Gotcha. Thanks. I'm going with yes on
Are we unique, a complete difference of quality . Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that your last sentence in the post above could be taken to mean that if we humans have developed pattern-making functionality as a result of language use, then at least some animals ought to have been able to do that also. But they haven't. Even all the work with sign language in lower primates has not given them the fluidity and the nuance capability that we have.
Here's one reason I voted for our uniqueness:
...the neocortex is assumed to be the superior ("neomammalian") part of the brain, which makes up the majority of the cerebral hemispheres. Species which are considered to be highly intelligent, such as humans and dolphins, tend to have large amounts of neocortex. This structure is assumed to be responsible for higher cognitive functions and is associated with greatest behavioral complexity. This was from a link to a discussion of intelligence at this neat website:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/Home1.htmlI think it's neat because it's easy for those of us nearer the ignorant end of the biology-knowlege spectrum to find things.
The link also offers this interesting comment, mav, which I think speaks more to what you were saying--or to the discussion you were trying to engender?--although it does not refer to language:
Often we define intelligence with respect to human qualities. Thus, as we tend to consider ourselves as the most intelligent species, we compare other species to ourselves. Yet, is this really possible? One scientist suggests that humans tend to ignore any intelligence that is somewhat different than our own: "We willingly accept the idea of intelligence in a lifeform only if the intelligence displayed is on the same evolutionary wavelength as our own. Technology automicatically indicates intelligence. An absence of technology translates into an absence of intelligence." 
