Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-2r2wp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-15T15:09:06.951Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language models do not yet achieve explanatory adequacy because language is more than incremental prediction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2026

Jennifer Culbertson Open the ORCID record for Jennifer Culbertson [Opens in a new window] ,
Simon Kirby  and
Kenny Smith Open the ORCID record for Kenny Smith [Opens in a new window]
Jennifer Culbertson*
Affiliation:
The University of Edinburgh, UK jennifer.culbertson@ed.ac.uk simon.kirby@ed.ac.uk kenny.smith@ed.ac.uk
Simon Kirby
Affiliation:
The University of Edinburgh, UK jennifer.culbertson@ed.ac.uk simon.kirby@ed.ac.uk kenny.smith@ed.ac.uk
Kenny Smith
Affiliation:
The University of Edinburgh, UK jennifer.culbertson@ed.ac.uk simon.kirby@ed.ac.uk kenny.smith@ed.ac.uk
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this commentary, we challenge the idea that Language Models (LMs) provide explanatorily adequate models of human language. Findings from language evolution show that both humans and LMs fail to produce human-like language via inductive biases alone; the communicative function of language is crucial. More generally, both experimental and computational work underscore the fact that language is more than just incremental prediction.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 49 , 2026 , e205
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arnon, I., Carmel, L., Claidière, N., Fitch, W. T., Goldin-Meadow, S., Kirby, S., Okanoya, K., Raviv, L., Wolters, L., & Fisher, S. E. (2025). What enables human language? A biocultural framework. Science, 390(6775), eadq8303.10.1126/science.adq8303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaabouni, R., Kharitonov, E., Dupoux, E., & Baroni, M. (2021). Communicating artificial neural networks develop efficient color-naming systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(12), e2016569118.10.1073/pnas.2016569118CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Culbertson, J. (2023). Artificial language learning. Oxford Handbook of Experimental Syntax, Chapter 8, 271–300.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198797722.013.9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culbertson, J., Schouwstra, M., & Kirby, S. (2020). From the world to word order: Deriving biases in noun phrase order from statistical properties of the world. Language, 96(3), 696–717.10.1353/lan.2020.0045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, K. R. (2011). Language or protolanguage? A review of the ape language literature. In Gibson, K. R., & Tallerman, M. (Eds.), The oxford handbook of language evolution (pp. 46–58). Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199541119.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havrylov, S., & Titov, I. (2017). Emergence of language with multi-agent games: Learning to communicate with sequences of symbols. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS’17). Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA, 2146–2156.Google Scholar
Kirby, S., Cornish, H., & Smith, K. (2008). Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: An experimental approach to the origins of structure in human language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 10681–10686.10.1073/pnas.0707835105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, S., Tamariz, M., Cornish, H., & Smith, K. (2015). Compression and communication in the cultural evolution of linguistic structure. Cognition, 141, 87–102.10.1016/j.cognition.2015.03.016CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lazaridou, A., Peysakhovich, A., & Baroni, M. (2017). Multi-agent cooperation and the emergence of (natural) language. In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, France.Google Scholar
Motamedi, Y., Schouwstra, M., Smith, K., Culbertson, J., & Kirby, S. (2019). Evolving artificial sign languages in the lab: From improvised gesture to systematic sign. Cognition, 192, 103964.10.1016/j.cognition.2019.05.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petkov, C. I., & ten Cate, C. (2020). Structured sequence learning: Animal abilities, cognitive operations, and language evolution. Topics in Cognitive Science, 12, 828–842 10.1111/tops.12444CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shumailov, I., Shumaylov, Z., Zhao, Y., Papernot, N., Anderson, R., & Gal, Y. (2024) AI models collapse when trained on recursively generated data. Nature, 631, 755–759.10.1038/s41586-024-07566-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, K. (2022). How language learning and language use create linguistic structure. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31, 177–186.10.1177/09637214211068127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, K., & Culbertson, J. (2025). Communicative pressures shape language during communication (not learning): Evidence from case-marking in artificial languages. Cognition, 263, 106164.10.1016/j.cognition.2025.106164CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed