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.

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!