I am not related to the subject. Still I am trying to answer by using the Paper attached at link.

Human language can express limitless meanings from a finite set of words based on combinatorial rules (i.e., compositional syntax). Although animal vocalizations may be comprised of different basic elements (notes), it remains unknown whether compositional syntax has also evolved in animals. Here we report the first experimental evidence for compositional syntax in a wild animal species, the Japanese great tit (Parus minor). Tits have over ten different notes in their vocal repertoire and use them either solely or in combination with other notes. Experiments reveal that receivers extract different meanings from ‘ABC’ (scan for danger) and ‘D’ notes (approach the caller), and a compound meaning from ‘ABC–D’ combinations. However, receivers rarely scan and approach when note ordering is artificially reversed (‘D–ABC’). Thus, compositional syntax is not unique to human language but may have evolved independently in animals as one of the basic mechanisms of information transmission.

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160308/ncomms10986/full/ncomms10986.html

THESE SONGBIRDS CAN SPEAK TO EACH OTHER LIKE HUMANS DO

OTHER ANIMALS LIKE WHALES AND DOLPHINS MAY HAVE THE ABILITY, TOO

Some of us are adept at successfully communicating thoughts in a clear and concise manner. Others may stumble or struggle to put their ideas and feelings into words. But regardless of the size of our lexicons, all of us humans share the ability to combine two or more words into a new meaning or idea —an ability known as "compositional syntax." This has long been thought to be unique to Homo sapiens, but biologists have discovered this ability for the first time in another species: the Japanese great tit (Parus minor).

This little songbird that may well have just revealed animal communication to be a much more complex world than we previously thought....

By: Grennan Milliken

http://www.popsci.com/little-songbirds-use-complex-form-vocal-communication-thought-to-be-unique-to-humans

Though not technically an animal, ants do communicate using a chemical trail (pheromone) that reads like language to the rest in the colony. A broken chemical trail is like jumbled syntax in a language that makes no sense and causes the ants following the trail to be disoriented and lost because of a problem with "semantics". The search then begins to reconnect through a discovery of "proper syntax" and integrated trails that are part of a larger, more established network.

Dear Bob Skiles , 

All the Animals and Birds are having their own wonderful Communication Language , However action of Both eyes , Ears , head , Mouth, Legs Front & Rear , Tail and Different body movement ( Body Language ) .

Same As Birds , For Example : Crow Bird , If getting one Food immediately that will call by Create Sound in all their family-member and Eat .

But Nowadays it's not been ; very Calmly Alone it will Eat and go , just I Watched this . 

In Domestic Animal just watch the Cow - How Brilliant it is,

Hi,

I'm one of the authors of the study. We know from other bird species that they have evolved compositional syntax, but it's not yet written up. As we speculate in the paper, it may be a means to evolve new meanings with a limited vocabulary. I would guess that all species with acoustic communication, a rich social life and a range of predation or social pressures could evolve it.

The question that is more open is whether compositional syntax is a feature of acoustic communication alone, or if species with other communication modi have evolved it as well.

Bob -

I'd heard that dogs can bark in a specific pattern to create a syntax, where reversing the order of bark-types would change the meaning, and i wonder if anyone knows of such a study.  I see that Pierlorenzo mentioned "complex sounds," which may be referring to the same thing. 

Cheers - Jim 

PS - By the way, Bob, to what animals do you refer regarding "only phonetic syntax?" In addition, I suppose, to the Campbell's monkey "ooh" sound in the article, what others?  Thanks. 

Dear Bob,

I am  not an expert in this topic therefore I can not give a great contribution but I read that the  parrot can provide this capability

Bob,

I am sure that you are aware that crows are extremely smart and talk back and forth with each other. They also set a guard or two to warn of predators in the area while feeding. A recent study found that they can remember specific human faces even after 6 months.Old timers swore that if a crow's tongue was split, that it could talk like a parrot or myna bird.

The language of animals is not syntactic. The verses which emit communicate a range of needs (hunger, danger, etc.). And with each acoustic expression matches a particular message. The human language, instead, is composed of different elements - the words - each of which has a precise meaning, which is self-contained.

"The syntax", Nowak writes in Nature, "allows to the man a considerable advantage: that of being able to express a wide variety of concepts based on an infinite use of finite linguistic means".

Dear Bob,

The text you offer is correct but its conclusions are not. The fact that there are meaninful signs, one can not infer that there is thought in those birds. How I wish it could be true.

I have read before that whales also use syntax in their complicated communications. Well, it is not specified that this syntax is really compositional, but the communication is so complicated that it must be. Or at least speciall groups of whales could select their own composition rules after selecting communication customs.

http://www.hhmi.org/news/warbling-whales-speak-language-all-their-own

I wouldn't be surprised if other mamals do it also, specially our cousins the monkeys, of course.

Dear Bob, 

Jokingly saying, by the free associations and semantics of what is an animal too - I would say politicians use

Don´t forget the infra sound communication of whales.

@ Pierlorenzo Brignoli  said: "My horse does not speak, however, he expresses himself with gestures that sometimes speak louder than words."

Dear Pierforenzo,

I completely agree with your assertion of the horse's great ability to communicate clearly in non-verbal ways (and I suspect most Texicans who have horses will also agree).

I can "hear" your beautiful horse clearly in the photo ... he seems to be saying: "What are you up to now Pierforenzo? What is that strange gadget you are pointing at me? C'mon, friend, let's go for a nice ride together." 

Best regards,

Bob

@ Michael Griesser said: "I'm one of the authors of the study."

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your cogent comments, and also for making your article available here on your RG profile so quickly. I think your example (your being here and providing your article, so timely) is an example that epitomizes the greatest value of RG (i.e., a platform that permits direct contact/communication between researchers around-the-world).

Once again, thank you!

Best regards,

Bob

To all,

The study I mentioned found that crows that observed a person carrying a stuffed (e.g. dead) crow through a test area remembered that person 6 months later and scolded/harassed them. Those people who did not carry the stuffed crow, but walked through the same area during the tests were NOT scolded by the crows 6 months later. I think all would agree that this shows both thought and memory retention.

@ James R Knaub asked: "By the way, Bob, to what animals do you refer regarding "only phonetic syntax?"

Dear James,

I was only trying to express that, up-to-now (the mentioned study of the Japanese great tit), that only phonetic syntax (and NOT compositional syntax, which capability was heretofore believed to be restricted to humans) had been confirmed in ANY animal ... not trying to say that any specific animal was restricted to only phonetic syntax.

As you (and others) aver, there is CERTAINLY the possibility (IMO "likelihood") that animals are using syntax other than phonetic AND in non-verbal (non-auditory) modes of communication. But, so-far-as-I-am-aware, that has not been studied (or not with affirmative results) in other animals. If it has, then I am certainly as eager as you are in hearing about it, or being referred to any publication dealing with the topic.

My regards,

Bob

@ James A. Green said: "I am sure that you are aware that crows are extremely smart ..."

Dear James,

Yes, indeed, I have very intimate knowledge and experience with crows ... those crazy birds have "out-smarted" ME many times in my youth (and I always considered myself a rather clever fellow).

Best regards,

Bob

Bob,

I was only addressing some statements that birds were not capable of complex thought, thus complex (syntax) speech. Man's past egotistical view of his uniqueness over the animals has led to many assumptions, some of which are slowly being disproved. In other words, we have sold animals short where intelligence is concerned in the past. Let us abide our opinions until the results come in.

Reminds me of Homo floresiensis. Many in the community are saying, "no, their brains were too small for them to be functional human beings", despite the piles of lithic tools found with them.

@ Remi Cornwall said: "Throwing a curve ball, I would suggest that all life uses syntax at the molecular level - in DNA/RNA ..."

Dear Remi,

O-U-C-H your curveball caught me un-guarded and hit me up-side-the-head (really had an impact on my thought process)! Thank you for turning-my-head-around to look at this new perspective! Keep throwing those fine curve-balls!

Best regards,

Bob

I am not a specialist in this field of knowledge. As information of scientific publications on the subject, I believe that birds and possibly other mammals such as cetaceans could reach the communicative complexity that we could qualify as communication with syntax.

I am not a specialist in the field of the question posed here but believe that the following supposition of Suzuki et al. given at the end of the abstract of their paper is quite right: "[…] compositional syntax is not unique to human language but may have evolved independently in animals as one of the basic mechanisms of information transmission." Then, I think that some other animals that use compositional syntax will be found soon.

Dear Bob Skiles,

Some of us are adept at successfully communicating thoughts in a clear and concise manner. Others may stumble or struggle to put their ideas and feelings into words. But regardless of the size of our lexicons, all of us humans share the ability to combine two or more words into a new meaning or idea —an ability known as "compositional syntax." This has long been thought to be unique to Homo sapiens, but biologists have discovered this ability for the first time in another species: the Japanese great tit (Parus minor).

Regards, Shafagat

http://www.popsci.com/little-songbirds-use-complex-form-vocal-communication-thought-to-be-unique-to-humans?dom=rss-default&src=syn

@all:

I'm one of the co-authors of the study and read all the comments with interest. The comments raise for me 3 important issues:

1) The definition of composition syntax: please look in our paper how we define it. We state:

"Language has two hierarchical levels of syntactic structure: one combines otherwise meaningless elements to form meaningful words (phonology) and the other combines different words to form more complex expressions (compositional

syntax)".

Clearly, "words" have to be replaces with discrete calls in order to be able to talk about bird communication. Semantic issues of using different definitions on both the sender and receiver side make a clear discussion about the topic and science in general impossible. BTW a nice example of bird phonology has been published last year:

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002171

2) It is important to keep in mind that we look at bird calls and not bird song. They have a different function, and many linguists think of bird song as an alternative model to understand human language. Yet, most examples of referential communication, phonology and in this study compositional syntax look at calls.

3) Regarding the factors that drive the evolution of communicative "abilities" (i.e., referential signals, phonology, compositional syntax) : we can at the current state just speculate. We need more field studies that look into these questions before we can start looking into the drivers of communicative abilities. Sure, it's more widespread than we currently know. Keep your eyes open for upcoming publications, e.g. http://evolang.org/neworleans/pdf/EVOLANG_11_paper_3.pdf and from us.

Nice question , though it is not my subject . Like any living beings , animals do have a highly evolved communication skills. They have their own language to communicate with others. They are much socially organized than any one else.

Even Molluscs use complex communication systems and are know to send signals to human divers.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826531-000-the-secret-language-of-cuttlefish/

Similar structures do not mean they are the same in different animals. The differençe is on who governs that structure, if we have to buildings prepared to be factories absolutely the same, working with the same produts, but the management compketly different, they will never be the same. The same happen with animals. All the living beings have 98% of their bodies made of C,H, O, N, P, S and yet the behavior of those are the same.

Monkeys use "oh" at the end of words to make them more urgent.

http://www.i4u.com/2016/03/106816/bird-uses-linguistics-thought-be-exclusively-human

Dear Bob 

Which is we Can observed in Different Durations in different Areas ,

Areas :- Like village , Fruit-farms , Hill area Gardens , Forest and Dense-forest.

Duration :- Rainy & Winter .

Name the Bird : Koel ,

It will be singing sometime in Hill area Gardens that whenever hearing the Brilliant Voice , Sure we would forget ourselves and Lovely Enjoyable.

And this Male-koel whenever its searching the female-koel that will be create the Calling Voice Really an Amazing One.

The rhythm its Stats  low to high  gradually.

Dear Sir

who made down vote poor content just made to me , please I need proper explanation  

Who doesn't know about anything that the students are in last seat and sleep , but sometimes they woke up and say no no no that's wrong without knowing anything , that the way they will reply .

Who made to me down poor content vote , if you feel I need to prove yourself Please Come to my Native place in INDIA i will take you to Ooty - Hill & beautiful forest there you can have variety of Birds singing Voice .

,I will take to My Hill Garden you can enjoy always  koel  voice and different Birds singing Brilliant voice OKAYA,

Another incident I will type shortly

I'm attaching here with the You-Tube , Please Watch

It has long been known that animals use complex compositional communications and that it is far from limited to primates and higher mammals.  We should however be careful about getting too carried away and it is inaccurate to say that compositional syntax makes animal communication 'the same' or even similar to human discourse. 

Even single celled animals communicate, in their case by complex chemical signalling. What is not seen in animal communication is any form of abstract communication of the kind present in human language.  In short putting two signals together to create a third is not the equivalent of constructing sentences and more resembles a Semaphore style communication than discourse. 

As Michael Griesser (Congrats, Michael, for this top notch article!) mentioned, some acoustic mammals have compositional syntax. It was reported in the late 1970s and in the 1980s. 

I came across with it in the philosophical work of:

MacIntyre, A. C. (1999). Dependent rational animals : why human beings need the virtues. London: Duckworth.

MacIntyre in turn analyzed the following work:

Norris, KS, & Dohl, TP (l980). The structure and function of cetacean schools. In LM Herman (Ed.), Cetacean behavior (pp. 211-261). New York: Wiley

Norris and Dohl's research is indicative that bottlenose dolphins do have a compositional syntax. For example, they can distinguish an acoustic signal sentence "Take the surfboard to the frisbee" from the sentence "Take the frisbee to the surfboard."

In the article on Japanese great tit, the main finding is that odd order words do not deliver a meaningful call.  In the case of bottlenose dolphins, odd order delivers a different and meaningful message. Obviously, dolphins have a more advanced compositional syntax.

I would appreciate that Michael Griesser could tell me if this reading is correct.

The observations on dolphin communication and their ability to distinguish different meanings acoustically is fascinating.  The purpose of acoustic communication is that the recipient of a signal does not have to be looking at the transmitter of the signal, so the communication can be sent more effectively while the animal is on the move or some distance away from the one attempting to communicate with it.  

The ability to communicate with distant recipients is not of course confined to acoustic communication.  Animal pheromones can also convey messages over long distances.  Endocrine function in animals can also in terms of relative distance send messages far further than acoustics, pheromones or even electronic communication systems.

Many animals can communicate only or principally by visual signs other use a combination of sound and visual signal.  Humans have developed the most complex version of this combination language which includes syntax, tonal variation and non-verbal communication to create the complete message.  Human signalling or communication is infinitely more complex than animal communication because humans evolve culturally as well as biologically.

Dolphins can 'say' "Take the surfboard to the frisbee"  and "Take the frisbee to the surfboard." But only humans can say "Take the surfboard to the Frisbee next Wednesday or  "Take the frisbee to the surfboard in Queensland"  

Dear Barry. 

Human's superiority is not Bob's question. But, since you are expanding the discussion, please consider the following.

What if a group of bottlenose dophins happens to have a 'week day' sort of cycle (say a 3-day cycle consistent of first sun, second sun and third sun which they assign accooustic sounds similar to, say, bootlemon, bottletue, and bottlewed ) and they are capable of communicating a 'next bottlewed we surf' meaningfully to their peers? How would you know they do or they do not? 

If you haven't yet, you might consider taking a look at this work:

Nagel, T. (1974). What Is It Like to Be a Bat? The Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435-450.

Consider another scenario, a group of bottlenose might go to certain part of the Mexican Gulf for a full moon river mouth hunt. They happen to have a 29-day cycle. How would you know that they don't if you are not a dolphin and you do not definitely belong to the group?

Jae

Superiority is a human concept and I am not suggesting that humans are superior to animals.  Human communication is simply more complex because humans are far more  complex animals than any other on the planet.  Complexity should not be confused with some form of hierarchy.  In the ocean a dolphin is far 'superior' to a human, in the wilderness of Alaska bears are only 'inferior' to humans when they the human has a loaded gun. 

@ Jae Park:

Thanks for the reference on dolphin communication, I will need to check it in the library. I think  the artificial reversion of the natural sequence did not make sense for the great tits given that it does not occur naturally in their vocabulary. We would now need to find a combination of discrete signals that are combined in both ways, and that analogue to the dolphin example, would result in different action. A great idea for future experiments.

There is a lot of work recently on communication in bats, starting with our article in 1993, entitled, 

@ Michael Griesser

Thanks a lot for your reply. How interesting is your research!

 In your research, you used birds real signals in different sequencing. Hence, odd sequence did not deliver meaning to Japanese great tits.

In the case case of bottlenose dolphin I referred to, it was not dolphin's sonic signals that were combined in different sequence.Dolphin were taught the 'vocabs' (artificial aquatic sound signals), with which researchers combined these 'vocabs' in different sequence. Dolphins showed an ability to learn a new language, and, using this new language they are able to 'decipher' odd sequences (previously never exposed to), hence denoting a more advanced  'compositional syntax' (than great tits')

@Barry

Thanks a lot.

We are probably in the same page. I only wanted to illustrate the importance of a more careful handling of difficulties of inter-specie interpretations. Borrowing from Kuhn, I would call it 'inter-specie incommensurability.'

I suggested to take a look at the article by T. Nagel which underscores the same problem: How do you know what a bat thinks if you are not a bat?  Quite interestingly, Chinese Chuang Zu poetically noted centuries earlier...How do you know that fish are happy if you are not a fish?

I am just calling for more caution in our scientific work of causal attribution. I fully agree that the main point we are up to here is not 'human superiority.' It was not even part of Bob's question.

I would like to add that it is neither a matter of attributing  to the 'mystery of complexity'.   I increasingly see in sociology and even business literature attributing to 'complexity' what is simply a portion of reality that cannot be fully explained for the time being; 'complexity' is turned into a handy recourse or the ultimate explanatory cul-de-sac.

I came across with some literature explaining that a score of phenomena that appear to  human observers as complex  might not be as 'complex', for example, Boid Flocking Behaviour simulation by Craig Reynolds. They suggest that at least some of animal 'complexities' appear so only to our human eyes. These claims bring us back to the issue raised by Thomas Kuhn and Chuang zu.

Cheers

@ Pierlorenzo Brignoli said: " My horse does not speak, however, he expresses himself with gestures that sometimes speak louder than words."

Dear Pierforenzo,

I wonder what your horse would "say" if he was made to wear a suit-and-NECKTIE like this sad horse?

This is becoming anecdotal.

@ Jae Park said: "This is becoming anecdotal."

Dear Jae,

Yes, it is ... and I consider that is a good thing. To an educator, anecdotal evidence is not acceptable for teaching purposes, but, anecdotal evidence is often what gives the researcher the first curiosity to craft experiments to test whether such ideas (e.g., my cat communicates with me ... and it appears he may be using compositional syntax) may be proved or disproved.

Like Pard Is, I know my cat is TRYING to communicate with me, and I have also suspected he may be using something-more than rudimentary phonetic syntax in his vocalizations (sentences ?). I don't know about Pard Is, but I know I'm too old (and, besides, not-qualified) to take-on a project of designing experiments to test for this possibility. But, perhaps this anecdotal idea will stimulate enough curiosity in some qualified young scientist (like Michael Griesser ?) to take a look at the possibility?

Best regards,

Bob

@ Pard Is said: "So maybe cats do use compositional syntax."

Dear Pard Is,

Thank you for your thought-provoking comment. I have also suspected that my cat is using something beyond simple phonetic syntax in trying to communicate with me.

I remember reading somewhere (in a study on animal psychology ?) that the close relationship between cats-and-humans is made possible by the cat "thinking" (accepting the concept) that we humans are also cats ... yes, very ungainly, very strange-acting, furless, smelly, and (comparatively) nearly deaf-dumb-and-blind oafs ... yet, nevertheless, CATS. So, their relations with us are carried-out with precisely the same set of rules of interaction as they enforce with other cats. The conclusion was that it was only the cat's acceptance that we humans ARE also cats is the only thing that allows them to socialize with us.

Best regards,

Bob

I wonder if cats view us somewhat like ancestral Homo sapiens may have viewed our neighbors the Neanderthals? Obnoxious, but better as friends than enemies? Or, could it have been more likely as Machiavelli posited, "Keep your friends close, but your enemies (competitors ?) closer." *hee*hee*

Apparently you have never been on the wrong side of a cat's scorn.