The article discusses the faculty of language, focusing on whether it is uniquely human or shared with other animals. It presents two key papers: one by Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch, and another by Pinker and Jackendoff. The first paper argues that the faculty of language (FL) is uniquely human, proposing that it consists of two components: the broad faculty of language (FLB) and the narrow faculty of language (FLN). FLN is considered the core component, involving a computational system called "resources" that enables the infinite combination of expressions from a finite set of elements. The authors argue that FLN is uniquely human, while FLB shares components with other species. They suggest that the evolution of FLN is a recent computational innovation, enabling the connection between sensory-motor and conceptual-intentional systems. The second paper critiques the first, arguing that the focus on "resources" as the sole uniquely human aspect is flawed. It points out that other aspects of language, such as phonology, morphology, and syntax, are also important and not ignored. The critics argue that the theory is inconsistent with human anatomy and neural control of the vocal tract, and that the concept of "resources" is not the only unique aspect of language. They also challenge the idea that language is solely an adaptation for communication, suggesting that language is a biological system with a unique role in the natural world. The discussion highlights the complexity of the language faculty, emphasizing the need for interdisciplinary research to understand its uniqueness and evolution. Both papers contribute to an ongoing debate about the nature of language, its evolutionary origins, and its distinction from other animal communication systems. The debate underscores the importance of empirical evidence and the need for a more comprehensive understanding of the cognitive and biological mechanisms underlying language.The article discusses the faculty of language, focusing on whether it is uniquely human or shared with other animals. It presents two key papers: one by Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch, and another by Pinker and Jackendoff. The first paper argues that the faculty of language (FL) is uniquely human, proposing that it consists of two components: the broad faculty of language (FLB) and the narrow faculty of language (FLN). FLN is considered the core component, involving a computational system called "resources" that enables the infinite combination of expressions from a finite set of elements. The authors argue that FLN is uniquely human, while FLB shares components with other species. They suggest that the evolution of FLN is a recent computational innovation, enabling the connection between sensory-motor and conceptual-intentional systems. The second paper critiques the first, arguing that the focus on "resources" as the sole uniquely human aspect is flawed. It points out that other aspects of language, such as phonology, morphology, and syntax, are also important and not ignored. The critics argue that the theory is inconsistent with human anatomy and neural control of the vocal tract, and that the concept of "resources" is not the only unique aspect of language. They also challenge the idea that language is solely an adaptation for communication, suggesting that language is a biological system with a unique role in the natural world. The discussion highlights the complexity of the language faculty, emphasizing the need for interdisciplinary research to understand its uniqueness and evolution. Both papers contribute to an ongoing debate about the nature of language, its evolutionary origins, and its distinction from other animal communication systems. The debate underscores the importance of empirical evidence and the need for a more comprehensive understanding of the cognitive and biological mechanisms underlying language.