Note orders suggest phrase-inserting structure in male Mueller’s gibbon songs: a case study

Language has a complex and hierarchical structure, which includes context-free grammar and phrase embedding. However, there have been no reports of a phrase-embedding structure in animal vocal communication, although there are several reports of combinational animal sounds that reference different objects and emotions. The songs of male Mueller’s gibbons in our study area consist of two notes, “wa” and “oo,” and combinations of these are flexible. There are various types of note orders in their song phrases. When the animals sing songs by combining acoustic elements flexibly, a complicated syntax may emerge. When phrase “N” is inserted within another phrase “AB,” the generated phrase is shown as “ANB.” We named this structure a phrase-inserting structure. If the phrase “N” itself has an inserting structure elsewhere, “ANB” is shown as “AABB.” This structure is considered a phrase-embedding structure, as defined by Abe and Watanabe (Nat Neurosci 14:1067–1074, 2011 ). We hypothesized that there is a phrase-inserting structure in male Mueller’s gibbons’ songs. We analyzed 70 songs by a single male and found note orders that suggested a phrase-inserting structure. Among them, there were four examples of phrases with structure within phrases, suggesting phrase embedding. Phrase inserting might be considered a sort of precursory level to recursion. Although our sample size was small, our results show that male Mueller’s gibbons may be able to produce recursive sequences. This provides an important insight into the study of language evolution.

[1]  Kazuo Okanoya,et al.  Combinatory rules and chunk structure in male Mueller’s gibbon songs , 2017 .

[2]  Thomas Geissmann,et al.  The male song of the Javan silvery gibbon (Hylobates moloch) , 2005 .

[3]  K. Zuberbühler A syntactic rule in forest monkey communication , 2002, Animal Behaviour.

[4]  Willem H. Zuidema,et al.  Simple rules can explain discrimination of putative recursive syntactic structures by a songbird species , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[5]  W. Thorpe,et al.  Bird-Song: The Biology of Vocal Communication and Expression in Birds , 1961 .

[6]  Colin G. Beer,et al.  SOME COMPLEXITIES IN THE COMMUNICATION BEHAVIOR OF GULLS * , 1976 .

[7]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? , 2002, Science.

[8]  John G. Robinson Syntactic Structures in the Vocalizations of Wedge-Capped Capuchin Monkeys, Cebus Olivaceus , 1984 .

[9]  T. Geissmann Inheritance of Song Parameters in the Gibbon Song, Analysed in 2 Hybrid Gibbons (Hylobates pileatus × H. lar) , 1984 .

[10]  W. Tecumseh Fitch,et al.  The Evolution of Human Language: Three meanings of “recursion”: key distinctions for biolinguistics , 2010 .

[11]  J T Marshall,et al.  Gibbons and Their Territorial Songs , 1976, Science.

[12]  Michael C. Corballis,et al.  Recursion, Language, and Starlings , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[13]  Tetsuro Matsuzawa,et al.  Use of numbers by a chimpanzee , 1985, Nature.

[14]  D. Bates,et al.  Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS , 2001 .

[15]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[16]  S. Pinker,et al.  The faculty of language: what's special about it? , 2005, Cognition.

[17]  Kazuo Okanoya,et al.  Revisiting the syntactic abilities of non-human animals: natural vocalizations and artificial grammar learning , 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[18]  Timothy Q. Gentner,et al.  Recursive syntactic pattern learning by songbirds , 2006, Nature.

[19]  C. Boesch,et al.  Call combinations in wild chimpanzees , 2005 .

[20]  Peter Marler,et al.  A Phonological Analysis of Male Gibbon Singing Behavior , 1989 .

[21]  Kazuo Okanoya,et al.  Birdsong neurolinguistics: songbird context-free grammar claim is premature , 2012, Neuroreport.

[22]  J. Hailman,et al.  The ‘chick-a-dee’ calls of Parus atricapillus: A recombinant system of animal communication compared with written English , 1985 .

[23]  Alyssa Frandsen,et al.  Bird's Eye , 2010 .

[24]  Timothy E. J. Behrens,et al.  The evolution of the arcuate fasciculus revealed with comparative DTI , 2008, Nature Neuroscience.

[25]  A. Anwander,et al.  The brain differentiates human and non-human grammars: Functional localization and structural connectivity , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[26]  Klaus Zuberbühler,et al.  Language evolution: Semantic combinations in primate calls , 2006, Nature.

[27]  Paul M. Pietroski,et al.  The Language faculty , 2012 .

[28]  E. H. Haimoff The organization of song in Müller’s Gibbon (Hylobates muelleri) , 1985, International Journal of Primatology.

[29]  W. Brockelman,et al.  Inheritance of stereotyped gibbon calls , 1984, Nature.

[30]  Kentaro Abe,et al.  Songbirds possess the spontaneous ability to discriminate syntactic rules , 2011, Nature Neuroscience.

[31]  Dora Biro,et al.  Use of numerical symbols by the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes): Cardinals, ordinals, and the introduction of zero , 2001, Animal Cognition.

[32]  M. Peyrot Syntax and meaning , 2013 .

[33]  Mauricio Martins,et al.  Investigating Recursion Within a Domain-Specific Framework , 2014 .

[34]  K. Zuberbühler,et al.  The Syntax and Meaning of Wild Gibbon Songs , 2006, PloS one.

[35]  T. Matsuzawa,et al.  Working memory of numerals in chimpanzees , 2007, Current Biology.

[36]  R. Berwick,et al.  A Bird’s Eye View of Human Language Evolution , 2012, Front. Evol. Neurosci..

[37]  W. Fitch,et al.  Computational Constraints on Syntactic Processing in a Nonhuman Primate , 2004, Science.

[38]  E. H. Haimoff,et al.  Loud Calls of the Gibbon (Hylobates Lar): Repertoire, Organisation and Context , 1984 .

[39]  S. Malaivijitnond,et al.  An analysis of white-handed gibbon male song reveals speech-like phrases. , 2018, American journal of physical anthropology.

[40]  Kazuo Okanoya,et al.  Intergroup and intragroup antiphonal songs in wild male Mueller’s gibbons (Hylobates muelleri) , 2013 .

[41]  K. Zuberbühler,et al.  Campbell's monkeys concatenate vocalizations into context-specific call sequences , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[42]  J G Robinson,et al.  An analysis of the organization of vocal communication in the titi monkey Callicebus moloch. , 2010, Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie.

[43]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Artificial grammar learning meets formal language theory: an overview , 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[44]  Harry van der Hulst,et al.  10. Was recursion the key step in the evolution of the human language faculty , 2010 .

[45]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The mystery of language evolution , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[46]  R. Berwick,et al.  Songs to syntax: the linguistics of birdsong , 2011, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[47]  S. Pinker,et al.  The nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language (Reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky) , 2005, Cognition.