I think the chimp behavior is more analogous to combining syllables into words than combining words into sentences—inasmuch as the former process still yields a finite number of words, while the latter can generate an infinite number of sentences.
That would require higher cognitive complexity though, wouldn’t it? Seems more rudimentary to attach simple meaning to simple sounds and combine those for “simple” extended meaning as opposed to having meaningless syllables create distinct words with distinct meanings.
Yeah, maybe I should have said morphemes instead of syllables.
At this point I feel like chimp communication is protolinguistic - it's not language yet, but it's really above non-linguistic communication.
The main difference I see is the lack of anything resembling a tree structure. Human sentences typically have one word working as the "head", words connected to that head, words connected to the words connected to that head, and so goes on; at least in theory you can extend it to the infinite. Chimp compounds however seem to be either headless or at least not allow branching, and they definitely don't allow any sort of nesting.
Welcome to the community about the science of human Language!
Everyone is welcome here: from laypeople to professionals, Historical linguists to discourse analysts, structuralists to generativists.
Rules:
Related communities: