogeneous contexts (e.g. they are triggered by ‘cat in the canopy’ and ‘raptor on the ground’ situations). We discuss two possible solutions to the problem. One posits that entire sequences are endowed with meanings that are not compositionally derived from their individual parts (a related idea was proposed by Arnold and Zuberbühler to analyze pyow-hack sequences in Putty-nosed monkeys). The second solution, which we consider to be superior, takes sequences to have no structure besides concatenation: the B-call is a general call, the A-call is used for serious non-ground threats, and each call reflects information about the environment at the time at which it is uttered. The composition of Cäsar et al.’s sequences is seen to follow from the interaction between call meaning, rules of competition among calls, and more sophisticated assumptions about the environmental context. In the end, a detailed analysis of the division of labor between semantics, pragmatics and the environmental context yields a simple and explanatory analysis of sequences that initially seemed to display a complex mapping between syntax and semantics.

Keywords

Semantics Pragmatics Monkey linguistics 

References

  1. Arnold, Kate, and Klaus Zuberbühler. 2006a. The alarm calling system of adult male putty-nosed monkey Cercopithecus nictitans martini. Animal Behavior 72: 643–653. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold, Kate, and Klaus Zuberbühler. 2006b. Semantic combinations in primate calls. Nature 441: 303. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold, Kate, and Klaus Zuberbühler. 2008. Meaningful call combinations in a non-human primate. Current Biology 18(5): R202–R203. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnold, Kate, and Klaus Zuberbühler. 2012. Call combinations in monkeys: Compositional or idiomatic expressions? Brain and Language 120(3): 303–309. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnold, Kate, and Klaus Zuberbühler. 2013. Female putty-nosed monkeys use experimentally altered contextual information to disambiguate the cause of male alarm calls. PLoS ONE 8(6), e65660. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065660. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arnold, Kate, Yvonne Pohlner, and Klaus Zuberbühler. 2001. Not words but meanings? Alarm calling behaviour in a forest guenon. Developments in primatology: progress and prospects 35: 437–468. Google Scholar
  7. Arnold, Kate, Yvonne Pohlner, and Klaus Zuberbühler. 2008. A forest monkey’s alarm calls to predator models. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 62: 549–559. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barner, David, Neon Brooks, and Alan Bale. 2011. Accessing the unsaid: The role of scalar alternatives in children’s pragmatic inferences. Cognition 188: 87–96. Google Scholar
  9. Cäsar, Cristiane. 2011. Anti-predator behaviour of black-fronted titi monkeys (Callicebus nigrifrons). Ph.D. thesis, University of St Andrews. Google Scholar
  10. Cäsar Cristiane, Richard Byrne, William Hoppitt, Robert J. Young, and Klaus Zuberbühler. 2012a. Evidence for semantic communication in Titi monkey alarm calls. Animal Behavior 84: 405–411. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.05.010. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cäsar Cristiane, Richard Byrne, Robert J. Young, and Klaus Zuberbühler. 2012b. The alarm call system of wild black-fronted titi monkeys, Callicebus nigrifrons. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 66(5): 653–667. doi:10.1007/s00265-011-1313-0. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cäsar Cristiane, Klaus Zuberbühler, Richard J. Young, and Richard Byrne. 2013. Titi monkey call sequences vary with predator location and type. Biology Letters 9: 20130535. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2013.0535. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cheney, Dorothy L., and Robert M. Seyfarth. 1990. The representation of social relations by monkeys. Cognition 37(1): 167–196. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chierchia, Gennar, Danny Fox, and Benjamin Spector. 2012. The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In Handbook of semantics, eds. Paul Portner, Claudia Maienborn, and Klaus von Heusinger. Vol. 3, 2297–2332. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  15. Collier, Katie, Balthasar Bickel, Carel P. van Schaik, Marta B. Manser, and Simon W. Townsend. 2014. Language evolution: Syntax before phonology? The Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 281: 1788. doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.0263. Google Scholar
  16. Crockford, Catherine, Roman M. Wittig, Roger Mundry, and Klaus Zuberbuhler. 2012. Wild chimpanzees inform ignorant group members of danger. Current Biology 22: 142–146. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fedigan, Linda M. 1990. Vertebrate predation in Cebus Capucinus: Meat eating in a neotropical monkey. Folia Primatologica 54(3–4): 196–205. doi:10.1159/000156444. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics, eds. Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan. Vol. 3 of Speech acts. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  19. Hattori, Yuko, Hika Kuroshima, and Kazuo Fujita. 2010. Tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) show understanding of human attentional states when requesting food held by a human. Animal Cognition 13: 87–92. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  21. Horn, Laurence R. 1972. On the semantic properties of the logical operators in English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Google Scholar
  22. Kaminski, Juliane, Josep Call, and Julia Fischer. 2004. Word learning in a domestic dog: Evidence for “Fast Mapping”. Science 304(5677): 1682–1683. doi:10.1126/science.1097859. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kershenbaum, Arik, Anne E. Bowles, Todd M. Freeberg, Dezhe Z. Jin, Adriano R. Lameira, and Kirsten Bohn. 2014. Animal vocal sequences: Not the Markov chains we thought they were. The Royal Society of London, Series B. doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.1370. Google Scholar
  24. Kershenbaum, Arik, Daniel T. Blumstein, Marie Roch, et al. 2015. Acoustic sequences in non-human animals: A tutorial review and prospectus. Biological Reviews. doi:10.1111/brv.12160. Google Scholar
  25. Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  26. Manser, Marta B., Robert M. Seyfarth, and Dorothy L. Cheney. 2002. Suricate alarm calls signal predator class and urgency. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6(2): 55–57. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ouattara, Karim, Alban Lemasson, and Klaus Zuberbühler. 2009. Campbell’s monkeys concatenate vocalizations into context-specific call sequences. The National Academy of Sciences 106(51): 22026–22031. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Owings, Donald H., and Ross A. Virginia. 1978. Alarm calls of California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi). Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 46(1): 58–70. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Papafragou, Anna, and Julien Musolino. 2003. Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics–pragmatics interface. Cognition 86: 253–282. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Parrish, A. E., and S. F. Brosnan. 2012. Primate cognition. In The encyclopedia of human behavior, ed. V. S. Ramachandran. Vol. 3, 174–180. San Diego: Academic Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pepperberg, Irene M. 2010. Vocal learning in grey parrots: A brief review of perception, production, and cross-species comparisons. Brain and Language 115: 81–91. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schlenker, Philippe. To appear. The semantics/pragmatics interface. In Cambridge handbook of formal semantics, ed. Aloni and Dekker. Google Scholar
  33. Schlenker, Philippe, Emmanuel Chemla, Kate Arnold, Alban Lemasson, Karim Ouattara, Sumir Keenan, Claudia Stephan, Robin Ryder, and Klaus Zuberbühler. 2014. Monkey semantics: Two ‘dialects’ of Campbell’s monkey alarm calls. Linguistics and Philosophy 37(6): 439–501. doi:10.1007/s10988-014-9155-7. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schlenker, Philippe, Emmanuel Chemla, Kate Arnold, and Klaus Zuberbühler. 2016. Pyow-hack revisited: Two analyses of putty-nosed monkey alarm calls. Lingua. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2015.10.002. Google Scholar
  35. Schlenker, Philippe, Emmanuel Chemla, Anne M. Schel, James Fuller, Jean-Pierre Gautier, Jeremy Kuhn, Dunja Veselinovic, Kate Arnold, Cristiane Cäsar, Sumir Keenan, Alban Lemasson, Karim Ouattara, Robin Ryder, and Klaus Zuberbühler. To appear. Formal monkey linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics. Google Scholar
  36. Seyfarth, Robert M., Dorothy L. Cheney, and Peter Marler. 1980a. Monkey responses to three different alarm calls: Evidence of predator classification and semantic communication. Science 210: 801–803. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Seyfarth, Robert M., L. Cheney Dorothy, and Peter Marler. 1980b. Vervet monkey alarm calls: Semantic communication in a free-ranging primate. Animal Behavior 28: 1070–1094. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shultz, Susanne, and Simon Thomsett. 2007. Interactions between African crowned eagles and their primate prey community. In Monkeys of the Taï forest: An African monkey community, eds. W. Scott McGraw, Klaus Zuberbühler, and Ronald Noë, 171–193. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Google Scholar
  39. Sieving, Kathryn E., Stacia A. Hetrick, and Michael L. Avery. 2010. The versatility of graded acoustic measures in classification of predation threats by the tufted titmouse Baeolophus bicolor: Exploring a mixed framework for threat communication. Oikos 119(2): 264–276. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Templeton, Christopher N., Erick Greene, and Kate Davis. 2005. Allometry of alarm calls: Black-capped chickadees encode information about predator size. Science 308(5730): 1934–1937. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wheeler, Brandon C., and Julia Fischer. 2012. Functionally referential signals: A promising paradigm whose time has passed. Evolutionary Anthropology 21: 195–205. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zuberbühler, Klaus. 2000. Causal cognition in a non-human primate: Field playback experiments with Diana monkeys. Cognition 76(3): 195–207. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zuberbühler, Klaus. 2009. Survivor signals: The biology and psychology of animal alarm calling. Vol. 40 of Advances in the study of behavior, 277–322. San Diego: Elsevier. Google Scholar
  44. Zuberbühler, Klaus, and David Jenny. 2007. Interactions between leopards and monkeys. In Monkeys of the Taï Forest: An African monkey community, eds. W. Scott McGraw, Klaus Zuberbühler, and Ronald Noë. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Google Scholar
  45. Zuberbühler, Klaus, Jenny David, and Bshary Redouan. 1999. The predator deterrence function of primate alarm calls. Ethology 105(6): 477–490. doi:10.1046/j.1439-0310.1999.00396.x. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philippe Schlenker
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Emmanuel Chemla
    • 2
    • 4
  • Cristiane Cäsar
    • 5
    • 6
    • 7
  • Robin Ryder
    • 8
  • Klaus Zuberbühler
    • 5
    • 9
  1. 1.Institut Jean-Nicod (ENS—EHESS—CNRS), Département d’Etudes CognitivesEcole Normale SupérieureParisFrance
  2. 2.PSL Research UniversityParisFrance
  3. 3.New York UniversityNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.LSCP (ENS—EHESS—CNRS), Département d’Etudes CognitivesEcole Normale SupérieureParisFrance
  5. 5.School of Psychology and NeuroscienceUniversity of St AndrewsSt AndrewsUK
  6. 6.Instituto de Ciências da NaturezaUniversidade Federal de AlfenasAlfenasBrazil
  7. 7.Bicho do Mato Instituto de PesquisaBelo HorizonteBrazil
  8. 8.Centre de Recherche en Mathématiques de la DécisionUniversité Paris-DauphineParisFrance
  9. 9.Centre for Cognitive ScienceUniversity of NeuchâtelNeuchâtelSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations