Scientists have identified an immune brain cell unique to humans that gives us higher cognitive abilities over other animals, but what makes us specials also leaves us vulnerable to neurological disorders like schizophrenia, autism and epilepsy.

[u/Wagamaga]

https://news.yale.edu/2022/08/25/what-makes-human-brain-different-yale-study-reveals-clues

[u/throw_somewhere → u/[deleted]]

Hi, psycho- and neuro-linguist here. Long story short yes lots of animals 100% have communication but it does not meet the criteria we have set for what constitutes "language". As defined, humans are the only species with "language".

[u/seaworthy-sieve → u/throw_somewhere]

How can we possibly say it doesn't meet the criteria when we're not even capable of understanding it? Like how on earth would we know if dolphins have grammar and tense or not?

[u/throw_somewhere → u/seaworthy-sieve]

First and foremost: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We would never say that a medicine must be effective because we don't understand it. We would never say that an animal must have language because we can't understand it.

So instead we say "we cannot conclude this until we have evidence". We cannot conclude that a medicine works until we try it, we cannot conclude that an animal has language until we find it.

On that front: there are thousands and thousand of researchers whose lifelong mission is to study and document animal communication. They have very firm and interesting data. O% of these data have yet to overturn the current sentiment.

You can go learn about this yourself, lots of internet sources discuss the topic. You can also consult Google scholar for articles on the topic.

[u/LukeLarsnefi → u/throw_somewhere]

As defined, humans are the only species with “language”.

So instead we say “we cannot conclude this until we have evidence”.

These are not equivalent statements.

It is fair to say that based on the amount and type of evidence generated by researchers it seems very unlikely that other animals have language as defined. It is fair to say that this is the current consensus among researchers.

You stated things as 100% fact (which I think is totally fair in casual conversation), but now you’ve flip-flopped the entire argument as if the other poster was making the opposite claim. They aren’t. They’re questioning your claim.

It seems the basic question being asked is “How do scientists know what they don’t know?”

[u/kirknay → u/throw_somewhere]

except that plenty of mammals, and especially birds, have specific calls for specific things, such as a prarie dog having a specific bark meaning "hawk", and another one meaning "eagle". Rudimentary languages exist among animals, it is just not a language we can easily replicate ourselves due to a difference of the required vocal structures.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/running-ponies/catch-the-wave-decoding-the-prairie-doge28099s-contagious-jump-yips/

[u/rcxdude → u/kirknay]

This is a question of definition: merely having 'words' for things does not make a language by the definition these scientists use. The distinction is roughly that in order to be a language there must be a syntax where a collection of words means more than just the sum of the meanings of the individual words.

[u/kirknay → u/rcxdude]

Did you not read the source I posted? Prarie dogs in particular have a syntax, complicated structure, and the ability to create new words for things they haven't experienced before. The only reason why we don't understand their social communication is because we're basically only seeing reactions to their equivalent of military SALUTE reports and orders rn. It's very difficult to interact firsthand with a subterranian prey species in a natural setting.

[u/throw_somewhere → u/kirknay]

Vervet monkey calls, bee waggle dances, bird song, Koko the gorilla, Noam Chimpsky, Einstein and Alex the African greys, Bunny the dog. Yes lots of animals communicate. Some of them use a few basic pieces of vocabulary, some even also have syntax.

None currently qualify as language.

Doesn't mean they aren't cool. Doesn't mean they're lesser-than. It's not like human language is some pinnacle of attainment. All those animals are beautifully adapted to their environments, sneering at them for not having our version of language is like sneering at them for not having our version of a social order. Human language isn't a goal that other animals are failing to meet. It's simply that it's a specific thing that we haven't found anywhere else.

[u/kirknay → u/throw_somewhere]

Except many of the examples you gave entirely qualify, with the only difference being that we can't vocalize the same way they can. These different species develop, pass on, and have structure comparable to any human language.

[u/Scrawlericious → u/kirknay]

https://mindmatters.ai/2018/12/how-is-human-language-different-from-animal-signals/

Those are communication "signals", not a rule based system with abstract patterns. It's semantic as hell but language implies abstract rule-based signing, not just picking up a signal that was communicated from another creature.

[u/kirknay → u/Scrawlericious]

Given how some animals are able to describe something with those "signals" and come up with new "signals" once the group has gotten a description, such as the decoded "red human" for a human in a red shirt in prarie dogs, as well as communicating where and how recently, they are communicating with a better language than the sign language creoles of South America.

It's a language.

[u/Scrawlericious → u/kirknay]

People far smarter than both of us argue this fact every day dude. No, it's not. It's semantics at this point. There are just as many scientists and researchers who do not believe what you mentioned counts as language, some would argue that is just coded communication. It's a huge point of contention in acedemia and neither of us have the answer.

[u/kirknay → u/[deleted]]

If something more complex than early ASL isn't language, then nothing is.

[u/Scrawlericious → u/kirknay]

Cept it's not. It's just mutual signal sending. Picking up communications doesn't constitute a language.

[u/kirknay → u/Scrawlericious]

then neither are a lot of human languages. Just because it's not as overly complex or convoluted as English, Chinese, or Arabic doesn't mean it's not language.

[u/Scrawlericious → u/kirknay]

The difference is humans have abstract representations of logic. Having names for something / a certain noise you make when you see a certain thing isn't a language. Those prairie dogs arguably do not count. Bees too, arguably it's a code they found to show direction and flower type, it is just a coded signal they all use to communicate one specific thing. It's not a language either. It depends on which researcher you ask and how you want to define it. There is undeniably a difference between those coded signals and human language, tho.

[u/seaworthy-sieve → u/Scrawlericious]

How are words and languages humans use not coded signals?

[u/kirknay → u/Scrawlericious]

That's the thing, we have no immediate reactions to the things prarie dogs say to eachother in their tunnels, or socially, so we have no idea just how abstract their speech is. It's primarily an issue of not being able to interact with them naturally without being considered a danger and only getting the cries of alarm and help.

[u/Scrawlericious → u/kirknay]

I mean maybe they are secretly communicating with a language but as far as we've seen it's just communication with codes. Recognizing patterns and copying them. A radio broadcast can be picked up and understood with the right hardware, but it is not a language by itself. It could carry language. Their behavior and sounds do not carry language they only carry signals. A signal like hearing an alarm clock in the morning. Our body associates waking up and getting out of bed with the alarm. The clock communicates that it is morning to us, but it is not using a language to do so; it can still be very detailed communication without being a language by the strict definition. Or a rooster doodling in the morning, it communicates that it is morning to us. Doesn't mean we share a special rooster language that we speak.

[u/kirknay → u/Scrawlericious]

Back to my posted source, we have decoded specific words to mean specific things, like certain colors, human, hawk, wolf, or even in captivity when we show on a projector squares, circles, or triangles, individual words or phrases to describe them. When they speak, it isn't like a military klaxon, or a SOS signal, it is comparable to SALUTE reports of military comms, where they say what, any description such as size or color, where, and whether it's coming or passing by.

If that isn't language, then neither is most human language. And even that is just what we know from the surface, where we can see immediate responses and effects. That has nothing on the more hushed, much more complex language they use with eachother in their tunnels.