Argumentative Essay (with the rhetorical strategy of comparison-constrast)

Those who do research in ethology are sometimes accused of making the animals seem all too human-like . The ethologists smile and concur that it 's not the animals who seem human-like , it is humans who didn 't really evolve so far from animals as is commonly thought . One of the criteria that is often cited as proof of human superiority to animals is the fact that humans have a developed language , and animals do not . It is an frequently held opinion that animals do not go beyond the scope of communication , or , otherwise

said , of transmitting information vital to their survival , and that anything abstract is far beyond their limited capabilities . The ability to use language is also tied in vitally with being able to use tools and to develop technology . It is a mark of a certain level of thought that is considered to be what distinguishes humans from animals . Almost like the old saying that the monkey who picked up a stick (and , perhaps , used it to communicate its desires to other primates ) was the first human . But is it really so true that animals are incapable of speech and of using tools ? Is our speech really that much more sophisticated than theirs is ? Recent research often proves that animal language in various species is at very different stages of development : though the languages of some animals are only on the level of communicating geography , some animals - apes in particular - have even learned to use words and speak to humans almost on par with them , which quite seriously blurs the lines

The notion that animals can communicate is too basic and simple to observe for any skeptic to disprove , as communication can be defined as any behavior that influences another animal . The question which really remains is the scope of their communications . For a very long time there was a number of popular stereotypes on the existence of several key differences between human language and animal communications Communications are not supposed to be learned culturally - they are acquired by instinct they are responsive and not active - they cannot refer to matters removed in time and space and they are neither able to make generalizations nor to elaborate on words (or , better put morphemes ) passed down genetically . There is also a stereotype that human languages have a double structure - not only morphemes carry meaning , but phonemes , as well - while animal communications do not , but considering how animal communications does not consist only of noise , it is a more complex subject that should be addressed more seriously than has been done thus far . Chimpanzees , for instance , use gestures to signify spatial and temporal markers

Most of these notions have been disproved to one degree or another Some creatures , even such unlikely ones as prairie dogs , are able to elaborate on words , as was proven by Con Slobodchikoff , who spent over twenty years studying prairie dogs and their calls . He tested this by giving them stimuli which were previously unknown , but...