Monkey Syntax

The New York Times is reporting (here) that a study of Campbell's Monkey cries in the Ivory Coast has found the use of suffixes to modify the meaning of a call. The monkeys have 6 basic calls which they can modify. For example, krak is the call made in response to seeing a leopard; krak-oo appears to be a modification of the call that indicates the caller only thinks or hears that a leopard is nearby.

boom is an invitational sound (i.e., come to me), but when monkeys combine it with krak-oo to get boom-krak-oo the call signals a falling tree.

For those who stress syntax as the unique element of language, a few dance steps may be needed to explain this one. It sounds like the sort of story we are going to be hearing about for years.

Comments

[Neil]

This doesn't require too much explanation, since it isn't even close to syntax — it's still just parataxis of semantic components. You'd expect this to be a rudimentary stage long prior to the development of actual syntactic structures.
---------------
BLOGGER: Maybe so, but I've read many a referece to the supposed fact that suffixes, prefixes, and other combinatorial modifications of calls never happen.

[Neil]

Nevertheless, combinatorial properties aren't the same as syntax (and neither is semantics). Every domain of language (phonology, syntax, semantics, narrative, etc.) has combinatorial principles, not just syntax.

And, what these monkeys are doing is not combinatorial! It's just parataxis — the smooshing of elements together — which is exactly the sort of preliminary stage that you'd expect in language evolution far prior to actual combinatorial elements (as laid out in Jackendoff's proposed evolutionary progression).
------------------
BLOGGER: I seem to recall hearing about some languages (in the Amazonian basin?) that have markers indicating that the speaker is relying on reported information rather than first-hand knowledge. Are you saying those markers are not syntactical?

[Neil]

Actually, markers like that are found in Turkish. No, those are not syntactic, they are morphemic. (or morpho-syntactic, if they involve agreement)

Meaning is not syntax.