psy 120 ve

Many have argued that language is a uniquely human ability. So as the title says, what’s your opinion on the evidence for and against the idea that animals are capable of language? You may have noticed from the readings this week that I lean more on the side that animals don’t truly use language. Even the chimpanzees and gorillas that have learned sign language may not be really using it as a language or understanding that what they are doing is language.

I want not only your opinions but some evidence. Is there hard evidence of animals truly grasping the concept of language? Do a little research and present some findings. What case can be made for, or against, the notion that animals have the ability to acquire and use true language?

By the way, don’t get too hung up on the physical aspects of language production. A parrot mimicking words likely does not have a grasp of the language. But someone who is mute, although unable to produce spoken words, can still understand them. That person may also use sign language or writing to convey their own ideas. So, language does not require speech. Online courses really highlight this point. Even though I’ve never heard many of you speak, I know you have language abilities because you can write. Likewise, writing is not a required aspect of language. In fact, until fairly recently the majority of people could not read or write. Yet, they were still fluent in their spoken languages. There are also a number of cases where the spoken language differs a great deal from the written language, even some languages with no written form at all. 

After your initial post presenting your ideas and evidence, comment on what a few of your classmates presented on this topic. Do you agree wit their assessments? Did you find the evidence they cited credible?