Search

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-020-00196-x [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The acoustic properties of vocalizations in common marmosets differ between populations. These differences may be the result of social vocal learning, but they can also result from environmental or genetic differences between populations. We performed translocation experiments to separately quantify the influence of a change in the physical environment (experiment 1), and a change in the social environment (experiment 2) on the acoustic properties of calls from individual captive common marmosets. If population differences were due to genetic differences, we expected no change in the vocalizations of the translocated marmosets. If differences were due to environmental factors, we expected vocalizations to permanently change contingent with environmental changes. If social learning was involved, we expected that the vocalizations of animals translocated to a new population with a different dialect would become more similar to the new population. In experiment 1, we translocated marmosets to a different physical environment without changing the social composition of the groups or their neighbours. Immediately after the translocation to the new facility, one out of three call types showed a significant change in call structure, but 5–6 weeks later, the calls were no longer different from before the translocation. Thus, the novel physical environment did not induce long lasting changes in the vocalizations of the marmosets. In experiment 2, we translocated marmosets to a new population with a different dialect. Importantly, our previous work had shown that these two populations differed significantly in vocalization structure. The translocated marmosets were still housed in their original social group, but after translocation they were surrounded by the vocalizations from neighbouring groups of the new population. The vocal distance between the translocated individuals and the new population decreased for two out of three call types over 16 weeks. Thus, even without direct social contact or interaction, the vocalizations of the translocated animals converged towards the new population, indicating that common marmosets can modify their calls due to acoustic input from conspecifics alone, via crowd vocal learning. To our knowledge, this is the first study able to distinguish between different explanations for vocal dialects as well as to show crowd vocal learning in a primate species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT: The study of non‐human animals, in particular primates, can provide essential insights into language evolution. A critical element of language is vocal production learning, i.e. learning how to produce calls. In contrast to other lineages such as songbirds, vocal production learning of completely new signals is strikingly rare in non‐human primates. An increasing body of research, however, suggests that various species of non‐human primates engage in vocal accommodation and adjust the structure of their calls in response to environmental noise or conspecific vocalizations. To date it is unclear what role vocal accommodation may have played in language evolution, in particular because it summarizes a variety of heterogeneous phenomena which are potentially achieved by different mechanisms. In contrast to non‐human primates, accommodation research in humans has a long tradition in psychology and linguistics. Based on theoretical models from these research traditions, we provide a new framework which allows comparing instances of accommodation across species, and studying them according to their underlying mechanism and ultimate biological function. We found that at the mechanistic level, many cases of accommodation can be explained with an automatic perception–production link, but some instances arguably require higher levels of vocal control. Functionally, both human and non‐human primates use social accommodation to signal social closeness or social distance to a partner or social group. Together, this indicates that not only some vocal control, but also the communicative function of vocal accommodation to signal social closeness and distance must have evolved prior to the emergence of language, rather than being the result of it. Vocal accommodation as found in other primates has thus endowed our ancestors with pre‐adaptations that may have paved the way for language evolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Language is a cognitively demanding human trait, but it is also a fundamentally cooperative enterprise that rests on the motivation to share information. Great apes possess many of the cognitive prerequisites for language, but largely lack the motivation to share information. Callitrichids (including marmosets and tamarins) are highly vocal monkeys that are more distantly related to humans than great apes are, but like humans, they are cooperative breeders and all group members help raising offspring. Among primates, this rearing system is correlated with proactive prosociality, which can be expressed as motivation to share information. We therefore propose that the unique coincidence of these two components in humans set the stage for language evolution: The cognitive component inherited from our great ape-like ancestors, and the motivational one added convergently as a result of cooperative breeding. We evaluate this scenario based on a review of callitrichd vocal communication and show that furthermore, they possess many of the mechanistic elements emphasized by the mirror system hypothesis of language evolution. We end by highlighting how more systematic phylogenetic comparisons will enable us to further promote our understanding of the role of cooperative breeding during language evolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The vocal repertoires of nonhuman primates have long been thought to be invariable across populations and not to result from vocal learning. However, increasing evidence suggests that learning does influence vocal production in nonhuman primates, and that several species modify the structure of their calls in response to social or environmental influences. Vocal usage learning refers to the process whereby an individual learns in which circumstances to produce a certain call type, whereas vocal production learning refers to the process in which signals get modified as the result of individual experiences. Common marmosets ( Callithrix jacchus) show socially mediated vocal plasticity as adults and during vocal development. This propensity to engage in simple forms of vocal production learning (accommodation) should produce population-level differences in call structure. To test this prediction, we compared the vocalizations of three captive populations of common marmosets. We analyzed the acoustic structure of 1337 phee calls, 461 trills, and 3611 food calls and compared them with a permutated discriminant function analysis. We found that all call types differed significantly between the three populations, and 76-98% of the calls were correctly classified. As physical differences in body mass and environmental differences between colonies could not explain the call differences, we conclude that vocal accommodation is the most likely explanation for the differences in call structure. This will allow us to further investigate the role and importance of vocal learning in a species increasingly used to study vocal learning and language evolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]