Linguistics and Children Essay Example for Free

Linguistics and Children EssayThe power of wording to reflect last and influence thinking was first proposed by an American linguist and anthropologist, Edward Sapir (18841939), and his student, Benjamin Whorf (18971941). The SapirWhorf hypothesis stated that the delegacy we think and view the world is determined by our terminology (Anderson Lightfoot, 2002 Crystal, 1987 Hayes, Ornstein, Gage, 1987). Instances of ethnic linguistic process differences are evidence in that many dustups have circumstantial words for concepts whereas other manner of speakings use several words to map out a specific concept.For example, the Arabic diction includes many specific words for designating a certain fictional character of horse or camel (Crystal, 1987). To make such distinctions in English, where specific words do non exist, adjectives would be utilize preceding the concept label, such as quarter horse or dray horse. cultural differences have also been noned in the ship way in which dustup is used pragmatically. In our American culture, refreshful skills are typically taught and acquire through verbal instruction (Slobin, 1979). In some cultures, new skills are learned through nonverbal observation.A distinction has also been made between cultures that supercharge independent enlightening and those that encourage reconciling learning (McLeod, 1994). Differences in the social roles of adults and children also influence how language is used. Home and school scenes may represent diverse cultures, subcultures, or both and may influence language acquisition in notice fitted ways. Nonverbal cues (e. g. , facial expression) and contextual cues (e. g. , shared experience) have contrastive communicative roles in different cultures (Kaiser Rasminsky, 2003).In some cultures, prelinguistic children (who are not yet verbalizing) are spoken somewhat alternatively than spoken to (Heath, 1983). Children may be expected, and thus taught, to speak onl y when an adult addresses them. They are not encouraged to initiate conversations with adults or to join spontaneously in ongoing adult conversations. Additionally, in some cultures, children who enthusiastically volunteer answers at school are considered show-offs (Peregoy Boyle, 1993). In some cultural settings, children are not asked recitational questions.Instead, they are asked only questions of clarification or for new information. Thus, when these children experience recitational questions in a school setting, they may be confused as to the purpose of the questioning and the expected response. Further cultural differences in how language is used in educational settings have been documented by Tharp (1994). These differences include interlingual renditions in how stories are told, the turn back time given by t separatelyers to students during questioning sequences, the rhythmic patterns of the verbal fundamental interactions, and the patterns of conversational turn-taking.D uring the 1970s and 1980s, educators and linguists questioned and debated the verbal-deficit perspective. This perspective contended that anyone who did not use standard English did not have a valid language and thus was verbally deficient. Although the verbal-deficit perspective has now been proven invalid, it is grave to understand the research that was conducted to either support or cast down that perspective. Bernstein (1971), Bereiter and Englemann (1966), and Labov (1979) were among the researchers who studied language differences between different social groups, including middle- and lower-income groups and ethnic groups.This body of research identified specific differences in the way children from different socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds used language in school and free settings. Implications of this research have been widely discussed and interpreted in a variety of ways. Basil Bernstein (1971) documented the different linguistic scratchs used by children from lo wer- and middle-income families in England. Lower-income children were described as using a restricted code or highly contextualized language, while children from middle-income families used an elaborated code, or decontextualized language.His research also documented differences in school achievement for these two groups of children. Interpretations of Bernsteins work concluded a causeeffect proportion between language use and school success, supporting a verbal deficit perspective the low-class environment of the low-income children created a verbal deficiency responsible for subsequent low educational achievement (Winch, 1990). present in the United States, Bereiter and Englemann (1966) conducted further research from the verbal-deficit perspective.They focused on the language of preschool African American children in Urbana, Illinois. Bereiter and Engleman concluded that the language used by African American children was not a valid language and thus recommended that these ch ildren needed to be taught English in the school setting (Winch, 1990). Academically oriented preschool curricula were real (e. g. , Blank, Rose, Berlin, 1978) to provide the needed English language training for verbally deficient children. William Labov (1979 Winch, 1990) explored social dialects of lower income African American children in urban settings.He studied the differences in childrens in-school and out-of-school (e. g. , playground) language competencies. His information directly challenged the verbal-deficit theory because it documented the elaborated and systematic linguistic properties of Black English. His research back up the judgement that Black English was a separate language system with its own grammar and rules. Labov described dialects as having just about different versions of the same rules, extending and modifying the grammatical processes which are common to all dialects of English (Labov, 1995, p.54).Labovs research supported the idea that verbal diff erences are not verbal deficits. Because Labovs research focused on language used in academic and nonschool settings, he also created a greater awareness of the role of context and dialect in communication. Tough (1977) conducted a longitudinal study of children from advantaged (college-educated, professional parents) and disadvantaged (parents who were in semiskilled(prenominal) or semiskilled occupations) homes. The study began when the children were 3 years old, with follow-up at 5 1? 2 and 7 1? 2 years.At age 3, the disadvantaged children and the advantaged children showed significant differences in the ways they used language. Specifically, the disadvantaged children did not use language to suppose and give details of prior experiences, anticipate coming(prenominal) events and possible outcomes, reason about incumbent and remembered events, problem solve using language for planning and considering alternatives, gift solutions, create and sustain dramatic play events, and u nderstand others experiences and feelings. When these children were studied again at 5 1? 2 and 7 1?2 years, the disadvantaged children produced shorter, less manifold responses. This research contributed to our understanding that children from different cultural environments may be learning to use language differently and may experience obstacle in participating in the language environment in schoolrooms. Further awareness of the role of cultural environments in the acquisition of language was influenced in the 1980s by ethnographic research techniques that were used by language researchers. Ethnographic studies have contributed significantly to our understanding of linguistic diversity.Ethnography uses participant observation in real-life settings and focuses on individuals within their social and cultural contexts. In her ethnographic study, Heath (1983) explored childrens acquisition of language at home and school in two communities in the southeastern United States. She foun d differences in communication in working-class black and white families as well as among middle-class townspeople of both ethnic groups. Heath also described differences in story structures, language, and sense of truth (fiction vs. nonfiction) that children learned at home that were different from those expected at school.To be successful at school, these children had to be able to recognize when a story is expected to be true, when to stick to the facts, and when to use their imaginations (Heath, 1983, p. 294). Heaths research also documented valid and authentic differences in the ways language is used and in the ways in which children in those respective communities become competent language users. Heath concluded that the contrasts she found in language were not based on race, but on complex cultural influences in each community. The importance of family context in language acquisition was more recently described by stag and Risley (1995, 1999).Findings from their longitudinal study document the significance of talkativeness in families in influencing language acquisition rather than the familys socioeconomic status or ethnic group identity. Differences in language use were attributed to the complex family culturenot simply due to socioeconomic status or ethnic group identity. Among the families that were studied, the or so important difference was in the amount of talking. Children in families where there was more talking developed high levels of language in the areas of vocabulary growth and vocabulary use.These differences were strongly linked to school performance at age 9. Among these families, Hart and Risley (1995) identified five quality features in parents language interactions with their children 1. Language diversity the variation and amount of nouns and modifiers used by the parents 2. Feedback tone the positive feedback given to childrens participation in the interaction 3. Symbolic emphasis the emphasis placed on focusing on names and asso ciated relations of the concepts and the recall of those symbols 4.Guidance style parental interaction that used asking rather than demanding in eliciting specific sort from the child 5. Responsiveness parental responsiveness to requests or questions initiated by children Hart and Risley (1995) speculated that these categories may be important for the language-based analytic and symbolic competencies upon which advanced education and a global economy depend (p. 193). A current hypothesis on why children from diverse linguistic backgrounds experience difficulty in school is the socializing mismatch hypothesis.This hypothesis predicts that children are more likely to succeed in school when the home language and literacy socialization patterns are similar to those that are used and valued in school (Faltis, 1998, p. 23). This hypothesis has been apply to children who speak a nonstandard English dialect as well as to children who are learning a second language. Home language socializ ation patterns may differ from those favored in the school classroom in the following ways (Faltis, 1998) 1. The amount of talk directed to preschool children 2.The participation of young children as conversation partners with adults 3. Opportunities children have to explain or give a personal interpretation of events 4. The types of questions asked of children during storybook sharing 5. The forms of recital that are used (e. g. , fiction, nonfiction, or ongoing narratives) In addition, the social interaction patterns used in the classroom may vary from the home cultures with respect to expectations for competitive versus collaborative or cooperative activities as well as the courtesies and conventions of conversations (Tharp, 1994, p. 140).