Minimal Compositionality versus Bird Implicatures: two theories of ABC-D sequences in Japanese tits

IF 11 1区 生物学 Q1 BIOLOGY
Philippe Schlenker, Ambre Salis, Maël Leroux, Camille Coye, Luigi Rizzi, Shane Steinert-Threlkeld, Emmanuel Chemla
{"title":"Minimal Compositionality versus Bird Implicatures: two theories of ABC-D sequences in Japanese tits","authors":"Philippe Schlenker,&nbsp;Ambre Salis,&nbsp;Maël Leroux,&nbsp;Camille Coye,&nbsp;Luigi Rizzi,&nbsp;Shane Steinert-Threlkeld,&nbsp;Emmanuel Chemla","doi":"10.1111/brv.13068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>It was argued in a series of experimental studies that Japanese tits (<i>Parus minor</i>) have an ABC call that has an alert function, a D call that has a recruitment function, and an ABC-D call that is compositionally derived from ABC and D, and has a mobbing function. A key conclusion was that ABC-D differs from the combination of separate utterances of ABC and of D (e.g. as played by distinct but close loudspeakers). While the logic of the argument is arguably sound, no explicit rule has been proposed to derive the meaning of ABC-D from that of its parts. We compare two analyses. One posits a limited instance of semantic compositionality (‘Minimal Compositionality’); the other does without compositionality, but uses instead a more sophisticated pragmatics (‘Bird Implicatures’). Minimal Compositionality takes the composition of ABC and D to deviate only minimally from what would be found with two independent utterances: ABC means that ‘there is something that licenses an alert’, D means that ‘there is something that licenses recruitment’, and ABC-D means that ‘there is something that licenses both an alert and recruitment’. By contrast, ABC and D as independent utterances yield something weaker, namely: ‘there is something that licenses an alert, and there is something that licenses recruitment’, without any ‘binding’ across the two utterances. The second theory, Bird Implicatures, only requires that ABC-D should be more informative than ABC, and/or than D. It builds on the idea, proposed for several monkey species, that a less-informative call competes with a more informative one (the ‘Informativity Principle’): when produced alone, ABC and D trigger an inference that ABC-D is false. We explain how both Minimal Compositionality and Bird Implicatures could have evolved, and we compare the predictions of the two theories. Finally, we extend the discussion to some chimpanzee and meerkat sequences that might raise related theoretical problems.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":133,"journal":{"name":"Biological Reviews","volume":"99 4","pages":"1278-1297"},"PeriodicalIF":11.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biological Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/brv.13068","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It was argued in a series of experimental studies that Japanese tits (Parus minor) have an ABC call that has an alert function, a D call that has a recruitment function, and an ABC-D call that is compositionally derived from ABC and D, and has a mobbing function. A key conclusion was that ABC-D differs from the combination of separate utterances of ABC and of D (e.g. as played by distinct but close loudspeakers). While the logic of the argument is arguably sound, no explicit rule has been proposed to derive the meaning of ABC-D from that of its parts. We compare two analyses. One posits a limited instance of semantic compositionality (‘Minimal Compositionality’); the other does without compositionality, but uses instead a more sophisticated pragmatics (‘Bird Implicatures’). Minimal Compositionality takes the composition of ABC and D to deviate only minimally from what would be found with two independent utterances: ABC means that ‘there is something that licenses an alert’, D means that ‘there is something that licenses recruitment’, and ABC-D means that ‘there is something that licenses both an alert and recruitment’. By contrast, ABC and D as independent utterances yield something weaker, namely: ‘there is something that licenses an alert, and there is something that licenses recruitment’, without any ‘binding’ across the two utterances. The second theory, Bird Implicatures, only requires that ABC-D should be more informative than ABC, and/or than D. It builds on the idea, proposed for several monkey species, that a less-informative call competes with a more informative one (the ‘Informativity Principle’): when produced alone, ABC and D trigger an inference that ABC-D is false. We explain how both Minimal Compositionality and Bird Implicatures could have evolved, and we compare the predictions of the two theories. Finally, we extend the discussion to some chimpanzee and meerkat sequences that might raise related theoretical problems.

最小构成性与鸟类隐含性:日本山雀 ABC-D 序列的两种理论。
一系列实验研究表明,日本山雀(Parus minor)的 ABC 呼声具有警戒功能,D 呼声具有招引功能,ABC-D 呼声由 ABC 和 D 组合而成,具有聚拢功能。一个重要的结论是,ABC-D 不同于 ABC 和 D 的单独语音组合(例如,由不同但接近的扬声器播放)。虽然该论证的逻辑可以说是合理的,但并没有提出明确的规则来从 ABC-D 的各部分推导出其含义。我们比较了两种分析方法。一种假设了有限的语义组合性("最小组合性");另一种则没有组合性,而是使用了更复杂的语用学("鸟语含义")。最小构成性认为 ABC 和 D 的构成与两个独立语篇的构成偏差很小:ABC 表示 "有东西允许发出警报",D 表示 "有东西允许招聘",ABC-D 表示 "有东西允许发出警报和招聘"。相比之下,ABC 和 D 作为独立语篇产生的效果较弱,即 "有一种东西允许发出警报":有一种东西允许发出警报,也有一种东西允许招聘",这两个语篇之间没有任何 "结合"。第二种理论,即 "鸟类暗示 "理论,只要求 ABC-D 比 ABC 和/或 D 更有信息量。该理论建立在对几种猴子提出的观点基础上,即信息量较少的叫声会与信息量较多的叫声竞争("信息量原则"):当 ABC 和 D 单独出现时,会引发 ABC-D 是假的推论。我们解释了 "最小组合性 "和 "鸟类隐含性 "是如何演变而来的,并比较了这两种理论的预测结果。最后,我们将讨论扩展到一些黑猩猩和猫鼬序列,它们可能会引发相关的理论问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Biological Reviews
Biological Reviews 生物-生物学
CiteScore
21.30
自引率
2.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Biological Reviews is a scientific journal that covers a wide range of topics in the biological sciences. It publishes several review articles per issue, which are aimed at both non-specialist biologists and researchers in the field. The articles are scholarly and include extensive bibliographies. Authors are instructed to be aware of the diverse readership and write their articles accordingly. The reviews in Biological Reviews serve as comprehensive introductions to specific fields, presenting the current state of the art and highlighting gaps in knowledge. Each article can be up to 20,000 words long and includes an abstract, a thorough introduction, and a statement of conclusions. The journal focuses on publishing synthetic reviews, which are based on existing literature and address important biological questions. These reviews are interesting to a broad readership and are timely, often related to fast-moving fields or new discoveries. A key aspect of a synthetic review is that it goes beyond simply compiling information and instead analyzes the collected data to create a new theoretical or conceptual framework that can significantly impact the field. Biological Reviews is abstracted and indexed in various databases, including Abstracts on Hygiene & Communicable Diseases, Academic Search, AgBiotech News & Information, AgBiotechNet, AGRICOLA Database, GeoRef, Global Health, SCOPUS, Weed Abstracts, and Reaction Citation Index, among others.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信