There has been considerable historical debate about the nature of language. Most argue that thought and language are two interdependent criteria. However, it is not always clear how these criteria relate to the controversy over whether animals have linguistic abilities and specifically to the debate over Sapir-Whorf thinking about human language. From a human perspective, we know that language is a skill that allows us to communicate our thoughts to others and, in doing so, obtain the desired “biological, cognitive, and social/behavioral feedback” (McDonnell, 1977). . Whether language is a skill that human beings are born with or whether it is a skill that is learned is a complex question and one on which not all researchers agree. Researchers also disagree on whether animals have the capacity for language. To resolve these controversies, we must turn to human and animal research. The theory of linguistic relativity known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was developed by Benjamin Lee Whorf (linguist and anthropologist) and Edward Sapir. The theory holds that language is a finite set of lexical and grammatical categories that group experiences into usable classes that vary across cultures but influence thinking. The theory holds that a concept cannot be understood without an appropriate word for that concept. To explore this theory and the animal language controversy, we must first accept that both animals and humans have the ability to speak. The next task would then be to determine whether this ability is innate or acquired. An innate characteristic is an instinctive behavior and most often one that one is born with. Innate or instinctive behavior is often associated with an organism's genetic propensity to behave or respond in a certain way. The innate capacity for language or our genetic makeup, according to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, would serve to limit an individual's conceptual capacity without words. the concepts could not be understood according to this hypothesis. There are many points that can be used to discredit this hypothesis. The interaction between genetic makeup and behavior or response is interesting. Some researchers argue that basic linguistic organization, or grammar, is built into the human brain (McConnell, 1977). These researchers believe that humans... middle of article... constitute, without doubt, an extremely important part of linguistic development and refinement. Obviously, it is social interaction that determines the particularities of our language. It could therefore be argued that because the animals did not receive the appropriate stimulus that would necessitate the refinement of their language, they did not refine their language skills to the same degree as that observed in humans. This does not mean that animals are incapable of language, or that they do not understand concepts due to their lack of words for those concepts, but simply that they do not currently have the degree of refinement observable in language. human.BibliographyGrunwald, Lisa; Jeff Goldberg and Stacey Be. (1993, July 1). Discovery: The astonishing minds of infants. Life.Huba, ME; and S. Ramisetty-Mikler. (1995, September 1). “The Language Skills and Concepts of Early and Non-Early Readers.” Journal of Genetic Psychology. McConnell, James V. (1977). Understanding Human Behavior: “An Introduction to Psychology.” » Holt, Rinehart and Winston. New York. Murray, Linda A. (1996, February 1). Social interaction and “development of language and cognition”. British newspaper.