Research suggests bonobos can combine calls in a structured way previously believed unique to humans. Scientists observed that bonobos use two distinct calls – "peep" and "grunt" – individually and in combination ("peep-grunt"). Crucially, they found that the combined call conveyed a different meaning than either call alone, specifically related to starting play. This suggests bonobos aren't simply stringing together calls, but are combining them syntactically, creating a new meaning from existing vocalizations, which has significant implications for our understanding of language evolution.
A study published in Primates reveals that chimpanzees exhibit engineering-like behavior when selecting materials for tool construction. Researchers observed chimpanzees in Guinea, West Africa, using probes to extract algae from ponds. They discovered that the chimps actively chose stiffer stems for longer probes, demonstrating an understanding of material properties and their impact on tool functionality. This suggests chimpanzees possess a deeper cognitive understanding of tool use than previously thought, going beyond simply using available materials to strategically selecting those best suited for a specific task.
HN users discuss the implications of chimpanzees selecting specific materials for tool creation, questioning the definition of "engineer" and whether the chimpanzees' behavior demonstrates actual engineering or simply effective tool use. Some argue that selecting the right material is inherent in tool use and doesn't necessarily signify advanced cognitive abilities. Others highlight the evolutionary aspect, suggesting this behavior might be a stepping stone towards more complex toolmaking. The ethics of studying chimpanzees in captivity are also touched upon, with some commenters expressing concern about the potential stress placed on these animals for research purposes. Several users point out the importance of the chimpanzees' understanding of material properties, showing an awareness beyond simple trial and error. Finally, the discussion also explores parallels with other animal species exhibiting similar material selection behaviors, further blurring the lines between instinct and deliberate engineering.
Summary of Comments ( 114 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43612835
HN users discuss the New Scientist article about bonobo communication, expressing skepticism about the claim of "unique to humans" syntax. Several point out that other animals, particularly birds, have demonstrated complex vocalizations with potential syntactic structure. Some question the rigor of the study and suggest the observed bonobo vocalizations might be explained by simpler mechanisms than syntax. Others highlight the difficulty of definitively proving syntax in non-human animals, and the potential for anthropomorphic interpretations of animal communication. There's also debate about the definition of "syntax" itself and whether the bonobo vocalizations meet the criteria. A few commenters express excitement about the research and the implications for understanding language evolution.
The Hacker News post titled "Bonobos use a kind of syntax once thought to be unique to humans" has generated several comments discussing the research on bonobo communication. Many commenters express caution about overinterpreting the study's findings. One commenter points out the small sample size and the potential for observer bias, suggesting that more research is needed before drawing firm conclusions about the complexity of bonobo communication. Another echoes this sentiment, emphasizing the importance of replicating the study with larger groups of bonobos and different researchers to rule out alternative explanations for the observed behaviors.
Several comments delve into the nuances of syntax and language, questioning whether the bonobo vocalizations truly represent a syntactic structure comparable to human language. One commenter argues that the study demonstrates the combination of calls, but not necessarily a hierarchical structure with grammatical rules, a key characteristic of human syntax. Another commenter suggests that the observed "peep-grunt" combination might simply be a learned association rather than a grammatical rule. This commenter draws a parallel to how dogs might learn to associate specific commands with actions without understanding the underlying grammar.
Some commenters engage in a broader discussion about animal communication and cognition. One commenter mentions other species, such as prairie dogs, that have complex communication systems, highlighting that humans might be underestimating the cognitive abilities of other animals. Another commenter expresses skepticism about human exceptionalism in language, suggesting that the study on bonobos challenges the notion that humans are the only species capable of complex communication.
A few comments also touch upon the methodology used in the study. One commenter questions the use of playback experiments and wonders whether the bonobos' responses might be different in natural contexts. This raises the issue of ecological validity and the importance of studying animal communication in their natural environment. Finally, a commenter raises the ethical implications of using similar research for training animals and advocates for careful consideration of the potential impact of the study on animal lives.
Overall, the comments reflect a mixture of excitement about the potential implications of the research and cautious skepticism about the interpretation of the findings. The discussion emphasizes the need for further research, rigorous methodology, and careful consideration of the complexities of animal communication.