Bonobos combine their calls in a complex way that forms distinct phrases, a sign that this type of syntax is more evolutionarily ancient than previously thought.

Human language, often described as the , is made up of many different building blocks. One core block is syntax, where meaningful units are combined into longer sequences, like words into sentences. This is made possible through compositionality, where the meaning of the whole is derived from the meaning of the parts.

Compositionality in itself isn’t unique to humans. For example, to warn others of snakes. But, so far, only “trivial compositionality” has been identified in non-human animals, whereby each unit adds independently to the meaning of the whole. For example, the phrase “blonde dancer” has two independent units: a blonde person who is also a dancer. Humans were thought to be unique in also having “non-trivial compositionality”, where the words in a combination means something different to what they mean individually. For example, the phrase “bad dancer” doesn’t mean a bad person who also dances.

The issue was that biologists didn’t have the tools to assign a clear meaning to animal vocalisations, says at the University of Zurich in Switzerland, so they couldn’t be certain if a combination was trivial or non-trivial.

Berthet and her colleagues spent years learning and tweaking methods from linguistics to try to find unambiguous evidence of non-trivial compositionality in our closest living relatives. This first involved spending five months following 30 adult bonobos in the Kokolopori Bonobo Reserve in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, recording almost 1000 instances when a bonobo called out. Of these utterances, roughly half were combinations where at least two different call types were paired together in quick succession.

In a new step, the researchers noted everything that was happening at the time of the call and in the minutes after. They recorded over 300 of these observations, including what the caller was doing at the time, what was happening in the environment and the behaviour of the caller and audience after the vocalisation.

Free newsletter

Sign up to The Earth Edition

Sign up to newsletter

To reveal the meaning of each call, they used a technique from linguistics to create a cloud of utterance types, placing vocalisations that occurred in similar circumstances closer together. “We kind of established this dictionary,” says Berthlet. “We have one vocalisation and one meaning.”

Once they had this semantic cloud, they could see whether the individual calls in a combination had distinct meanings, and found that the combinations were close to the units that they were made of, which would suggest compositionality. Using this approach, they identified four compositional calls, of which three were clearly non-trivial, with their meanings not directly overlapping with their constituent parts. For example, “high-hoot + low-hoot” combines the calls that seem to mean “pay attention to me” and “I am excited” to say “pay attention to me because I am in distress”, which bonobos often used to call for support when another individual was intimidating them.

Almost all of the bonobos’ chatter was about coordinating the group, says Berthlet. Team member at Harvard University thinks this is because bonobos have a fission-fusion group dynamic, where smaller breakaway groups can do their own thing.

“It’s the first time in any animal species that there is an unambiguous evidence for non-trivial syntax, non-trivial compositionality, and so that changes the game,” says at the University of Rennes in France. “It’s revolutionary. It’s the cornerstone for the next decade of comparative linguistics, basically, and evolutionary linguistics.”

This finding doesn’t mean that bonobos have language, though, because language is the human communication system, says Berthet. “But we’re showing that they have a very complex communication system that shares parallels with human language.”

Now we have evidence that both chimps and bonobos have syntax, it is inevitable that this capacity for compositionality was inherited from our last common ancestor, says Leroux. “They just showed, unambiguously, that this core building block is evolutionary ancient and at least 7 million years old, and maybe even older.”

Bonobos are quick to help a person who doesn’t know what they know, a sign that they can deduce the mental states of others.

The capacity to think about what others are thinking, known as , is an essential skill that allows humans to navigate their social worlds. It enables us to recognise that someone may hold different beliefs or perspectives to our own, underpinning our ability to understand and help others appropriately.

The question of whether our closest living relatives also have theory of mind has been hotly debated for decades. Despite some , non-human great apes seem to have some aspects of this capacity, suggesting it is more evolutionarily ancient than once thought. For example, wild chimpanzees that see a nearby snake, albeit a fake one, seem to call out to they know haven’t already seen it.

But we have been missing clear evidence from controlled settings that primates can track a perspective that differs from their own and then act upon it, says at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland.

To investigate this, Townrow and , also at Johns Hopkins University, tested if three male bonobos at the Ape Initiative research centre in Iowa could identify ignorance in someone they were trying to cooperate with, and then gesture to them to help solve the task.

On a table between the bonobo and an experimenter were three upturned plastic cups. A second researcher placed a barrier between the experimenter and the cups, then hid a treat, like a juicy grape, under one of them.

Free newsletter

Sign up to The Earth Edition

Sign up to newsletter

In one version of the experiment, the “knowledge condition”, a window in the barrier allowed the experimenter to watch where the treat was placed. In the “ignorance condition”, their view was completely blocked. If the experimenter found the food, they would give it to the bonobo, providing a motivation for the apes to share what they knew.

Townrow and Krupenye looked at whether the ape pointed at the cup, and how quickly they pointed, after the barrier had been removed over 24 trials for each condition.

They found that, on average, the bonobos took 1.5 seconds less time to point and pointed in approximately 20 per cent more trials in the ignorance condition. “This shows that they can actually take action when they realise that somebody has a different perspective from their own,” says Krupenye. It appears that bonobos understand features of what others are thinking that researchers have historically assumed they didn’t comprehend, he adds.

This simple yet powerful research gives experimental support to existing findings from wild apes, says at Durham University, UK. However, she warns that the findings may not apply to all bonobos because the study animals were raised in human-oriented environments. But that doesn’t detract from the results demonstrating that a capacity is there, she adds.

Indeed, finding this capacity in these three bonobos indicates that the potential exists within their biology and, very likely then, the biology of our common ancestor as well, says Krupenye.

“It suggests that our ancient human relatives likely also had these abilities and could use them to bolster cooperation and coordination with one another,” says at the University of California, Berkeley. “By understanding when someone may be ignorant, especially about evolutionarily critical information like the location of food, our ancestors could have used these capacities to communicate and coordinate more effectively with their social partners.”