Chomsky & Gradualism When citing Chomsky we need to distiguish between what he called 'surface structure' which is parochial and contextual, and 'deep structure' which he considered to be a human universal. If he was correct, the latter seems to be linked with the development of specific brain areas, unique to humans, like Broca's and Wernicke's area. It is clear too that much of what we call 'language' is common to other species like, bodily gestures, but because human language consists of complex combinations of units, it can give rise to creative expression beyond the abilities of other species.
Now it may be that what we call 'thought' is highly dependent on the surface structure of human language (the Sapir Whorf hypothesis) including concepts like 'self', but on the other hand, cognitive deflationists (Behaviourists) would argue that there is nothing special about 'languaging' which amounts to no more than a complex behaviour which enhances social co-ordination.
Over and above such discussions of species comparison there is still the problem that such discussion is inevitably constrained by its very subject matter, 'language' itself.
That observation has implications for religions, which tend to put 'Man' and 'The Word' on a pedestal, and even for what we call 'philosophy', which might amount to no more than a form of 'social dancing'. Indeed, attempts by would be philosophers to escape to a linguistic vantage point has often given rise to the proliferation of neologisms.