DISCOVER Magazine. Science, Technology and The Future
Current Issue
Subscribe Today »
  • Renew
  • Give a Gift
  • Archives
  • Customer Service
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Newsletter
  • Health & Medicine
  • Mind & Brain
  • Technology
  • Space
  • Human Origins
  • Living World
  • Environment
  • Physics & Math
  • Video
  • Photos
  • Podcast
  • RSS
Not Exactly Rocket Science
« Vote for your story of the year – palaeontology
Prejudice vs. biology – testosterone makes people more selfish, but only if they think it does »

Boom-boom-krak-oo – Campbell’s monkeys combine just six ‘words’ into rich vocabulary

Many human languages achieve great diversity by combining basic words into compound ones – German is a classic example of this. We’re not the only species that does this. Campbell’s monkeys have just six basic types of calls but they have combined them into one of the richest and most sophisticated of animal vocabularies.

By chaining calls together in ways that drastically alter their meaning, they can communicate to each other about other falling trees, rival groups, harmless animals and potential threats. They can signal the presence of an unspecified threat, a leopard or an eagle, and even how imminent the danger is. It’s a front-runner for the most complex example of animal “proto-grammar” so far discovered.

Many studies have shown that the chirps and shrieks of monkeys are rich in information, ever since Dorothy Cheney and Robert Seyfarth’s seminal research on vervet monkeys. They showed that vervets have specific calls for different predators – eagles, leopards and snakes – and they’ll take specific evasive manoeuvres when they hear each alarm.

Campbell’s monkeys have been equally well-studied. Scientists used to think that they made two basic calls – booms and hacks – and that the latter were predator alarms. Others then discovered that the order of the calls matters, so adding a boom before a hack cancels out the predator message. It also turned out that there were five distinct types of hack, including some that were modified with an -oo suffix. So Campbell’s monkeys not only have a wider repertoire of calls than previously thought, but they can also combine them in meaningful ways.

Now, we know that the males make six different types of calls, comically described as boom (B), krak (K), krak-oo (K+), hok (H), hok-oo (H+) and wak-oo (W+). To decipher their meaning,  Karim Ouattara spent 20 months in the Ivory Coast’s Tai National Park studying the wild Campbell’s monkeys from six different groups. Each consists of a single adult male together with several females and youngsters. And it’s the males he focused on.

With no danger in sight, males make three call sequences. The first – a pair of booms – is made when the monkey is far away from the group and can’t see them. It’s a summons that draws the rest of the group towards him. Adding a krak-oo to the end of the boom pair changes its meaning. Rather than “Come here”, the signal now means “Watch out for that branch”. Whenever the males cried “Boom-boom-krak-oo”, other monkeys knew that there were falling trees or branches around (or fighting monkeys overhead that could easily lead to falling vegetation). 

Interspersing the booms and krak-oos with some hok-oos changes the meaning yet again. This call means “Prepare for battle”, and it’s used when rival groups or strange males have showed up. In line with this translation, the hok-oo calls are used far more often towards the edge of the monkeys’ territories than they are in the centre. The most important thing about this is that hok-oo is essentially meaningless. The monkeys never say it in isolation – they only use it to change the meaning of another call.

But the most complex calls are reserved for threats. When males know that danger is afoot but don’t have a visual sighting (usually because they’ve heard a suspicious growl or an alarm from other monkeys), they make a few krak-oos. 

If they know it’s a crowned eagle that endangers the group, they combine krak-oo and wak-oo calls. And if they can actually see the bird, they add hoks and hok-oos into the mix – these extra components tell other monkeys that the peril is real and very urgent.  Leopard alarms were always composed of kraks, and sometimes krak-oos. Here, it’s the proportion of kraks that signals the imminence of danger – the males don’t make any if they’ve just heard leopard noises, but they krak away if they actually see the cat. 

The most important part of these results is the fact that calls are ordered in very specific ways. So boom-boom-krak-oo means a falling branch, but boom-krak-oo-boom means nothing. Some sequences act as units that can be chained together to more complicated ones – just as humans use words, clauses and sentences. They can change meaning by adding meaningless calls onto meaningful ones (BBK+ for falling wood but BBK+H+ for neighbours) or by chaining meaningful sequences together (K+K+ means leopard but W+K+ means eagle).

It’s tempting to think that monkeys have hidden linguistic depths to rival those of humans but as Ouattara says, “This system pales in contrast to the communicative power of grammar.” They monkeys’ repertoire may be rich, but it’s still relatively limited and they don’t take full advantage of their vocabulary. They can create new meanings by chaining calls together, but never by inverting their order (e.g. KB rather than BK).  Our language is also symbolic. I can tell you about monkeys even though none are currently scampering about my living room, but Ouattara only found that Campbell’s monkeys “talk” about things that they actually see.

Nonetheless, you have to start somewhere, and the complexities of human syntax probably have their evolutionary origins in these sorts of call combinations. So far, the vocabulary of Campbell’s monkeys far outstrips those of other species, but this may simply reflect differences in research efforts. Other studies have started to find complex vocabularies in other forest-dwellers like Diana monkeys and putty-nosed monkeys. Ouattara thinks that forest life, with many predators and low visibility, may have provided strong evolutionary pressures for monkeys to develop particularly sophisticated vocal skills.

And there are probably hidden depths to the sequences of monkey calls that we haven’t even begun to peer into yet. For instance, what calls do female Campbell’s monkeys make? Even for the males, the meanings in this study only become apparent after months of intensive field work and detailed statistical analysis. The variations that happen on a call-by-call basis still remain a mystery to us. The effect would be like looking at Jane Austen’s oeuvre and concluding, “It appears that these sentences signify the presence of posh people”.

Reference: PNAS doi:10.1073/pnas.0908118106

More on monkey business (clearly, I need more headline variation):

  • Monkey do, human do, monkey see, monkey like
  • Capuchin monkeys are choosy about the best nutcrackers
  • Monkey see, monkey control prosthetic arm with thoughts
  • Monkey see, monkey calculate statistics
  • Monkeynomics – monopolies, markets and exchange rates in wild monkeys




Share

December 7th, 2009 Tags: campbell's monkey, grammar, Language
by Ed Yong in Animal behaviour, Animal communication, Animals, Language, Mammals, Monkeys | 7 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

7 Responses to “Boom-boom-krak-oo – Campbell’s monkeys combine just six ‘words’ into rich vocabulary”

  1. 1.   HP Says:
    December 7th, 2009 at 9:09 pm

    Boom-boom-krak-oo, Campbell’s Monkey male,
    Linguists love you more than you will know. Woh-woh-woh.

  2. 2.   Reader Says:
    December 8th, 2009 at 10:40 am

    Could we get more reference info please? A DOI search for 10.1073/pnas.0908118106 does not seem to yield results in the PNAS database. Thanks.

  3. 3.   Blackbird Says:
    December 8th, 2009 at 6:33 pm

    Great post! Yes, it makes you think how we are able to learn each others languages (with difficulty, despite being equipped to do so), but knowing what the others are talking about helps. We have little idea of what monkeys might ‘talk about’ other than predators. A Spanish listening to two British guys talking about cricket might take an eternity to learn English…

  4. 4.   A professor of linguistics Says:
    December 9th, 2009 at 10:38 am

    The calls are not analogous to human language words, but rather to human language syllables. Syllables can be combined into words, but don’t necessarily themselves have a fixed meaning (though it may appear so in some cases, where a word consists of a single syllable, for example). Syllables also are subject to fixed order constraints, like the calls above. But combining syllables (and calls) doesn’t involve syntax: the meaning of the combinations are *not* compositionally derivable from the meaning of the parts. (Just as the meaning of “timber”, consisting of two syllables, “tim” and “ber”, is not a function of the meaning of the name “Tim” [a homophone] and “ber” [which is a well-formed syllable of English, but not an independent word].)
    I’m somewhat hesitant to comment on this without having been able to see the PNAS article itself (my university hasn’t made the issue available yet), but the chart included here looks like it is from the paper itself. The chart gives us no reason to believe that these calls and their combinations involve anything like syntax; rather, they seem to involve phonology. I only wish the authors had consulted with a linguist before trying to draw parallels to human language structures.

  5. 5.   Mike Keesey Says:
    December 9th, 2009 at 10:29 pm

    @A professor of linguistics: Since the concept of “syllable” and “word” is pretty much that same in some languages (isolating languages), that doesn’t seem like that big a problem. It seems to me that the bigger problem would be the lack of a tree-like structure — the fact that you can’t parse these into nested segments.
    (Then again, I’m not a professor of linguistics.)

  6. 6.   Val Heart Says:
    December 28th, 2009 at 11:59 am

    thanks for sharing the conversations you have with animals… it really shows us how they view things…

  7. 7.   animal vocalisation researcher Says:
    January 8th, 2010 at 4:00 am

    The same authors recently publised the work on the element combinations (e.g. the “kak” versus “kak”-”oo”)
    Outtatara et al 2009 Campbell’s monkeys use affixation to alter call meaning. PLoS ONE. Something about both these papers is missing, although I haven’t really been able to pin point it down. For one it is strange that the results of the papers weren’t combined into 1 paper, because the PNAS paper here certainly takes away some of the issues of the PLOS paper. In general playbacks are missing. Now you can always aske the question if it is really only the calls that lead to the differences obsereved. Yes the make different calls in different situations, but I would like to know if playbacks of the various call combinations would lead to differences in behavioral responses without any other simuli that could explan the response

Leave a Reply





    • About Not Exactly Rocket Science



      Ed Yong is an award-winning British science writer. His work has appeared in New Scientist, the Times, WIRED, the Guardian, Nature and more. Not Exactly Rocket Science is his attempt to talk about the awe-inspiring, beautiful and quirky world of science to as many people as possible.

      My personal website with biography, other writing, speaking engagements, and more

      Some interviews with me
      Some awards that I’ve won
      Who my readers are: 2008, 2009 and 2010 editions
      A complete list of posts from this blog

      Follow me on Twitter or Google+

      Contact me on edyong209[at]googlemail[dot]com

    • Support

    • What others say

      "One of the best sites for in-depth analysis of interesting scientific papers" - The Times

      "One of the smartest science bloggers I read... a prime practitioner among the new generation of scientifically authoritative bloggers" - David Rowan, editor of Wired UK

      "Engaging and jargon-free multimedia storytelling about science and the digital age" - National Academy of Sciences

      "A consistently illuminating home for long, thoughtful, and thorough explorations of science news" - National Association of Science Writers

      "Head and shoulders above many broadsheet hacks" - Ben Goldacre

      "Ed Yong... is made of pure unobtanium and rides TWO Toruks." - Frank Swain

      "Ed Yong is better than chocolate, fairy lights, and kittens chasing yarn. That is all." - Christine Ottery

    • Do you want to be a science writer?

      Read origin stories and advice from over 130 science writers from around the world.
    • Not Exactly Rocket Science content

      RSS Recent Posts

      Recent Posts

      • Neurons transplanted into mouse spines reverse chronic pain
      • Virtual resurrection shows that early four-legged animal couldn’t walk very well
      • New sense organ helps giant whales to coordinate the world’s biggest mouthfuls
      • Here’s where all the magic happens
      • Blind mice regain sight after scientists persuade their optic nerves to grow
      • I’ve got your missing links right here (19 May 2012)
      • Meet the paralysed woman who commandeered a robotic arm
      • Deep-sea bacteria redefine life in the slow lane
      Categories

      Categories

      Archives

      Archives

      • May 2012
      • April 2012
      • March 2012
      • February 2012
      • January 2012
      • December 2011
      • November 2011
      • October 2011
      • September 2011
      • August 2011
      • July 2011
      • June 2011
      • May 2011
      • April 2011
      • March 2011
      • February 2011
      • January 2011
      • December 2010
      • November 2010
      • October 2010
      • September 2010
      • August 2010
      • July 2010
      • June 2010
      • May 2010
      • April 2010
      • March 2010
      • February 2010
      • January 2010
      • December 2009
      • November 2009
      • October 2009
      • September 2009
      • August 2009
      • July 2009
      • June 2009
      • May 2009
      • April 2009
      • March 2009
      • February 2009
      • January 2009
      • December 2008
      • November 2008
      • October 2008
      • September 2008
      • August 2008
      • July 2008
      • June 2008
      • May 2008
      • April 2008
      • March 2008
      • February 2008
    • RSS Twitter

    • My wife, who makes it all possible

      Alice.jpg
    • Blogroll

      Science blogs

      Science blogs

      • 80 Beats
      • A Blog Around the Clock
      • Adventures in Ethics and Science
      • Aetiology
      • Alice Bell
      • Ars Technica
      • Arthropoda
      • Atlantic Science
      • Babel's Dawn
      • Bad Astronomy
      • Bad Science
      • BPS Research Digest Blog
      • Cancer Research UK Science Update Blog
      • Child's Play
      • Cocktail Party Physics
      • Collision Detection
      • Culture Dish
      • Culturing Science
      • Deep Sea News
      • Discoblog + NCBI ROFL
      • Dot Earth
      • Dr Petra Boynton
      • Drugmonkey
      • EarthLab
      • Embargo Watch
      • Epiphenom
      • Evolving Thoughts
      • Finite Attention Span
      • Fistful of Science
      • Gary Schwitzer's HealthNewsReview
      • Gene Expression
      • Genetic Future
      • Genomeboy
      • Genomicron
      • Gimpy's Blog
      • Highly Allochthonous
      • Ionian Enchantment
      • JL Vernon Presents American Psico
      • Joanne Loves Science
      • John Pavlus
      • Just a Theory
      • Lab Rat
      • Laelaps
      • Last Word on Nothing
      • Lay Scientist
      • Loom
      • Mark Changizi
      • Mind Hacks
      • Myrmecos
      • Neuroanthropology
      • Neurologica
      • Neuron Culture
      • Neurophilosophy
      • Neurotic Physiology (SciCurious)
      • Neurotribes
      • Obesity Panacea
      • Observations of a Nerd
      • On Becoming a Domestic and Laboratory Goddess
      • Open Minds and Parachutes
      • Political Science (Evan Harris)
      • Predictably Irrational
      • Retraction Watch
      • Save Your Breath for Running Ponies
      • Schooner of Science
      • Science Punk
      • ScienceLine
      • ScienceLush
      • Sentence First
      • Sex, Drugs and Rockin' Venom – Confessions of an Extreme Scientist
      • Skepchick
      • Speakeasy Science
      • Superbug
      • Take as Directed
      • Terra Sigillata
      • Tetrapod Zoology
      • The Artful Amoeba
      • The Chicken or the Egg
      • The Examining Room of Dr Charles
      • The Flying Trilobite
      • The Frontal Cortex
      • The Gleaming Retort
      • The Great Beyond
      • The Intersection
      • The Inverse Square Blog
      • The Millikan Daily
      • The Primate Diaries
      • The Science Project
      • Thoughtomics
      • Thus Spake Zuska
      • TYWKIWDBI
      • Vagina Dentata
      • Voyages Around my Camera
      • Weird Bug Lady
      • White Coat Underground
      • Why Evolution is True
      • Wild Muse
      • Wired Science
      • Words of Science
      • XKCD
      • Zooillogix
      Other blogs

      Other blogs

      • Cafe Philos
      • Miss Cellania
    • NetworkedBlogs
      Blog:
      Not Exactly Rocket Science
      Topics:
      science, biology, news
       
      Follow my blog


  • Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us