Obviously here, animal means non-human animal. If, as Chompsky proposes, humans have evolved a unique structure for language processing that no other animal has, then it is irrelevant how closely or distantly related any other animal is to us. Relation would only be important if Chomsky is correct about the structure but wrong about it evolving in humans rather than in the pre-human evolutionary line.
We may well have a special structure for language processing, but Chomsky's claim that it is unique may be wrong.
Convergent evolution is a thing in nature, some structures evolved independently multiple times. Humans and octopuses have very similar eyes, which emerged from different structures.
I wouldn't be surprised if corvids developed human-like intelligence traits independently.
Comments
Obviously here, animal means non-human animal. If, as Chompsky proposes, humans have evolved a unique structure for language processing that no other animal has, then it is irrelevant how closely or distantly related any other animal is to us. Relation would only be important if Chomsky is correct about the structure but wrong about it evolving in humans rather than in the pre-human evolutionary line.
We may well have a special structure for language processing, but Chomsky's claim that it is unique may be wrong.
Convergent evolution is a thing in nature, some structures evolved independently multiple times. Humans and octopuses have very similar eyes, which emerged from different structures.
I wouldn't be surprised if corvids developed human-like intelligence traits independently.