What do you think?

  • rowinxavier@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I meant to say language in the linguistics sense, a series of abstract items which can be arranged to convey arbitrary meaning. For example, a dog barking can be a threat display, a warning, playful, sad, afraid, and so on. But can you use barking to create grammar? With grammar you could have labels for items in the world and use various barks to refer to them, make requests, ask questions, and so on. Some types of animals have warning calls that are specific to types of predators, for example an eagle call or a leopard call. Leopards require different responses than eagles so the distinction is very useful and helps others to respond. This is not quite language but is definitely a step in the right direction.

    So yes, you are correct, lots of animals can communicate things to each other, but it is not the same as language like what humans have. Could we find an animal that does have language? Or something very close? Sure, but we haven’t shown that yet. Maybe we should focus on giving other animals a chance to develop before we wipe them all out.

    • Noxy@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      but it is not the same as language like what humans have

      And it doesn’t have to be. In fact this sort of thinking can limit how we learn about other animals.

      Dogs don’t pass the mirror test for self awareness like some corvids and a few other animals do. But dogs don’t experience each other primarily through vision, scent is much more their main sense. So is that even a valid test for canid self awareness?