We argue that female Diana monkeys ( Cercopithecus diana ) can form complex calls by combining an A call with other elementary calls. We reject (on both empirical and conceptual grounds) a combination-free analysis based on accidental homophony, and we consider two main analyses: the Acoustic Theory takes the combination to be merely acoustic, whereas the Affixal Theory takes A to function as a suffix. We provide limited arguments for the Affixal Theory, and through comparison with another closely related monkey species, we date these combinations to at least 6 million years ago.

In seminal work, Potts (2005) claimed that the behavior of “supplements”—appositive relative clauses (ARCs) and nominals—offers a powerful argument in favor of a multidimensional semantics, one in which certain expressions fail to interact scopally with various operators because their meaning is located in a new semantic dimension. Focusing on ARCs, with data from English, French, and German ( Poschmann 2018 ), I explore an alternative to Potts’s bidimensional account in which (a) appositives may be syntactically attached with matrix scope, despite their appearance in embedded positions, as in McCawley 1981 ; (b) contra McCawley, they may also be syntactically attached within the scope of other operators, in which case they semantically interact with them; (c) they are semantically conjoined with the rest of the sentence, but (d) they give rise to nontrivial projection facts when they do not have matrix scope. In effect, the proposed analysis accounts for most of the complexity of these data by positing a more articulated syntax and pragmatics, while eschewing the use of a new dimension of meaning.