Bonobos use a kind of syntax once thought to be unique to humans

It is funny how at least the press written about this sort of research seems to imply only humans have language and some new evidence might challenge that notion.

Really if you ever own a pet, probably any pet I bet, you find that communication in a way that is arguably a language is pretty low level stuff in the animal kingdom. And it makes sense as it is quite useful for a species to communicate things about the world. You turn your community into a meta organism: rather than continuous appendages and nerve endings you might have a meerkat a couple hundred yards observing for predators for you sharing their own senses on their own body with you through their long distance communication abilities in the form of their vocalizations or body language. Now you can solely be a meerkat and get all this information about the area without having to evolve into some lovecraftian horror with a set of eyes and ears every 100 yards.

Language is not just "communication" and not every communication is language. Bees and ants communicate information chemically, but they're not using a structured language. Dogs may growl to intimidate or yelp if they get hurt, and that surely communicates information, but whether they are using a structured language is a matter of research.

I don't think anyone denies that communication is not unique to humans. It is clearly not. But what is (apparently - as far as we know) unique to humans is language, meaning the capacity to combine concepts in an infinitely recursive manner to represent an infinity of concepts and ideas. On top of that, we also posses the ability to communicate (verbally, through sign, or more recently through writing) those combined concepts in such a way that other humans can then recreate that concept in their own mind.

There's evidence that language first evolved as a capacity for processing the outside world internally - your inner voice, if you will. The ability to synthesize any idea about things you can and can not see or even ever experience. The speaking and communicative part of it may have actually arisen secondarily, as evidenced by the fact that "language" does not have to be spoken - it can be expressed in many different mediums.

Communication and language are not one in the same. Language is a means of communication, but it also so much more than that.

I found the book Why Only Us by Chomsky and Berwick to a be a great introduction to the topic.

This is a lively debate in linguistics, so while it’s not objectively true (i.e. it depends on how you want to use the word), it’s much more justified than you’re implying here. As others have said, it’s about distinguishing the kind of communication humans do from simple animal communication — a common hook for this topic is the fun fact that “chimpanzees can learn sign language, but they’ve never asked a question”. It’s somewhat analogous to how animal communication can be seen as categorically distinct from simple signaling done by flowers, scent markers, etc.

I’m in a bit of a rush but suffice to say that Chomsky is probably the best champion of the “language is compositional” view, or as he puts it, “language is the generation of an infinite range of meaningful outputs from a finite range of inputs”. There’s dozens of great, layperson-friendly talks of his on this topic on YouTube, for anyone who’s curious!

The study of human language is linguistics. A related study is “human language” compared to some other “[animal] language”. Chomsky has argued that “human language” is categorically different from some, say, other primate “language”.

As soon as you have a scientific pursuit you need to define it. Somehow. And it isn’t gonna be close to some intuitive notion of “language”. Because that’s just, I dunno, any kind of semiotics to us average persons. (Is your pet jumping up on your leg and wagging its tail communicating meaning? Yeah)

So of course there’s gonna be some definition of language, and maybe even a scientific consensus one way or the other with regards to sundries questions, like if other animals have “language” similar to “human language”. And it’s gonna have very little overlap with people vibing with their pets.

Honey bees do the waggle dance though:

https://animalwise.org/2011/08/25/the-honeybee-waggle-dance-...

There has been a LOT of research on this. A popsci book I've read on the topic is Adam's Tongue. It details the features that separate what's called Animal Communication Systems from human language.

https://www.amazon.com/Adams-Tongue-Humans-Made-Language-ebo...

Obviously pets are quite capable of making their wishes known to us, especially if we facilitate it. It's unclear whether they're actually achieving language. I'm tempted to think they are, especially when I see dogs using push buttons to talk to us on Instagram. But I can't be totally sure.

And even if they were, it would be language we taught them. Not independently developed in the wild.

Yeah, but that's just another example of communication-without-language

You don’t think a meerkat when introduced something novel into their environment relevant to them, would ‘t come up with a concept for representing that idea to their own species? I think they would, absolutely. What we do as humans isn’t unique despite how we insist on thinking that about ourselves. It is why we can study neuroscience using fruit flies.

I had a dog that you could ask to do complex tasks and he'd happily go about and do it.

"Go around the corner and get your toy out of the laundry basket".

He'd go around the corner and get his toy out of the laundry basket.

You could also ask him to get dressed (he'd get his rain coat and do his best to put it on) and you could ask him to get other dogs ready to go (he'd grab their leashes and drape the leash around the other dog's necks).

> Not independently developed in the wild.

I'm pretty sure the crows who live next to my house have a complex language. Different squawks for different circumstances. I can tell when one is addressing me vs when the male is calling to his partner.

> And even if they were, it would be language we taught them.

Humans smarted their way into a surplus of food, which allowed us to do lots of other cool things like have time for art, language, and spending years and years raising our young.

That doesn't mean we are inherently superior, it just means an excess of food allows plenty of time to do non-food related things.

> the capacity to combine concepts in an infinitely recursive manner to represent an infinity of concepts and ideas. On top of that, we also posses the ability to communicate (verbally, through sign, or more recently through writing) those combined concepts in such a way that other humans can then recreate that concept in their own mind.

We don't know that animals can't. We know that some animals can convey detailed information very extensively, but we don't know the structure of the communication well enough as to claim that it isn't via something equivalent to human language. Crows, for instance, can inform other crows about specific people, or characteristics of people, without those things being present. That would generally require descriptive communication to do, which inherently implies an abstraction. Where's the line between that and human language?

I was going to mention this as well. Further, I remember reading dolphins being capable of similar feats. I also remember hearing about regional animals dialects.

Any animals capable of providing accurate descriptions of things to one another would have to be using something like language. It would require both some kind symbolic thought and structure of those symbols whether they be auditory, visual, or a combination of the two.

If people want to use “language” for humans alone, okay… but it is quite clear that some animals use a communication system nearly as complex if not equivalent.

But isn’t what whatever we call language just a few more levels of recursion in fundamentally the same continuous process?

It's been awhile since I read the book, but I do seem to remember them discussing crows specifically.