Alleged morpheme-based alarm calls in the light of biolinguistics. The
role of Duality of Patterning in morphology 1
Lluís Barceló-Coblijn
Group of Human Evolution and Cognition associated unit of the IFISC (UIB-CSIC),
University of Balearic Islands, c. de Valldemossa km 7.5, Palma, 07071, Spain
A definition of morpheme is that it designates “the smallest linguistic unit that
has semantic meaning” (Ouattara,et al.; 2009). Another definition tells us that
“morphemes are parts of a word that correspond with a specific meaning” (Booij &
Santen, 1998, p.3; translation ours). Although such definitions can always be tinged
or modified to some extent, they are in consonance with most modern linguistic
frameworks.
It is worth noting that in the process of morpheme creation, the conflation of
sound with meaning becomes reality by means of what has traditionally been called
duality of patterning (Hockett, 1958), a lexicalization technique which, from discrete
meaningless units, builds (sometimes bigger) meaningful units (cf. 1). Although in
Hoeckett's original text it is not quite clear where the duality system halts, we defend
that, once the system has those resultant units (morphemes), such process can be
repeated until words are reached (cf. 2).
1) /v/, /e/, /r/ → # ver #
2) # ver # + #koop# + #en# → verkopen
Dutch
(particle)
(“to sale”)
In a recent work Ouattara, Lemasson, & Zuberbühler (2009) have analyzed
vocalizations in Campbell's monkeys (Cercopithecus campbelli). Among other
suggestive conclusions, the authors affirm that these primates make use, not only of a
“simple” alarm call system (similar to that of vervet monkeys – Cercopithecus
aethiops), but of an alarm call system, the utterances of which can be modified by a
morpheme (cf. Table 1). The authors assume the general above mentioned definition
of morpheme (as a component of human languages), and pretend to show that the
alleged morpheme of Campbell's monkeys is equivalent to a H. sapiens morpheme.
We think that this is a clear misunderstanding of the linguistic concept of
morpheme. We also assume that part of such misunderstanding comes from the
sometimes loose definition formulated in linguistic studies – good enough until now,
since it referred only to human language. Therefore we reconsider its definition in the
light of biolinguistics and propose that the concept of morpheme must be considered,
at least, in conjunction with the concept of duality of patterning (neglected in the
work of Ouattara et al., (2009)), as lexicalization technique.
If our claims turn out to be on the right track, further claims about human-like
morphemes as structuring units of the calls of Campbell's monkeys cannot be
sustained. As a consequence, in order to clarify scientific terminology, it would be
better to use the label “morpheme” only in reference to the H. sapiens linguistic
system.
1
This work was supported by the HUM2007-64086 grant from the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación
(Spain).
Table 1.
Campbell's monkeys alarm call system, Ouattara et al., (2009)
Call
Possible meanings
krak Leopard
hok
Almost
eagle
Extended
call
Krak-oo
exclusively
Possible meanings
Almost any disturbance.
crowned
Hok-oo
Any range of disturbances
including:
eagle,
neighbouring groups, flying
squirrel.
boom Only in nonpredatory contexts,
such as a falling branch or tree,
to initiate or halt group travel.
Wak-oo
Eagles,
flying
animals,
Diana monkey eagle calls,
but not neighbour.
Moreover, it highlights the evolutionary role of duality of patterning,
reinforcing, on the one hand, the impression that H. sapiens is the only
representative of the kingdom Animalia endowed with it, and that this could be an
argument in favor of its inclusion in the Faculty of Language in the Narrow sense
(Rosselló, 2006) put forward by Hauser, Chomsky and Fitch (2002).
Finally, we would like to stress that the comparison of H. sapiens morphemes
vs. the vocalizations of the Cercopithecus campbelli shows us to which extent the
evolutionary paths covered by primates are different, so that it seems unlikely that
current primate alarm call systems represent a kind of “frozen” ancillary step of the
evolution of the human faculty of language.
References:
Booij, G. E., & Santen, A. V. (1998). Morfologie: de woordstructuur van het
Nederlands. Amsterdam University Press.
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: what is
it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science (New York, N.Y.), 298(5598),
1569-79.
Hockett, Charles F. (1958). Course in Modern Linguistics (later Printing.). Prentice
Hall College Div.
Ouattara, K., Lemasson, A., & Zuberbühler, K. (2009). Campbell's monkeys use
affixation to alter call meaning. PloS One, 4(11), e7808.
Rosselló, Joana. (2006). Combinatorial properties at the roots of language: Duality of
patterning and recursion. In Rosselló, Joana & Martín, Jesús (Eds.), The
Biolinguistic Turn. Issues on Language and Biology (p. 278). Barcelona: PPU,
S.A.