ReviewBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2026
Utterance evolution: the road to generative, combinatorial communicators.
Review in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Language has long been considered uniquely complex in the animal kingdom; however, animal research over the last decade has begun to challenge some long-standing premises about exactly which language capacities are uniquely human. The task of resolving why and how complex communication systems evolve, particularly human language, has manifested in a rich multi-disciplinary field, which relies on accurate empirical and comparative assessment of natural animal communicative capacities. For example, comparative models of relevant gene and brain functions will remain limited without cracking the animal communication code. To achieve this, empirical research needs an updated, quantitative and comparative framework that distinguishes combinatorial systems from simpler ones. We offer such a framework by integrating new work, demonstrating diverse meaning-bearing combinatorial signalling strategies in natural animal communication, into cross-disciplinary theoretical frameworks. We detail four major mechanistic transitions which we argue offer both evolutionary and ontogenetic routes from non-combinatorial communicators, that mainly rely on single signal utterances, to generative combinatorial signal users, that mainly rely on combinatorial, meaning-based utterances. These transitions are measurable and predictable: (i) signal combination versatility; (ii) signal combination learning and conventionalization; (iii) message expansion through combinatorial mechanism diversity and versatility; and (iv) message expansion through syntax involving linear or hierarchical rules. We offer testable hypotheses for each transition and propose that species demonstrating combinatorial Transitions (i) and (ii) will be prime candidates for testing Transitions (iii) and (iv), where generativity can emerge. We also point to future methodological tools to assess the meaning of signals and their combinations in signal utterance-to-context mapping analyses. Critically, we argue that simply having research on different species is not enough - testing evolution of language theories requires comparative research across species and ontogeny, based on relatable, quantitative measures. To date, only humans demonstrate meaning-based, generative communication. However, recent discoveries, particularly of combinatorial versatility in chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan paniscus) vocal sequences, open the possibility of generative communication in other species. Whether such traits are human-unique can no longer be assumed but must be tested.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.