The two chapters presented in this journal article present an overall discussion of the cultural root of language. However, each one states a slightly different theory. While both agree that the psychological study of language is vital to understanding language itself, they differ on what aspect of language is more important. Furthermore, both use the example of chimpanzees, drawing parallels between them and human children; yet, they come to different conclusions as to how capable chimpanzees are of learning language.
In "The Cultural Roots of Language," written by Michael Tomasello, the main oint presented is the fact that social-cultural processes are needed to make the use of language possible. To emphasize his point, he draws parallels between human children and chimpanzees, reaching the following conclusion: although there have been cases where chimpanzees can achieve a level of linguistic understanding similar to that of humans, for the most part, they are not truly capabe of reaching the same level of understanding that humans can.Unlike human children, chimpanzees cannot understand their behavior in relation to the behavior of others they interact with. In "Biobehavior Roots of Language--Words, Apes, and a Child," written by Duane M. & Sue Savage-Rumbaugh, two points are presented. First, they state in their article that comprehension of symbols involved in language are the very essence of language.
They go on further, pointing out that chimpanzees and bonobos are actually quite capable of learning language, and can do so to an impressive level.Through extensive research, the Rumbaughs came to the following conclusion: should chimpanzees and bonobos be raised in a more human-like environment, in which linguistic symbols are part of every day outines, then the chimpanzees and bonobos would learn language in the same manner as human children do -- through ritualization and interaction with others. This same viewpoint is evident in the Tomasello article.The most clear common thread between the two articles, however, is the fact that both feel that various life forms have evolved by adopting and adapting the attributes that are best suited to their longevity as species. The best example of this would be human beings, who are the highest form of species on Earth.
We as humans have managed to tilize the primitive skills of our evolutionary ancestors, improving on them until they are extremely superior to what they once were. That is what ultimately makes us so unique.Reading these two articles was quite interesting to do. Despite the overly technical jargon, both articles were well written and extremely detailed. The detailed information concerning the experiments with the chimpanzees and humans were quite beneficial to understanding and emphasizing the points the articles were making.
The one question that arose, however, was why it is only chimpanzees that are used as research subjects. Granted, they are the closest to humans in terms of evolution, but they cannot be the only animals that are close to us.There are definitely other species that are quite similar to us in structure and make up, and can therefore be studied in the same manner chimpanzees were in these two articles. Yet, in the end, both articles closed with the same point: that life is an evolutionary cycle, and that evolution can be seen in the various species that populate our planet.
This closing point is the glue that holds both articles together, and it is what will allow both articles to be relevant in the field of psychology for a long time to come.
