What do you mean by the term "massively remote"?
For a scholar to make that claim, he or she would have to have studied the bulk of other languages. Since there are more than 70,000 species of vertebrates alone, none of whose language has been deciphered by humans, and we know that other types of animals e.g. honeybees rely on language to function, it is difficult to imagine any scholar qualified to make the claim.
Moreover, 99% of humans wouldn't even understand the statement, even after you'd explained what you mean by "generative" and "recursive". So I'm not sure what your statement is, other than yet another example of a human giving himself or herself a justification for the belief that humans are superior to animals, achieved through the mental gymnastic of a truism wrapped up in an academic paper.
For a commenter to make that claim, he or she would have to study the bulk of humanity and assess their ability to grasp the concepts.
Moreover, humans have no need whatsoever to understand what generative or recursive language is in order to master the use of language with those properties. This is simply the characteristics of their natural language instinct.
Now if you believe that somehow you have better knowledge about linguistics than everybody in the field, you might try to read what base they provide for their claims, and than maybe try disprove it. Without doing even basic research about the field, claims of astrophysicists can sound way more far fetched.
