Language as a Biocultural System: Hebrew University Researchers Offer a Unified Framework for Its Evolution

Researchers at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem have proposed a unified, biocultural framework for understanding how human language emerged. Drawing on evidence from linguistics, psychology, genetics, neuroscience and animal communication, the team argues that language did not spring from a single evolutionary breakthrough but from the gradual convergence of multiple biological capacities and cultural processes.

The study, published in the journal Science, synthesizes decades of research to show that no single trait—genetic mutation, brain region, or social habit—can fully explain the complexity of human language. Instead, language arose where several abilities intersected: the capacity to invent and refine vocalizations, heightened pattern recognition, strong social motivation to share information, and reliable cultural transmission across generations.

“Our goal was not to promote a single new explanation of how language evolved,” said lead author Inbal Arnon of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. “We aimed to demonstrate how multifaceted, biocultural perspectives, together with emerging data sources, can illuminate longstanding questions.”

The authors emphasize that disciplinary isolation has limited progress: linguistics, neuroscience, genetics and animal-behavior studies have often pursued separate lines of evidence. By integrating findings across fields, the framework clarifies which capacities are unique to humans, which are shared with other species, and which may have evolved convergently in different lineages.

Key domains illuminated by the framework

Vocal learning: Humans rely on vocal learning to acquire speech, but our closest primate relatives show limited abilities in this domain. The paper points out that other taxa—such as songbirds, bats and whales—display strong vocal-learning skills. Cross-species comparisons help identify the neural and social ingredients that support learned vocal communication.

Gradual emergence of linguistic structure: The researchers highlight evidence that grammar and compositional structure emerge slowly through repeated use and cultural transmission. This pattern is visible in naturally arising sign languages, as well as in laboratory simulations that model how structure accumulates across generations of learners.

Social foundations of communication: The authors note that humans show a pronounced inclination to share information, coordinate attention and teach one another—motivations that are comparatively rare in other animals. These social drives create the cultural environment in which linguistic systems can grow and stabilize.

Practical implications

The biocultural framework has several applied consequences. In early childhood interventions, it suggests clinicians should consider distinct underlying components—vocal learning, pattern detection, social motivation—when assessing language difficulties, allowing more targeted therapies. For artificial intelligence, the authors argue that richer, more natural communication may emerge if models learn in interactive, culturally structured contexts rather than from static datasets alone. Finally, for clinical research, parsing language into interacting components may improve diagnosis and treatment for conditions such as autism, developmental language disorder and aphasia by revealing which specific subsystems are affected.

By reframing language as a product of intersecting biological and cultural forces, the paper encourages cross-disciplinary collaboration and points toward new empirical tests that span species, developmental stages and experimental paradigms.

Lead authors and affiliations: Inbal Arnon (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) and Simon Fisher (Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics and Radboud University) are among the co-authors who contributed to the integrative perspective presented in the study.