New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Bonobo Peeps May Be Necessary Language Precursors

Animal communication studies have shown only fixed vocalizations, such as alarm cries. But Bonobo chimps appear to have a call that has different meanings in different contexts

 

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Babies sometimes laugh and sometimes cry. It doesn’t take a genius to decode the meaning of these sounds. But it isn’t quite as straightforward to decipher the meaning, if any, of an infant’s babbles. And humans a little older can make the same sounds regardless of how you actually feel—you’re able to say “I’m hungry” whether you’re ravenous or just gorged yourself.

Scientists think that the ability to make the same sounds across a range of emotional states is critical to language development. They also believe it to be uniquely human, because in previous studies of animal communication, researchers only observed fixed vocalizations. For example, bonobo chimpanzee pant-laughs and threat barks are tied to a specific emotion or behavior.

But the new study finds evidence that bonobos in the wild are also capable of flexible vocalizations. Bonobos have a specific call type, a “peep” that they use independent of emotional context. They peep while eating, travelling, grooming, resting, engaging in sexual activity, and even during shows of aggression.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Because peeps, like a baby’s babbles, don’t convey meaningful information on their own, bonobos need to combine them with other calls and environmental context to supply meanings. Previously, researchers thought this type of complex, language-like comprehension was unique to humans. The study is in the journal PeerJ. [Zanna Clay, Jahmaira Archbold and Klaus Zuberbuhler, Functional flexibility in wild bonobo vocal behavior]

Bonobos are our closest evolutionary relatives, so it’s possible that the functional flexibility of human speech appeared in a common ancestor. This discovery adds to the growing pile of evidence that we’re not quite as special as we’ve long believed—and that our furry cousins may be even closer to us than we thought.

—Diana Kwon

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

[Bonobo sounds courtesy of Zanna Clay.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe