  But is this inborn contribution to phonological learning language specific, that is, does it support the conclusion that (this  aspect of) language is innate? And to this question, the answer  appears to be ‘No.’ First, the ‘chunking’ of  continuously varying stimuli into discrete categories is a feature  not just of speech perception, but of human perception generally. For instance, it has been demonstrated in the perception of  non-linguistic sounds, like musical pitch, key and melody, and  meaningless chirps and bleats (Pastore and Layer 1990). It has also  been demonstrated in the processing of visual stimuli like faces  (Beale and Keil 1995), facial expressions (Etcoff and Magee 1992;  Kotsoni, de Haan and Johnson 2001); facial gender (Campanella,  Chrysochoos and Bruyer 2001); and familiar physical objects (Newell  and Bulthoff 2002). Secondly, it is known that other animals too  perceive categorically. For instance, crickets segment consepecific  songs in terms of frequency (Wyttenbach, May and Hoy 1996), swamp  sparrows ‘chunk’ notes of differing durations (Nelson and Marler 1989), and rhesus monkeys can recognize melodies when  transposed by one or two octaves, but not by 1.5 or 2.5 octaves,  indicating a grasp of musical key (Wright et al. 2000). Finally,  other species respond categorically to human speech! Chinchillas  (Kuhl and Miller 1975) and cotton-top tamarins (Ramus et al. 2000)  make similar phonological distinctions to those made by human  infants.