Songs to syntax: The linguistics of birdsong

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 113-121

  Berwick, Robert C ^a   Okanoya, Kazuo ^b,c   Beckers, Gabriel J L ^d   Bolhuis, Johan J ^e  

^a USA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

^c RIKEN BRAIN SCIENCE INSTITUTE   (Japan)

^d MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR ORNITHOLOGY   (Germany)

^e UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GENETIC SIMILARITIES; HUMAN INFANTS; HUMAN LANGUAGE; HUMAN SOUNDS; HUMAN SPEECH; LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS; MODEL SYSTEM; SPEECH ACQUISITION; SPOKEN LANGUAGES;

BIOLOGY; FORMAL LANGUAGES; SEMANTICS; SPEECH; SYNTACTICS;

LINGUISTICS;

BIRD; COGNITION; EVOLUTION; GENETIC SIMILARITY; HUMAN; LEARNING STYLE; LINGUISTICS; NONHUMAN; REVIEW; SEMANTICS; SOUND; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; SPEECH AND LANGUAGE;

ANIMALS; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; SONGBIRDS; VOCALIZATION, ANIMAL;

EID: 79951952077     PISSN: 13646613     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.01.002     Document Type: Review

References (75)

1. Darwin C. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex 1882, Murray.
2. Margoliash D., Nusbaum H.C. Language: the perspective from organismal biology. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2009, 13:505-510.
3. Hauser M.D., et al. The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?. Science 2002, 298:1569-1579.
4. Bolhuis J.J., Wynne C.D.L. Can evolution explain how minds work?. Nature 2009, 458:832-833.
5. Doupe A.J., Kuhl P.K. Birdsong and human speech: common themes and mechanisms. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 1999, 22:567-631.
6. Bolhuis J.J., Gahr M. Neural mechanisms of birdsong memory. Nature Rev. Neurosci. 2006, 7:347-357.
7. Yip M. The search for phonology in other species. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2006, 10:442-446.
8. Okanoya K. Language evolution and an emergent property. Curr. Op. Neurobiol. 2007, 17:271-276.
9. Bolhuis J.J., et al. Twitter evolution: converging mechanisms in birdsong and human speech. Nature Rev. Neurosci. 2010, 11:747-759.
10. Chomsky C. Cartesian Linguistics 1966, Harper & Row.
11. Corballis M.C. Recursion, language, and starlings. Cogn. Sci. 2007, 31:697-704.
12. Aristotle Historia Animalium. v.II 1970, Harvard University Press.
13. Steedman M. The Syntactic Process 2001, MIT Press.
14. Kaplan R., Bresnan J. Lexical-functional grammar: a formal system for grammatical relations. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations 1982, 173-281. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. J. Bresnan (Ed.).
15. Gazdar G., et al. Generalized Phrase-structure Grammar 1985, Harvard University Press.
16. Pollard C., Sag I. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar 1994, University of Chicago Press.
17. Culicover P., Jackendoff R. Simpler Syntax 2005, Oxford University Press.
18. Goldberg A. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language 2006, Oxford University Press.
19. Marr D. Vision 1982, W.H. Freeman & Co.
20. Rogers, J. et al. (2010) On languages piecewise testable in the strict sense. In Proceedings of the 11th Meeting of the Mathematics of Language Association (eds), pp. 255-265, Springer-Verlag.
21. Okanoya K. The Bengalese finch: a window on the behavioral neurobiology of birdsong syntax. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 2004, 1016:724-735.
22. Sasahara K., Ikegami T. Evolution of birdsong syntax by interjection communication. Artif. Life 2007, 13:259-277.
23. Catchpole C.K., Slater P.J.B. Bird Song: Biological Themes and Variations 2008, Cambridge University Press. 2nd edn.
24. Wohlgemuth M.J., et al. Linked control of syllable sequence and phonology in birdsong. J. Neurosci. 2010, 29:12936-12949.
25. Todt D., Hultsch H. Acquisition and performance of repertoires: ways of coping with diversity and versatility. Ecology and Evolution of Communication 1996, 79-96. Cornell University Press. D.E. Kroodsma, E.H. Miller (Eds.).
26. Gentner T., Hulse S. Perceptual mechanisms for individual vocal recognition in European starlings. Sturnus vulgaris. Anim. Behav. 1998, 56:579-594.
27. Dobson C.W., Lemon R.E. Markov sequences in songs of American thrushes. Behaviour 1979, 68:86-105.
28. Marler P. The structure of animal communication sounds. Recognition of Complex Acoustic Signals: Report of the Dahlem Workshop on Recognition of Complex Acoustic Signals, Berlin 1977, 17-35. Abakon-Verlagsgesellschaft. T.H. Bullock (Ed.).
29. Kakishita Y., et al. Ethological data mining: an automata-based approach to extract behavioural units and rules. Data Min. Knowl. Disc. 2009, 18:446-471.
30. Hilliard A.T., White S.A. Possible precursors of syntactic components in other species. Biological Foundations and Origin of Syntax 2009, 161-184. MIT Press. D. Bickerton, E. Szathmáry (Eds.).
31. Okanoya K. Song syntax in Bengalese finches: proximate and ultimate analyses. Adv. Stud. Behav. 2004, 34:297-345.
32. Takahasi M., et al. Statistical and prosodic cues for song segmentation learning by Bengalese finches (Lonchura striata var. domestica). Ethology 2010, 116:481-489.
33. Todt D., Hultsch H. How songbirds deal with large amount of serial information: retrieval rules suggest a hierarchical song memory. Biol. Cybern. 1998, 79:487-500.
34. Suge R., Okanoya K. Perceptual chunking in the self-produced songs of Bengalese finches (Lonchuria striata var. domestica). Anim. Cog. 2010, 13:515-523.
35. Kakishita Y., et al. Pattern extraction improves automata-based syntax analysis in songbirds. ACAL 2007. Lect. Notes in Artif. Intell. 2007, 828:321-333.
36. Kobayashi S., Yokomori T. Learning concatenations of locally testable languages from positive data. Algorithmic Learning Theory, Lect. Notes in Comput. Sci. 1994, 872:407-422.
37. Kobayashi S., Yokomori T. Learning approximately regular languages with reversible languages. Theor. Comput. Sci. 1997, 174:251-257.
38. Angluin D. Inference of reversible languages. J. ACM 1982, 29:741-765.
39. Berwick R., Pilato S. Learning syntax by automata induction. J. Mach. Learning 1987, 3:9-38.
40. Johnson C.D. Formal Aspects of Phonological Description 1972, Mouton.
41. Chomsky N., Halle M. The Sound Patterns of English 1968, Harper & Row.
42. Halle M. Knowledge unlearned and untaught: what speakers know about the sounds of their language. Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality 1978, 294-303. MIT Press. M. Halle (Ed.).
43. Pierrehumbert J., Nair R. Word games and syllable structure. Lang. Speech 1995, 38:78-116.
44. Kuhl P. Early language acquisition: cracking the speech code. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2008, 5:831-843.
45. Newport E., Aslin R. Learning at a distance. I. Statistical learning of non-adjacent regularities. Cog. Sci. 2004, 48:127-162.
46. Gervain J., Mehler J. Speech perception and language acquisition in the first year of life. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 2010, 61:191-218.
47. Halle M., Vergnaud J.-R. An Essay on Stress 1990, MIT Press.
48. Lerdahl F., Jackendoff R. A Generative Theory of Tonal Music 1983, MIT Press.
49. Fabb N., Halle M. A New Theory of Meter in Poetry 2008, Cambridge University Press.
50. Kreutzer M., et al. Social stimulation modulates the use of the 'A' phrase in male canary songs. Behaviour 1999, 136:1325-1334.
51. Briefer E., et al. Response to displaced neighbours in a territorial songbird with a large repertoire. Naturwissenschaften 2009, 96:1067-1077.
52. Knudsen D.P., Gentner T.Q. Mechanisms of song perception in oscine birds. Brain Lang. 2010, 115:59-68.
53. Chomsky N., Miller G. Finitary models of language users. Handbook of Mathematical Psychology 1963, 419-491. Wiley. R. Luce (Ed.).
54. Bloomfield L. Language 1933, Henry Holt.
55. von Humboldt, W. (1836) Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwickelung des Menshengeschlechts, Ferdinand Dümmler.
56. Gentner T.Q., et al. Recursive syntactic pattern learning by songbirds. Nature 2006, 440:1204-1207.
57. Gentner T. Mechanisms of auditory pattern recognition in songbirds. Lang. Learn. Devel. 2007, 3:157-178.
58. Chomsky N. Remarks on nominalization. Readings in English Transformational Grammar 1970, 184-221. Ginn. R.A.P. Jacobs, P. Rosenbaum (Eds.).
59. Joshi A., et al. The convergence of mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms. Foundational Issues in Natural Language Processing 1991, 31-82. MIT Press. P. Sells (Ed.).
60. Fodor J., et al. The psychological reality of linguistic segments. J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 1965, 4:414-420.
61. Chomsky N. Three models for the description of language. IRE Trans. Info. Theory 1956, 2:113-124.
62. Rogers J., Hauser M. The use of formal language theory in studies of artificial language learning: a proposal for distinguishing the differences between human and nonhuman animal learners. Recursion and Human Language 2010, 213-232. De Gruyter Mouton. H. van der Hulst (Ed.).
63. Huybregts M.A.C. The weak adequacy of context-free phrase structure grammar. Van Periferie Naar Kern 1984, 81-99. Foris. G.J. de Haan (Ed.).
64. Shieber S. Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language. Ling. Philos. 1985, 8:333-343.
65. Kudlek M., et al. Contexts and the concept of mild context-sensitivity. Ling Phil. 2003, 26:703-725.
66. Berwick R., Weinberg A. The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance 1984, MIT Press.
67. van Heijningen C.A.A., et al. Simple rules can explain discrimination of putative recursive syntactic structures by a songbird species. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2009, 106:20538-20543.
68. Rogers, J. and Pullum, G. Aural pattern recognition experiments and the subregular hierarchy. J. Logic, Lang. & Info (in press).
69. McNaughton R., Papert S. Counter-free Automata 1971, MIT Press.
70. Trahtman A. Reducing the time complexity of testing for local threshold testability. Theor. Comp. Sci. 2004, 328:151-160.
71. Heinz J. On the role of locality in learning stress patterns. Phonology 2009, 26:305-351.
72. Crespi-Reghizzi S. Non-counting context-free languages. J. ACM 1978, 4:571-580.
73. Crespi-Reghizzi S. Reduction of enumeration in grammar acquisition. Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 1971, 546-552. William Kaufman. D.C. Cooper (Ed.).
74. Crespi-Reghizzi S., Braitenburg V. Towards a brain compatible theory of language based on local testability. Grammars and Automata for String Processing: from Mathematics and Computer Science 2003, 17-32. Gordon & Breach. C. Martin-Vide, V. Mitrana (Eds.).
75. Hosino T., Okanoya K. Lesion of a higher-order song nucleus disrupts phrase level complexity in Bengalese finches. Neuroreport 2000, 11:2091-2095.