Language Log

« previous post | next post »

We haven't had anything recently about how clever starlings are, but what with all the discussion about parrot lips, I thought that some of you might enjoy this:

There are no associated news stories, so far, about vocal organs or communication skills, though commenters on several web forums have made suggestions about demonic possession and (from those who listen more carefully) the possible dangers of keeping vocal mimics as house pets.

Some background on starling vocalizations:

Some interesting references (with links and abstracts) about the (still very puzzling) phenomenon of vocal mimicry:

Laura Kelley, Rebecca Coe, Joah Madden, and Susan Healy, "Vocal mimicry in songbirds", Animal Behavior 76(3):521-528, 2008.

Baylis (1982, Acoustic Communication in Birds, Academic Press) decried the serious lack of experimental verification for the various hypotheses proposed to explain vocal mimicry in songbirds. With few exceptions, our understanding of the function and acquisition of this fascinating behaviour seems to have scarcely progressed. We examine the proposed functional explanations and supporting evidence, and summarize advances made since Baylis's (1982) review. We conclude that there is no compelling evidence to support any of the functional hypotheses but, rather, that almost all of the data concerning song mimicry are consistent with the learning mistakes hypothesis, whereby birds learn simple and common sounds, frequently using them in inappropriate contexts. Additionally, many apparently mimicked sounds are calls, not songs, which themselves may not be learned by the models. It is plausible that many examples of call mimicry are, in fact, due to evolutionary convergence.

Martha Leah Chaiken and Jörg Böhner, "Song learning after isolation in the open-ended learner the European Starling: Dissociation of imitation and syntactic development", The Condor 109(4) 2007.

We performed two studies to test whether the ability of open-ended learners to acquire new songs as adults depends on their having learned normal songs as juveniles. European Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) were kept in isolation for their first year. In the first study the birds were housed in a group with a wild-caught adult male following isolation. The subjects imitated each other but not the wild male and failed to develop normal phonology or syntax. In the second study each yearling was housed individually with a wild-caught adult male following isolation. These subjects developed good phonology and syntax but copied few or no song motifs from the wild adults. Taken together, the two studies indicate that starlings are capable of imitating new motifs and of acquiring species-typical phonology and syntax after a year of isolation. The contrasting results of the two studies suggest that imitation and the development of syntax are independent processes subject to different influences.

László Zsolt Garamszegi et al., "A comparative study of the function of heterospecific vocal mimicry in European passerines", Behavioral Ecology 18(6):1001-1009, 2007.

Although heterospecific vocal imitation is well documented in passerines, the evolutionary correlates of this phenomenon are poorly known. Here, we studied interspecific variation in vocal mimicry in a comparative study of 241 European songbirds. We tested whether vocal mimicry is a mode of repertoire acquisition or whether it resulted from imperfect song learning. We also investigated the effect of the degree of contact with the vocal environment (with species having larger ranges, abundance, or being long lived having a higher degree of mimicry) and a possible link with cognitive capacity (an overall larger brain in species with mimicry). Finally, we determined the potential evolutionary role of vocal mimicry in different interspecific contexts, predicting that mimicry may affect the intensity of brood parasitism, predation, or degree of hybridization. While controlling for research effort and phylogenetic relationships among taxa, we found that effect sizes for intersong interval, brain size, breeding dispersal, abundance, age-dependent expression of repertoires, and predation risk reached a level that may indicate evolutionary importance. Vocal mimicry seems to be a consequence of song continuity rather than song complexity, may partially have some cognitive component but may also be dependent on the vocal environment, and may attract the attention of predators. However, estimates of sexual selection and interspecific contacts due to brood parasitism and hybridization varied independently of vocal mimicry. Therefore, mimicry may have no function in female choice for complex songs and may be weakly selected via interspecific associations. These findings provide little evidence for vocal mimicry having evolved to serve important functions in most birds.

Eben Goodale and Sarath W Kotagama, "Context-dependent vocal mimicry in a passerine bird", Proc Biol Sci. 273(1588):875–880, 2006.

How do birds select the sounds they mimic, and in what contexts do they use vocal mimicry? Some birds show a preference for mimicking other species' alarm notes, especially in situations when they appear to be alarmed. Yet no study has demonstrated that birds change the call types they mimic with changing contexts. We found that greater racket-tailed drongos (Dicrurus paradiseus) in the rainforest of Sri Lanka mimic the calls of predators and the alarm-associated calls of other species more often than would be expected from the frequency of these sounds in the acoustic environment. Drongos include this alarm-associated mimicry in their own alarm vocalizations, while incorporating other species' songs and contact calls in their own songs. Drongos show an additional level of context specificity by mimicking other species' ground predator-specific call types when mobbing. We suggest that drongos learn other species' calls and their contexts while interacting with these species in mixed flocks. The drongos' behaviour demonstrates that alarm-associated calls can have learned components, and that birds can learn the appropriate usage of calls that encode different types of information.

Kazuo Okanoya, "Language evolution and an emergent property", Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 17(2):271-276, 2007.

Much debate has been stimulated by the recent hypothesis that human language consists of a faculty that is shared with non-human animals (faculty of language in a broad sense; FLB) and a faculty that is specific to human language (faculty of language in a narrow sense; FLN). This hypothesis has encouraged a tendency to emphasize one component of FLN: the cognitive operation of recursion. In consequence, non-syntactical, yet unique, aspects of human language have been neglected. One of these properties consists of vocal learning that enables an abundance of learned syllables. I suggest that FLN is not an independent faculty, but an ‘emergent’ property, arising from interactions between several other non-syntactical subfaculties of FLB, including vocal learning ability.

November 1, 2008 @ 9:37 am · Filed by Mark Liberman under Animal communication

Permalink