Zuberbuhler


 * Campbell's monkeys concatenate vocalizations into context specific call sequences **

Vocabulary: concatenate- link together in chain or series semantic- relating to meaning in language or logic guenon- a kind of African monkey syntax- arrangement of words and/or phrases to create well-formed sentences

Much of this was a lot of scientific data put into essay-form. Conceptually speaking, however, the data becomes quite interesting. Here are a few questions to ponder:
 * If Campbell's monkeys have been able to create a complex system of alerting others of danger, what else are they capable of language-wise?
 * Is their communication only non-verbal?
 * And the big one Bickerton delves into: why do humans have language and these monkeys have a only communicable alarm system?
 * Zuberbuhler et al. state that the adult male monkeys used vocalization to alert others of predators and such, but the females used vocalizations both for this and for social situations. What does "social situations" mean in this context?
 * The question brought up near the end of the article: why do males vocalize in response to loud noises such as that of a falling tree? Is it a way to let others know whereabouts as is stated in the article?
 * What non-vocal communications do Campbell's monkeys use, if any?

While human language is far more complex than animal communication, this research seems to imply that animal communication can be complex in its own right. Campbell's monkeys vocalize in response to danger not only to alert others that danger is near, but to inform them of what specific danger is near. Their alarm calls are more than just a noise, they mean specific things and consist of "structurally unique sequences".

Bickerton's discussion of Campbell's monkeys on page 42 is quite interesting in relation to this article.

"Gibbons, whales, and songbirds, for example, combine finite and stereotyped sound elements to form more complicated structures. In some cases, these structures possess hierarchical organization" - is Zuberbuehler, et al. saying that their sound patterns might be higher up on the chain than ours?

Campbell's call system is important because it is the best example of proto-syntax (original/primitive use of syntax)

Alert calls in Campbells' monkeys (note: call sequences used in this study is specific to this habituated group of primates) __ non-predation calls __ functions in this study include: calls to come, calls to alert others of falling trees or branches (may be used as a signal that that monkey is unharmed), calls to alert others of fights between other groups of monkeys, calls in territorial defense, calls in response to unexpected movement of a non-predatory animal. __ predatory calls __ functions in this study include: calls to alert when vocal sign of predator is heard, calls differentiating between species of predator (leopard, crowned eagle), calls specifying level of urgency and whether the predator was seen or heard.

There are 5 main principals associated with the relationships between calls; 1.calls with narrow meanings (leopards, crowned eagles) 2. meaningful sequences (predator) 3. a combo of 2 meaningful/complex sequences to form a different meaning 4. the addition of a meaningless call to a meaningful sequence in order to create a new meaning 5. call order (intentional) Campbells' monkeys express at some degree levels of intentional morphology, syntax, and semantics in their communication.

This group of primates convey structurally-unique and context-specific sequences expressing event type, degree of threat, spatial relation within group, and group movements.

It seems that although these monkeys have a structurally complex morphological and syntactic language system, they are capable of much more structurally complex systems of speech.

Human vs. Primate communication; one element of speech that seems to be very unique to humans is our ability to inform another person of a past or future event, while Campbell's monkeys only seem to demonstrate the capability of communicating present events taking place at the time of communication.

There is evidence that several species have culturally-specific dialects of communication which are affected by the context in which they are used. Some species can combine communicative elements to create new meanings. Non-human primates are even able to understand simplified human syntax. However, the communication systems of animals differ from human communications in that they lack complex grammatical structures and cannot convey a sense of abstract concepts or refer to something that is not present. According to Bickerton, however, we should not see relatively less complex ACSs as "failed" or lesser attempts at language; animals evolve communication systems based on their needs. Humans require more complex communication systems than starlings, whales, or monkeys do in order to be fit, but that does not mean that our communication system is the "best" - it is just the best for us.

Campbell's Monkeys have a relatively complex system of calls that change meaning based on their order and combination. Calls are made up of groups of "booms" and "hacks," there being five different kinds of "hacks" all having different meanings. Some specific examples of meanings being created by specific combinations of sounds: a pair of "boom" calls caused the caller's group to gather, a pair of "boom" calls followed by a "krak-oo" call was given in relation to falling branches or trees, and the call including a pair of "boom" calls, a "krak-oo" call, and mixed with "hok-oo" calls seemed to be used as a territorial defense. Campbell's monkeys also have specific alarm calls relating to specific species of predators (although Bickerton made a good point by noting that these calls do not necessarily directly translate to "leopard," or "eagle," and might just mean "get off the ground" or "danger from the sky." The behavioral result of monkeys hearing the call is the same). The level of danger presented by the predator is often denoted by the addition of different sounds, for example, in a Crowned Eagle alarm, a call consisting of "krak-oo" and "wak-oo" calls can be made more insistent by the addition of "hok" and "hok-oo" calls. Other findings in the study indicated that call order mattered to the meaning of the call.

It's interesting that the main unique quality in human language is the ability to express past, present, and future events/ideas, and things that are unreal or imagined. Also, that our language is unlimited in possibilities and combinations. In my mindfulness psychology class last quarter, we talked about how animals are consistently living in the present moment, are aware of what's going on around them, and aren't stuck worrying about the future or anticipating a re-occurrence of what happened yesterday. That's part of the beauty of animal communication, that they live simply and are acknowledging/experiencing only what is going on in the moment. With human language and thought, we are able to focus on past events or plan out future ones, often taking away from our ability to live presently. "Of course it would be an enormous benefit for any animal if it could recall the past" (Bickerton 17). I disagree... because although, yes, they could learn from the past, humans have that ability and we're constantly bogged down by it and we still demonstrate that we don't always learn from our mistakes/from past experiences.

Another difference in the study of the primate communication vs. human is that the primates alert signals generate a direct action, whereas single words in our language rarely do (besides the two that Bickerton pointed out, "fire" and "help"). The call for "leopard" results in the immediate action of getting off the ground, into a tree and out of danger; Bickerton states that the call doesn't translate into just the word.

Why do humans have language and these monkeys have only an alarm system? ... How humans developed language or what the need for it is complicated and debated... Animals have ACSs for fitness/survival, and as humans we have gone beyond that. Our communication is not based on basic survival, it goes much deeper. We use it to express ideas/feelings, to help us "get further" in life (school, work, social). ACSs work for animals... they live their lives and get by just fine, and their alarm signals or calls are created to specifically cater to their survival needs, so there is no need to change them/complicate them.

Why males vocalize in response to loud noises... On page one of Campbell's Monkeys, it says it could be to create a focal point if the group had dispersed and needed to re-group. Or, that it was an urge to announce that they are uninjured. Also, possibly just a response to the danger of the falling tree/branch? Just like if we were startled by the same thing, even though many would hear it, it would still cause us to call out or announce the occurrence as a natural reaction.

Just browsing through the internet about females/social in Campbell's monkeys, thought this article was interesting... __ Youngsters do not pay attention to conversational rules: is this so for nonhuman primates? __ "Here, we demonstrate, to our knowledge, for the first time in a nonhuman primate species that, during a conversation-like interaction the appropriate way of calling is age-dependent and that the turn-taking rule is cognitively relevant for adults, whereas it does not seem to make any sense for inexperienced young monkeys."

[]

Now that the researchers have a general idea of how the Cambell's monkeys ACS works, here are a few ideas that could be used as the basis for experiments in the future:


 * Does the voice of a caller play a role? If a male from one area is recorded calling a predator alarm and replayed to an audience which is not familiar with this male, will the audience still respond? Or might they perhaps respond not in the usual way, but unleash territorial defense calls instead?
 * Will an audience continue to respond/trust a caller which “cries wolf”? Is only one predatory alarm given, after which the monkeys keep silent or is there a kind of confirmation (non-verbal or verbal) by others which ensures that the warning will be heeded. If a community does respond to recorded calls of an established male, will repeated playback of a call turn that male into a "boy who cries wolf"?
 * How would Cambell's monkeys respond to a threat they have never seen before? It might make sense to use the call that elicits the necessary response i.e. terrestrial (leopard) vs aerial (eagle), as the alarm is probably not so much as a word for the animal, but directions to take in response to the threat. Of course it would be necessary for a group to learn that a new threat is actually a threat, so it would be interesting to see their initial response and how they develop over time to a new threat. I guess what I am getting at is: with an already established alarm system would an existing call suffice for a new threat or would a new call be created and how would this happen? Could this be a viable experiment to understand how “words” are created for ideas which have never existed in a community before?

I found it interesting that the narrow vocabulary was used to express as many ideas as it did, rather than just one call for each new idea. Is this because of a limited vocal range/capacity or could it indicate that each call is conveying a more complex set of ideas. And used in a specific sequence the meanings are narrowed down and the idea being expressed becomes clear (it no longer has multiple possible meanings, simply one). I am drawing from figure 2 showing that B+K(+)+H(+) which is used inter-group though B and K(+) can be used in other contexts, as well as the variety of call sequences that mean crowned eagle. This article seems to express the inherent difference in language and communication. Since the guenons only express their immediate emotional or social needs no abstract thought is used to express theses concepts. Although they have "words" they are not abstractions or ideas, they are repaetativly used alarms for a given instance. The cusp of language if you will. It seems that even other species could use there calls. For example a non english speaking person approaches me and he is overjoyed. He speaks to me in his language. I do not know what he is happy about or what he is saying. Although his happiness is communicated perfectly clear no literal understanding is made. Similarly The calls of a guenon in fear would certainly let a predator know he was spotted and other species would be alarmed. These differences are important to understand because once an emotion is placed into a language context no emotion need be expressed. Evolutionarily this allowed our ancestors to alert each other without alerting the predator giving a decided advantage.
 * What I got! **