There has been considerable historical debate about the nature of language. Most argue that thought and language are related criteria. However, it is not always clear how these criteria relate to the controversy over the linguistic capacity of animals and even more specifically to the Sapir-Whorf human language debate. From the human context we know that language is an ability that allows us to communicate our thoughts to others and in doing so obtain desired "biological, cognitive, and social/behavioral feedback" (McDonnell, 1977). The question of whether language is an ability that humans are born with or whether it is an acquired ability is complex and not one that all researchers agree on. Nor do researchers agree on whether animals have the capacity for language. To resolve these controversies we must look to both 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 from culture to culture but influence thought. 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 you are born with. Innate or instinctive behavior is often associated with an organism's genetic propensity to behave or react in a certain way. Innate linguistic ability or our genetic composition, according to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, would serve to limit an individual's conceptual ability without words concepts could not be understood according to this hypothesis. There are numerous points that may serve to discredit this hypothesis. The interaction between genetic composition and behavior or reaction is interesting. Some researchers argue that basic linguistic organization, or grammar, is built into the human brain (McConnell, 1977). These researchers believe that humans... at the center of the paper... are, indisputably, an extremely important part of language development and refinement. Obviously it is social interaction that determines the particulars of our language. It could therefore be argued that because the animals have not been presented with the appropriate stimuli that would require the refinement of their language, they have not refined language skills to the extent that is evidenced in humans. This does not mean that animals are incapable of language, or that they lack understanding of concepts due to their lack of words for those concepts, only that they currently lack the degree of sophistication observable in human language. Bibliography Grunwald, Lisa; Jeff Goldberg and Stacey Be. (1993, July 1). Discovery: The Amazing Minds of Infants. Vita.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 Journal of Psychology.