In addition, you will be expected to come back to the blog and respond to someone else's reflection. You may agree or disagree, but you must be respectful.
- First, what is the connection YOU have made between the two articles? How do you see the articles complementing each other, and how can you fit them together to better understand language development? Did this connection surprise you?
- Next, what is Tomasello arguing about the role of culture and social interaction in language development? Remember, I'm looking for specific references and a thoughtful response.
- Finally, what was the most interesting piece of new information you gleaned from these readings? Something you didn't know before and either surprised you or interested you. See you all Wednesday!
ReplyDelete1. Michael Tomasello in his article “The Social Bases of Language Acquisition” approaches language learning from a functionalist’s perspective. He makes this very clear in the beginning of his article when he notes, “Language is social behavior. Its structures are social conventions. Its functions all derive in one way or another from communication. It can be acquired only through social interaction with other human beings.” On the other hand, the article by Patricia K. Kuhl entitled “How Babies Learn Language,” presents what I perceived was a Vygotskian inspired argument. She notes that new research reveals (particularly her research on statistical patterns) that there is something in the way a child’s brain is wired that makes it easier to learn certain phonemes at certain stages in a child’s development. However, she adds that other studies have found that learning “for the infant brain is not a passive process. It requires human interaction…”
While in his conclusion Michael Tomasello notes, “It must be emphasized that nothing in the social-pragmatic perspective on language acquisition denies or minimizes the biological preparedness of human beings to acquire a language", I found that he did not sufficiently account for the role of innovation and brain studies in his research. He is invested in the idea that language production can only happen in the context of an interaction with another human being. Patricia Kuhl validates both theoretical approaches. Her research on statistical patterns supports Chomsky’s nativist or innatist approach, which states that children are born with the innate ability to learn languages. While simultaneously, embracing a Vygostskian approach, which supports the idea that biological and social factors must interact in order for children to learn a language.
I was not necessarily surprised. It seems like when you bring together these two schools of thought that you can have a more flexible approach to better understanding language learning.
2. His argument is that we cannot understand language development without accounting for the role of culture and social interactions. He provides various examples. He namely focuses on the interactions between the child and the caregiver (generally, the mother) in the context of their daily cultural routine. He looks at the development of lexical and syntactic aspects of language to show that its development cannot exist in a vacuum and necessitates social interactions. In these interactions, the child is receiving constant feedback from the adult and therefore is able to develop his/her language abilities.
3.I thoroughly enjoyed the article by Patricia Kuhl. The most interesting piece of new information that I learned from her article was in the study that found that babies who gaze into their parents’ eyes also receive key social cues that help to speed the next stage of language learning. While it makes perfect sense, it never occurred to me that it can influence greatly the acquisition of language.
Emmanuel,
DeleteI also found it interesting that babies who gaze into their parent's eyes also receive social cues to help along the language learning process. Tomasello also discusses this in his article. I didn't make the connection until now -- but the piece of information you picked out of Kuhl's article was her most "socially based" piece of evidence. The eye contact study is one aspect of acquisition research that both Kuhl and Tomasello regard!
Emmanuel,
DeleteI thought it was brilliant that you brought in Vygotsky's theory to our understanding of these readings. I agree that Michael Tomasello leans heavily on the importance of the cultural context as a means for language development. Kuhl mentions how developmentally delays impact a child's ability to learn language. Her example of how autism, in particular, also decreases a child's motivation to participate within a social context speaks to how a balanced view needs to be considered in our understanding of what influences language development.
Emmanuel, I too made the connection to Vygotsky's theory from last class. Although I'm sure that your explanation seems more logical and deeper. I think that I focused to narrowly on the social factors whereas you held a neutral view of the importance of the combination of the two in language learning.
DeleteI also like your takeaway from the Kuhl article, "that babies who gaze into their parents’ eyes also receive key social cues that help to speed the next stage of language learning." It is a very intriguing idea that hadn't registered to me during my first read of the article.
Emmanuel,
DeleteI really enjoyed the distinction that you pointed out between Tomasello and Kuhls embrace (and lack thereof) of the biological/genetic necessities in language acquisition. This reminded me of our in class discussion this past Wednesday about Piaget and Vygotsky and how some choose to look at these theories as in opposition while others view these as working together as two parts of the puzzle in a sense. I remember Professor Lorenzetti sharing that this is a comment trend in psychology; that people like to believe or argue (often solely for argument's sake) in one perspective at the end of a spectrum, as with nature vs. nurture rather than a mix of both which, is in my opinion often the truth. I agree with you here in that Tomasello's argument is weakened in his decision to only discuss social factors and failure to acknowledge the mix of biological/social factors in developing language.
Love the conversation, everyone! I also particularly love the connection you made between Vygotsky and Tomasello, because that's exactly right on. Tomasello is very culturally-oriented and Vygotskian.
Delete1. The articles by Kuhl and Tomasello both attempt to answer the question "How do babies learn language?", but they give answers from very different perspectives. Kuhl explains that babies acquire language by statistical learning. While she does mention that both genes AND the environment impact development, Kuhl does not explain the way the environment or social factors actually impact the development. Her explanation is very research-driven. Tomasello, on the other hand, goes into extensive detail about the social basis of language acquisition. He argues that language acquisition should be defined more socially and cognitively. He does not discredit the role of biology in language acquisition, but emphasizes that much more time should be spent on the way that babies learn language through cultural and social situations. The articles complement each other because they help you see both sides of the argument. If I had just read Kuhl's article, I would not be thinking about the role that socialization and culture plays in acquisition. Similarly, if I had just read Tomasello's article I would not have known that there was such extensive biological research about language acquisition. Reading both articles helped me get a more balanced understanding of language acquisition. While some aspects of the articles may seem to disagree, I find their connection similar to the connection we discussed between Vygotsky and Piaget. Some people may pit the articles by Kuhl and Tomasello against each other (just as Vygotsky and Piaget are often pitted against each other), but holding each up in conjunction provides a more informed and balanced view of the issue.
ReplyDelete2. Tomasello argues that, "In the acquisition process, children rely on cultural learning skills". He argues that language is a social behavior that's acquired only through social interaction with human beings. He acknowledges that biology does play a role in acquisition, but denies that children have innate knowledge of Generative Grammar, because babies learn grammar and vocabulary in a social base. This social base is a shared referential context that helps the baby organize language. In the conclusion of his article, Tomasello explains that while babies do come into the world biologically prepared to learn language, this preparedness MUST mix with social interactions in order for a baby to acquire language. He argues that moving forward, more time should be spent on discovering how cultural learning impacts language acquisition.
3. The most interesting thing I learned through these readings came from the Kuhl article. I had no idea that babies learn language through statistical learning -- meaning that the statistical frequency of particular sounds affects the human brain. It is mind boggling for me to think about the fact that for the first 8-10 months of life, a baby's brain is sorting out how often certain phonemes occur. I don't think I could do that consciously if I tried.
I was also surprised by how much babies learned in the first few months! It is really incredible to think that even though their brains are still developing they are capable of picking up so many sounds. I wonder if studies have been done to show the spectrum of children and how many sounds they pick up. It would be interesting to find out what the high end looks like and what the lower end looks like as well.
DeleteI found it interesting to read your response, especially the comparison of the two articles. You seem to have picked up on more differences between the perspectives while I saw more similarities. I noted that both authors highlight the importance of social interactions. Tomasello certainly goes into more detail than Kuhl, but I thought that Kuhl also stresses the importance of social interactions. For example, the article mentions the motivation infants draw from parents and states that language learning is a function of the learners active reception of or participation with the language they are exposed to. Clearly the two authors do not have identical viewpoints, but it is interesting to see our different takeaways.
DeleteI absolutely agree with Philip. I think the connection between the two articles is great, and the complementary nature you pointed out is super cool! Thanks!
DeleteIn both articles, there is an emphasis on how much language learning happens in children, specifically under the age of 2. While the Kuhl article gives a great overview of language acquisition for children within their environment, Tomasello’s article delves deeper into how young children actually learn through their cultural daily routine.
ReplyDeleteThe Tomasello article states “every single case of language acquisition children must determine why, for what reasons, the adult is making this particular noise in this particular situation at this particular time based both on their knowledge of general principles of human behavior and linguistic communication as well as on their knowledge of the specific situation at hand. They are able to do this so effortlessly because the cultural environment is prestructured into events in predictable ways and because they have the social-cognitive and social learning skills to take advantage of this structure.” It is interesting to note that children are able to learn language based on their interaction with their parents and the environment in which they live. Tomasello went on to explain that social-cognitive and social learning skills are the areas in which children with Autism struggle with. They can repeat the phonemes and words however lack the knowledge on what those words mean within a social context.
I found it interesting that these articles support my parenting techniques. I always knew it is important to speak to kids when they are babies, but after reading these articles, my practices are validated. For example, Kuhl explains the experiment of 9-month-old babies listening to Native Mandarin speakers. The babies that were interacted with and spoken to learned some of the language rather than those who just listening to the recorded words. This confirms that language is indeed dependent on continuous social interaction. On a personal level, my daughter who is 2 and a half, who has been interacted with very much, has a wonderful vocabulary for her age. In comparison to her 3 year old cousin, who has been raised with an iPad to assist with his language struggles, I see how interaction is truly so important. Granted, there may be some other factors that have contributed to his speech delay, however based on the information of these article, I feel that he missed a huge window of opportunity for language learning due to the constant use of electrics while he was under the age of 1.
The fact that you "knew" to speak to your baby is such an important thing. I find the crossroads of traditional knowledge and scientifically backed research something quite remarkable especially when it comes to language acquisition. I'm also interested in how useful knowing these things are when humans have been speaking to babies and creating other linguistically proficient humans for millennia.
DeleteHolly,
DeleteI am happy to hear that these articles confirmed your parenting techniques. I have seen the ways in which the lack of parent talk/interaction with children has negatively effected my students' language development. Although I was aware how crucial speaking to infants was, I was under the impression that motherese or parentese was not as productive as simply speaking to babies like adults. Clearly after reading Kuhl's article I realize the opposite is true. I found it very interesting when Kuhl discussed how motherese or parentese actually helped infants learn. Kuhl states, "Parentese exaggerates differences between sounds—one phoneme can be easily discriminated from another. Our studies show that exaggerated speech most likely helps infants as they commit these sounds to memory." The natural inclination to speak to babies this way is actually a strategy to casually emphasize phonemes and speech patterns.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIf it makes you feel better, most parents don't realize how vital speaking to your baby is even as early as the day of their birth. It's all about phonemic awareness! We will talk more about this in class tomorrow. Great job!
Delete
ReplyDelete1. Both articles stressed the importance of human or social interaction between infants and adults in order for the infants to develop language. Both articles also discussed how this interaction must be face-to-face, as opposed to through a video or an audio tape, in order for a baby to be able to “…follow the direction of an adult’s gaze…” (Kuhl 2015) to make the connection between the language and what is being spoken about. I was very surprised by this second point because I did not know that babies actually look at what an adult is looking at; I thought babies were just constantly looking around at everything in order to absorb their environments. However upon further reflection, when I studied French, I learned a lot of grammar and vocabulary through the actions of my teachers such as gesturing, pointing, and displaying items. Therefore, it makes sense that babies, who are learning a “new” language, learn from these cues as well.
2. Tomasello argues that language is acquired through social interactions among human beings. In this article, he focuses mainly on infants and their interactions with caregivers, in which case ‘social interactions’ include “…feeding, diaper changing, bathing, interaction games, book reading, car trips, [etc]…” (70). There needs to be a context within which the infant and the adult interact. Tomasello further argues that this interaction needs to be in person because the infant needs to make a connection between the language and what is being talked about, and that can only be done by the infant looking at what the adult is looking at (71).
3. What I found intriguing in Kuhl’s article was the discussion of ‘biomarkers’ and how scientists can study brain activity in order to predict how well a child will learn language. Even more intriguing is this concept of early intervention therapies if a scientist were to discover that a child is developing a language-related disability (4). What would those therapies be?! Would they be expensive, or could they be at-home treatments that any parent could have access to? I would love to read more about these type of therapies.
I am still uncertain about how much confidence I place in this focus on particular areas of the brain being the solution to psychological learning challenges that children face. Any time that such objective science is involved, I begin to analyze the perspective that it's coming from, especially after watching the video about Samuel from our disabilities course in this particular context. The one man claimed that his disability made him who he is and he wouldn't change a thing as it would deny him his very identity. While everyone who may be "diagnosed" may not agree with such a standpoint, I can't help but view constant talk about diagnosing automatically making autism and the like by extension deficiencies, rather than perhaps alternative perspectives of the world or of interacting with/ making sense of it. My evolution and disease course prior to this program discussed these "abnormalities" as potentially misinterpreted methods of dealing with the past stresses of the environment that were once favored in hunter-gatherer communities, but hold no place in modern society. I can't help but feel that this statement holds merit moreso in the idea that our conformist conception of the norm overshadows the true wonder that are these varied human ways of living. Who is to say what the true norm is akin to the disturbing question of racial superiority.
DeleteI struggles with the notion of biomarkers and language acquisition in babies in terms of predetermining autism and any other potential disorders. I think that the medicalization that can occur as a result of this testing can be dangerous and wonder what the implications are for the babies when parents are "warned" about impending disorders.
DeleteGreat conversation. I agree -- I think biomarkers are interesting, but I'm unsure how I feel about the idea that we can change brain structure in order to remove certain disorders and learning challenges.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKuhl lays out a statistical approach to understanding early language acquisition. She talks about how “statistical patterns – the frequency with which sounds occur – play a critical role in helping infants learn which phonemes are most important,” and how the most important phonemes are the ones that are spoken the most. Tomasello approaches language acquisition from an anthropological standpoint. He states right from the beginning that “language is social behavior. Its structures are social conventions.” Much like any humanity, one academic approach can help reinforce another. The melding of these two academic approaches (statistical or experimental with anthropological or ethnographical) shows a cross over in that the statistical patterns of phonemes are done through a process which Kuhl calls “social gating.” Kuhl reveals that “exactly how social context contributes to the learning of a language in humans is still an open question.” This is where Tomasello’s research comes into play.
ReplyDeleteOne such aspect of this melding which I found intriguing was the fact that infants can distinguish between authentic speech directed at them and speech that is recorded. In the experiment detailed in Kuhl’s piece, the child with more authentic, direct speech acquired the foreign phonemes in question whereas the child who had a recording of another language did not. My surprise led to the question, “How is this possible at such an early developmental age?” Tomasello, as if responding to my question posits two ideas, one, “adults structure interactions with children in certain culturally-specific ways,” and two, “children, at least by the time they normally begin to acquire language, have the ability to participate in these interactions inter-subjectively.” He explains the reason behind the results of the experiment not just the findings. He conjectures that all language learners require a certain context when approaching the acquisition of new language and that they get that context from the authentic interactions with native speakers; “a learner assumes that a new word that has not been heard before refers to a whole object (and not its parts, properties, activities, etc.).” Thus my question had been partially addressed. Though, I wonder how this differs in later in life language learners and if phonemes and vocabulary can be thought of as similar entities or altogether different ones.
Tomasello summarizes his argument about the role of culture and social interaction in language early in his piece where he states that, “Human children are born into worlds in which their caregivers have certain activities to perform on a regular basis, many involving the child directly.” This explanation is given to support his assertion regarding vocabulary and the acquisition of new words. Ostensibly culture informs vocabulary. As for a child’s communicative competence, an adult can only reflect the culture from which he or she is from. When a language learning child uses a bit of language in an incorrect way the adult will motivate the child “to modify the form of their communicative expression toward a form that is more appropriate in the current context with the current interlocutor. Children make these adjustments quite simply because the desire to stay in tune with others…” This is a prime example of the monkey see monkey do camp of thought in relation to infant linguistics.
I was also interested in the fact that parentese has its place in infant language acquisition. Every parent or family member tends to talk to the new baby in parentese even though there was no evidence condoning its use. I’m always very interested in the relationship between anecdotal or traditional knowledge and scientific research. Was this idea to use baby talk an evolutionary survival mechanism? Did cavemen use baby talk at the onset of spoken language?
You pose an interesting question about whether baby talk was an evolutionary survival mechanism-- I too wondered where this came from, since it isn't cultural. In my post, I mentioned that people often speak to animals in the same way. I wonder where this comes from?
DeleteAh, yes, parentese. I particularly love that we as humans have been doing this in many languages for hundreds of years. I always say that psychological research has found it turns out humans have been doing it right all along. In answer to your caveman question, Jordan, there's really no way to know. I would surmise that they probably had some form of linguistic parentese, but who would ever really know? We also know from anthropological research that groups of indiginous people who don't live in industrialized societites have a tendency to have their children strapped to their front or back from infancy on, so language learning is much less pointed and much more situational.
DeleteIn response to your question, Jaime, my guess would be that due to this being an evolutionary quality, chances are good humans have adapted to speak to their animals the way they speak to children because they are similar in many ways -- small, cute, and nonverbal. Hence, baby talk to animals. But then again -- who knows?
In the article, “How Babies Learn Language,” by Patricia Kuhl, Kuhl discusses the way in which babies’ brains become sensitive to language at around six months. At that time, babies are able to hear all of the 8oo or so possible phonemes that appear in all of the world’s languages. Over time, the baby’s brain identifies which phonemes are most important, and which phonemes are hardly or never used. The important phonemes are paid attention to and developed, while the others are pruned, or simply not developed. Kuhl also discusses the way that what she calls “parentese,” the way in which parents talk to their babies, helps to catch an infants attention and clearly demonstrates the phonemes in a particular word.
ReplyDeleteIn “The Social Bases of Language Acquisition,” an article by Michael Tomasello, he describes the way in which social interaction and culture are integral to an infants’ language development. Specifically, he addresses the issue of referent—how, when a mature adult speaks a word, a baby would be able to figure out what that word is referring to. He makes the argument that infants are able to do this because they quickly develop a sense of what the adult is focusing on, based on context, attitude, or other clues. He gives an example that if an adult and infant are clearly engaged in a session of “color-naming,” then the infant will identify that the words she is hearing are colors. If an adult points to a picture of a rabbit in this context, a baby will assume he is describing the color of the rabbit. He gives another example, from the hunter-gatherer context, of a baby joining mature adults for a hunt. In that context, an adult who is pointing at a rabbit is probably not describing the color of the rabbit but more likely referring to the rabbit itself or some action related to the hunt.
He further suggests that routines are moments in which the context is clear and thus times at which maximal language identification is possible for infants. As culture dictates many of our routines and the types of interactions we have, so it must play a profound role in language development.
Both of these articles describe ways in which social interaction is critical to language development. Kuhl focuses on how infants identify and begin to learn phonemes through listening to human interaction directed at them or occurring around them. Tomasello focuses on how infants can hear groups of phonemes, words, and somehow figure out what those words are referring to. These articles complement each other well because they both discuss the role of social interaction in language development. Whereas Kuhl focuses on phonetics, Tomasello hones in on the issue of referent.
The most interesting tidbit that I learned from reading these articles was that a baby’s exposure to real live humans speaking Mandarin had an impact on phonetic development and expansion of the mental phonetic library, but a baby exposed to a recording or video of people speaking Mandarin did not experience that effect. This demonstrates how important real human interaction is for infants. I suppose the physical presence is important because it will attract more attention from the infant and also provide much more context. This makes me question how effective it is to play recordings of music and speech, or show videos, to your baby in general as a way to promote brain development.
We will talk more tomorrow about how babies don't learn language from electronics.
Delete1. After reading these two articles it is evident that Tomasello and Kuhl share one very similar idea; language acquisition requires social interaction or in Kuhl’s words “intense social immersion.” Both authors discuss how babies learn language. Kuhl looks at it from a more statistical side and she goes deeper into the technical way that babies are able to pick up phonemes at a very early age. She goes on to say that the statistical frequency of particular sounds affects the infant brain. In the earlier part of the article she fails to mention the importance of social interaction but as the article continues she describes learning as something that is not passive. This point is solidified when she explains the experiment her and her team did in relation to the children hearing mandarin from native speakers, tv, and audio clips in mandarin. At the completion of the experiment she goes on to explain that the children who were listening to the tv or audio clips did not pick up any of the language, while the children listening to the native speakers were able to acquire the language. Thus she argues that learning requires human interaction and this necessity is called “social gating.” Tomasello dives deeper into this idea and states that language is a social behavior. He does not discuss statistics in terms of the sounds babies acquire early on but rather argues that it is through consistent human interaction that children are able to learn a language.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, Tomasello states that children acquire such language due to their culturally specific environments. How adults interact with babies is extremely important to how they function. I wouldn’t say that I was that surprised by how these articles complement one another but I found it very interesting that while there were some common themes about early language acquisition, Tomasello was able to link it more to the socialization and cultural environment of the child.
2. Tomasello argues that culture and social interaction play extremely important roles in language development. He states that “social interactional routines such as feeding, diaper changing, bathing, interactive games, book reading, car trips, and a whole host of other activities constitute the formats within which children acquire their earliest communicative conventions.” In addition to this he believes that “humans are biologically social creatures and thus practically from birth they recognize human voices, smile at human faces, and match their behavior to that of other persons.” Tomasello also brings up another fascinating point about imitative learning. Yes, children can imitate an adult but it is a true test of acquisition if they can imitate in the correct setting and with the correct context surrounding their speech and actions. In regards to cultural learning, Tomasello goes on to talk about how it is up to the child and his/her ability to achieve some form of intersubjectivity with the adult during the learning process. Thus the pragmatic basis of its usage is understood. It is this intersubjectivity within imitative learning that enables us to see if the child understands the “why” in addition to what the adult is actually doing.
3. I thought that one of the most interesting pieces of information that I learned from these readings includes the bit from Tomasello’s article on pg 72. He explains that verb learning is one of the most difficult things for infants and young children to grasp. Almost two-thirds of the time adults refer to actions that have not yet happened. I never really thought about this until now but I’ve definitely spent many moments interacting with babies and wondering why they had difficulty understanding certain words I was saying. Now I understand that it is potentially because the action isn’t being shown. The children are just hearing the words for the first time and this can cause major confusion.
Allison - I too was surprised to learn that verb learning is the most difficult of things for infants and young children to grasp. One would expect this to be the first as verbs play such an important role in our everyday communication. It goes to show that we do take for granted language acquisition. It happens so naturally that we fail to see how complex and sophisticated it is as it is happening. It was also comforting to see that scholars and people who work in the field of early child development are using this information to identify early signs of autism.
DeleteI also found that to be interesting- the fact that learning verbs is difficult since we refer to things that haven't happen yet.
DeleteRe: verb learning -- I know! When I first read this article and I read that particular piece, I was floored - it hadn't occurred to me before, but it made so much sense once I read it. When you combine Piaget's stages and the pre-operational stage not understanding order or events or timelines, of COURSE younger children would have difficulty understanding verbs that describe things happening in the future.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete**This comment is in reply to Holly's post (it won't let me directly comment).**
ReplyDeleteI agree with the comment about the crossroads between traditional knowledge and scientifically backed research. As a species, we had been surviving sans scientific fact for a fair amount of time. We learned through action and stories. As our intelligence developed, we began to concretely identify why we had been doing these things for centuries. I think people are quick to dismiss techniques that have been passed down through the ages if they are not scientific or in the latest parenting magazine. As mammals, we have the unspoken knowledge of how to care for our young, just as all other animals do. It is important to not diminish our biological intelligence when raising children.
1. The primary connection that I drew between Kuhl and Tomasello’s articles was the discussion of the link between innateness and social interactions involved in language acquisition. Kuhl notes that babies are biologically equipped with the ability to acquire language to a degree. She writes, “During the second half of the first year, our research shows, a mysterious door opens in the child’s brain. He or she enters a “sensitive period,” as neuroscientists call it, during which the infant brain is ready to receive the first basic lessons in the magic of language” (p. 1). Here, and throughout the article, Kuhl asserts that babies are born with an innate ability to acquire language. Yet Kuhl notes that social interactions help guide the development of language. For example, though graced with the “sensitive period” when able to perceive phonemes that will become imperceptible later in life, babies require social interactions to begin to infuse these sounds with meaning-- a process Kuhl calls “social gating”. Tomasello terms a similar concept “secondary intersubjectivity”. He writes, “At this age infants begin for the first time to look where the other person is looking, that is, to coordinate their visual attention on an object with the visual attention of another person on that same subject” (p. 71). Both authors indicate that social interactions don’t just facilitate language acquisition-- they are vital components of this acquisition. While this connection itself does not surprise me, I was surprised by the link between the articles. A quick glance at each seemed to indicate that Kuhl would make a case for the innateness of language while Tomasello would defend the social forces at work. While this was the case, each acknowledged the complex roles that both nature and nurture have in language acquisition.
ReplyDelete2. Tomasello is arguing that language is acquired in the context of social and cultural interactions. While Tomasello grants that children are born with innate abilities and capacities to learn language, he refutes the argument that these alone guide language acquisition. Yet Tomasello’s argument also pushes the idea that children learn language as they interact with the world into more complex territory. In his introduction, Tomasello writes, “...in textbook accounts of language acquisition, even in developmental psychology, the thoroughly social character of the process is scarcely ever acknowledged” (p. 67). From here, he draws attention to the role of pragmatics in language acquisition, and the deep social and cultural roots pragmatics have. Tomasello later explains, “The point is that the child’s imitative learning of a novel adult form in appropriate pragmatic contexts is not simple mimicking or association. It is a process of cultural learning in the sense that it rests on the child’s ability to achieve some form of intersubjectivity (joint attention) with the adult during the learning process, so that the pragmatic basis of its usage is understood” (p. 73). In this interpretation, teacher and learner are not static, nor are their roles inevitable. Just as language acquisition isn’t fixed by innate abilities or processes, social and cultural influences must be conveyed and interpreted-- which makes language acquisition a more layered, nuanced process.
ReplyDelete3. I was particularly interested in Kuhl’s discussion of “parentese”. I have to admit to rolling my eyes at the gurgling way my friends speak to their new babies, and to vowing to address all babies like normal humans. As it turns out, doing this would not create the verbose child I imagined, just as playing tapes in various languages won’t create a polyglot prodigy. Slowing down speech and emphasizing parts of words actually helps infants begin to recognize the phonemes of their native language. Yet to move this recognition to make meaning, babies need interaction, even eye contact, so they can begin to associate sounds with meaning. I was also surprised to read that baby talk is not a modern concept, nor is it culturally specific. I’ve always wondered why people speak to babies the same way they speak to animals, and I wonder if there is a biological explanation for this as well.
ReplyDeleteIf it makes you feel any better, I (once upon a time) had the same reaction you did to parentese.
DeleteBoth articles stress the role that social interaction and communication have in a child’s language development. In Kuhl’s article, she details particular experiments as evidence of a child’s ability to understand the basic units of language, or phonemes, to demonstrate that the role that human contact has on human development and Tomasello furthers Kuhl’s findings by explaining how that learning occurs within the context of cultural and social routines. Language is, of course, an inherent part of culture. Therefore, it makes sense how these two articles build off of one another and support one another.
ReplyDeleteTomasella dismisses researchers who adhere to the idea of priori, or an innate ability to learn language (67-68). In the article, he documents that the learner of a language and a mature speaker are able to utilize social and cultural means as a way to not only communicate but also facilitate language development. Culture molds what children learn and they ways in which they learn. She claims, “adults structure interactions with children in certain culturally-specific ways, and…children, at least, by the time they normally begin to acquire language, have the ability to participate in these interactions intersubjectively” (69). Through this means, culture provides a context for which the routines of daily life are conducted. It is through these socially rooted routines that “young children learn almost all of their earliest language.” Tomasella refers to them as a scaffold for the initial language acquisition of the child and cites research conducted on chimpanzees to support her conclusions. (70) The Kanzi chimpanzee were able to use symbols they were taught by their caretakers because they were embedded within a social routine whereas the pygmy chimpanzees were completely limited in their language learning ability due to that lack of social context.
Furthermore, as was also mentioned in Kuhl, a chid’s ability to observe, track, and even model the adults in their lives provides the foundation for which children can begin to form a common linguistic language with their caregivers. Tomasella notes, “many of children’s very earliest words are acquired when the adult follows into their already established attentional focus,” which leads to them “actively in search of what adults are talking about” (71) Therefore, a child’s ability to engage in real-world social contexts within the comfort of familiar cultural routines helps to facilitate their language learning.
I was really surprised at how much of a role that social interaction plays in language development. These articles made me realize that the actions we already take in regards to how we interact with infants are actually founded in scientific evidence. For example, when an adult stretches out the syllables of a word and engages in other examples of “baby talk,” it is helps the child understand the phonemes in the home language. Moreover, as an English as a New Language teacher, I was also very interested in the ways in which culture plays a role, particularly routine and social interaction. I do not think I do enough hands-on activities with students that are routine. I think that by incorporating this research into the classroom, I may be able to help students acquire new language.
I think the hands on activities you mention would help. I just think about how students walk into my room and say good morning. Although small, there are small routines with associated language that students pick up on right away. Students learned to say thank you quickly. The words that I have used repetitively in the classroom are more utilized by my students. If I was able to provide more authentic contexts to practice new vocabulary, they would probably learn even faster. This also explains why people can learn languages faster when they travel to a place where they are immersed in a language.
DeleteI also found the discussion on cultural acts as scaffolds particularly interesting. Yet in our line of work scaffolds are only temporary and are eventually removed when mastered. In this case would the acts not necessarily be removed but done automatically so that they are no longer scaffolds? Or if not, are cultural acts by nature continuous scaffolds that simply alter based on the progression of contexts we expose ourselves to throughout our lifetimes?
DeleteSomeone earlier also discussed the importance of joint attention. Don't underestimate the power of gesture. There is a TON of research on the importance of gesture not just in communication but also in language learning from early ages. I also imagine if we dug hard enough, there would information on how important gesture is to ENL/ESL/ELL students.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne connection I made between the two articles is how Tomasello and Kuhl both emphasized the necessity for novel linguistic expressions to be associated in some way to a child’s current perceptual experience in order for language acquisition to take place on a lexical level. For example, on page 69 of The Social Bases of Language Acquisition by Tomasello he explains that children who are being introduced to novel linguistic expressions need to understand the adult’s focus of attention separately of the new language being spoken. Tomasello uses this example: “‘Gavagai’ said to a passing rabbit might be meant to indicate its name, its color, its speed, the shape of its foot againsts the ground, and so on ad infinitum” (1992). Children are able to acquire language because the way adults “... structure interactions with children in certain culturally-specific ways, and (ii) children, at least by the time they normally begin to acquire language, have the ability to participate in these interactions intersubjectively.” I found this explanation in Tomasello’s paper to be supporting evidence to Kuhl’s findings when the nine-month olds who listened and played in the physical presence of native Mandarin speakers acquired more mandarin lexical items over the course of the study than the other infants who listened to recordings of Mandarin speech. The eye contact the babies were able to make with the Mandarin speakers allowed them to track the objects spoken of and thus retain language. These two authors have similar findings in that language acquisition is just as equally social as it is cognitive.
ReplyDeleteTomasello supports the social-pragmatic view of language and social learning. He argues that culture plays a significant role in language development mainly because “...children are born into worlds in which their caregivers have certain activities to perform on a regular basis, many involving children directly” (69). These child-adult routines, some of which are universal (e.g. nursing) while others are culturally relevant, are the building blocks to the initial language acquisition. The culturally specific adult-child behaviors promote the child’s ability “...to participate with adults in the various cultural activities that make up their everyday lives…” thus Tomasello would argue that language acquisition is inherently cultural.
I thought Tomasello made an interesting point when he explained the principles of the social-pragmatic view. It is important for English language teachers to remember that words do not simply refer to objects, but rather, “people, not words, refer to objects” and we have to keep in mind the difficulty of learning communicative competence in a second language. Knowing when and how to use the right language in the right cultural context is extremely difficult and as teachers we need to be aware of this challenge and explicitly teach it to our students.
Your last point is interesting, Sophia. How often have we had students stumble on object reference, simply because they were never taught the word that refers to the object? And cultural context of language is vital also; what flies at home or with friends doesn't always do so in the classroom.
DeleteI had the same interest in Kuhl's evidence of Mandarin learning when the infants were exposed in a social setting with native speakers. I thought long and hard about this, and realized that at about 6 months old I was primarily taken care of by filipino woman, who my mom said would only speak Tagalog and feed me filipino food. I wonder if it's possible that I went on to study Spanish from Jr. High to finishing an undergraduate degree in Spanish because of the romance language influence of Tagalog words and phonemes I learned in the "sensitive" time.
DeleteThe Mandarin experiment and well as Tomasello's advocacy for interation with fluent adults made me realize how little curriculum of my school and the pull-out/ parallel teaching model leads itself to the social needs for English language learning. My students definitely need to be in more heterogeneous groups as well as have more time to converse while doing activities, not the I do, we do, you do model. So much independent writing is great practice for test taking and essay writing, but the students are merely copying sentence structures to finish the assignment and using basic words, instead of gaining new vocabulary through authentic interaction.
I think your last point is particularly important. In all of the political brouhaha about what language should be spoken as a "National Language," we (meaning the country as a whole, not a person in particular) often forget that WE name things, and that language is socially constructed.
Delete
ReplyDeleteThe obvious connection I made between the two articles by Kuhl and Tomasello are that they are trying to argue the social importance of language learning of young learners. The way I read them, Kuhl first and Tomasello second, was helpful in complementing each other with the presented argument in a way that gave me an overview of language learning ability of babies in social contexts and a dove into a a few examples of cases where social-pragmatics was at work with language acquisition with Tomasello. I was surprised that they both were focused on the behavioral and social aspect of the language acquisition yet Tomasello went further to incorporate the cognitive process for linguistic category formation. It is both a social, cultural and cognitive process, aided by authentic adult interaction. Through these articles I realized that most of my studies are on second-language acquisition and not home-language acquisition. Chomsky’s “black box theory of Second-language acquisition” has been a theory thats says we’re innately wired for grammar once we have our first language, but both of these articles helped clarify how a person needs to be apart of a social context in order to acquire their home language.
Tomsello is arguing that culture and social interaction develops language by not simply mimicking language but that they are participating in language by taking the view of the adult they are interacting with. His example with the chimpanzees, that when Kanzi, the chimpanzee who was not just taught symbols and words associated with those symbols, but that he was immersed in the daily life of a human, was able to produce far more connections than the chimps that only had exposure outside of context.
The most interesting to me was Kuhl’s take on baby talk. As a person who has worked with infants and in early childhood development for many years, I’ve always talked to kids “like adults” and believed that this type of interaction was helpful for language development and maturity, even though it was always input that was age-appropriate. Seeing baby talk for younger than 1 year, as a tool to help infants distinguish one phoneme from another has never occurred to me.
Hi Tara,
DeleteI also found the conversation around baby talk interesting. I don't really care for it myself, however I have engaged in it with my own children. I don't really know why adults use it. Perhaps it is a learned behavior or an internal one. Either way, it is good to note that baby talk does aid in language acquisition. Perhaps it is nature's way of assisting babies in their language learning.
This also seems to be a cultural phenomenon, as it is so prevalent in American culture and seemingly less so in other cultures.
DeleteDon't worry, we will talk about baby talk in class. You may be surprised that many other cultures also have it. Just because it's not uniform across cultures doesn't mean that other languages don't have some form of parentese.
DeleteBoth Tomasello and Kuhl examine the way that infants learn language. Specifically the two researchers explore the role of social interactions on language development of infants. Kuhl emphasizes how the brain changes as a child learns language. Infants have the capability to recognize all the phonemes that exist, but as they are exposed to these sounds they learn to recognize and distinguish between the phonemes that are most important in the languages they are exposed to. Tomasello also sees the importance of socialization and language learning. However, he examines this in more of a constructionist point of view rather than biological. The sounds that make up words have meaning because humans give words meaning to represent objects.
ReplyDeleteTomasello argues that social interaction is critical to developing language. He proposes that infants have the biological capability to learn language, but that language is ultimately learned through various cultural routines. Rather than delve into the statistical analysis that occurs in the brain during pruning, Tomasello explores how learning occurs in different social contexts. The example of the chimpanzees stood out most to me. The researchers compared the learning of different chimpanzees. Some were taught to match signs with objects, and some who were immersed in a cultural experience and exposed to the language. The research showed that both chimpanzees were able to link the objects with the signs, but that the chimps who were immersed in the culture were using the symbols in a “human-like” way. The chimps who were “trained” so to speak, were not able to generalize, while the other ones were. The findings show that for one to maximize their language learning potential, they must learn it in an authentic social way.
I was caught thinking about how does this relate to adolescent language learning? It would seem like this chimpanzee student would support the argument that rote memorization is ineffective and learning should be contextualized. I also found their discovery that “infants in their second year of life learn new verbs better when adults are talking about actions that have yet to happen (impending actions) than they do when they are used in an ostensive context to refer to ongoing actions” interesting (p.72). Initially this seemed flawed to me, how could a child understand what a word means before they are shown the representation of that word? When you take into consideration the exposure to familiar contexts and routines, it makes sense that children would be able to match the relationships of verbs in an almost cause and effect manner. The context precedes the verb and the child is able to associate the context with what will happen. This relates to the intersubjectivity and understanding of why actions are occurring rather than just being able to identify what is happening. On some level the child is aware of cultural or societal norms in a given context.
Tomasello asserts that some children with autism “do not understand what adults are doing with language and thus they learn no language at all; many others learn and use linguistic expressions in nonconventional ways…” (pg. 73) Would this also hold true for children who have been through extreme trauma? And what about children who are thrown into a new culture? If they can not make sense of the reasoning behind certain customs and actions of adults in society, based on Tomsello’s arguments, one could conclude they might have a harder time learning the new language.
Tara, I too, had a hard time wrapping my brain around the concept of children understanding verbs better when adults are talking about actions that have yet to occur. But that truly does prove to what extent language acquisition relies on the a human's innate ability to interpret sociocultural patterns. I'm glad you brought up those who, for whatever reason, have difficulty reading certain cultural cues. Based off of Tomasello's argument, these individuals would very much indeed be at a disadvantage. We, as teachers of ELL students must be hyper aware of that, and especially for older students, must be ready to explicitly teach the cultural cues.
DeleteI think your point on rote memorization is a good one. I think there are some things that need to be memorized, but rote memorization as a blanket learning tool doesn't really work very well.
DeleteI also think your question about students in a new culture having a harder time learning language, and Tomasello argues in another article we aren't reading in this class ("Cultural Learning") that children with autism may not have culture. It's a big argument and there is a great response by the researcher Simon Baron-Cohen who does extensive research on children with autism, and one of the points that has come up in my class before is that perhaps autism IS a culture. Circling back to your question, these two aren't unlike one another if you get down to it.
1. Both articles discussed the ways that infants develop language skills through social interaction. In her explanation, Kuhl divides infant cognitive learning into two areas: “mental computation” and “social immersion”. She also introduces “statistical learning”, a means by which infants develop language by becoming familiar with the patterns and frequency that phonemes appear in words. Infants develop this by listening to the language that surrounds them. Tomasello speaks more in detail about how infants learn these lexical and syntactic symbols from social interactions with the human beings in cultural settings. Both writers emphasized that social interaction was a requirement, with Kuhl referring to it as “social gating”.
ReplyDelete2. Tomasello argues that the social interaction within the context of a culture is the main driving force in language development. He explains how “Young children learn almost all of their earliest language in cultural routines of one sort or another”. These interactions are often structured in ways that are meant to assist the child with their development of language skills. One method discussed was “recasting”, where the adult revises what the child said in order to model the correct form, as well as confirm that they understand what the child had been trying to communicate. Another method was “imitative learning”, where the child tries to repeat what they hear the adult saying. Tomasello elaborates that in order for it to occur successfully, children need an intersubjective setting in order to understand not just what was said, but why.
3. The results of the studies done in Seattle on nine-month olds exposed to Mandarin were very telling about the role that social interaction plays in language acquisition. While the babies who had an adult interacting with them were able to expand their lexical awareness, the ones who were exposed to audio or visual in the absence of human interaction learned nothing. Although a children mature through age and experience, they are able to develop the skills to allow them to gain some knowledge of language when exposed to only the sounds or words on a page, our students that are learning English may stand to make more gains if teachers develop activities that will require them to interact with their peers.
Commenting on your last observation Brian, I definitely found it interesting that babies who interacted with adults learned more than those who were exposed to audio and visual stimulus. It reminded of the "Baby Einstein" fad that was circulating some years ago. The claim being that babies needed the stimulus of the visuals and sounds within the videos to gain language faster. This was of course disproved in a matter of months. With the research like the articles we just read so accessible to the public it makes me wonder how something like "Baby Einstein" ever got so popular.
DeleteThis also reminded me of the countless programs that schools implement in an attempt to help students learn language faster. Working at a school with 1,000+ ELLs, I have been exposed to and piloted several programs over the past year. They all have the same flashy visuals and cheesy music, that many educators believe will help students acquire the language skills they so desperately need.
DeleteThese are all great points. Often when we talk about language, I bring up baby signs. Like Baby Einstein, it's based off of actual research, but like most good research turned popular, it went a little off the rails in terms of effectiveness. I think things like this stay popular in light of accessible research because humans tend to be more likely to believe things they "feel" or perceive for themselves. You can see that in our current political climate -- facts are often ignored due to inconvenience. It's no different with research.
Delete
ReplyDeleteThe connection that I have made between the two articles is that modern psychology has proven that there is far more to learning language than the sheer textbook mechanics, grammar, and discourse. The social aspects of learning a language represent a very very large component and yet they are often very underestimated or overlooked by linguists. Both Kuhl’s and Tomasello’s articles complement each other by discussing the plethora of research that has been completed that proves that language is learned largely by social cues. The research that they reference is quite different; Kuhl discusses how factors such as inflection, personal interaction, and reward systems may affect the development of a baby’s linguistic development. Tomasello goes into greater detail (through more elaborate examples) in his article of a range of different topics related to how social interaction affects language development such as how social interaction may determine understanding of verb tenses, how social interaction may inform syntax and discourse knowlednge, and how interaction may inform grammatical proficiency.
Tomasello argues that culture and social interaction play a very significant role in language development. Tomasello gives various examples of events that many would view as menial or insignificant events throughout the day, but yet may impact a young child significantly in their language acquisition because they are so culturally distinct. “ Social interactional routines such as feeding, diaper changing, bathing, interactive games, book reading, car trips, and a whole host of other activities constitute formats within which children acquire their earliest communicative conventions.” This argument stems significantly from many traditional viewpoints that stress formalized language development in school or other academic settings.
One of the most interesting pieces of new information that I gleaned from these readings is that “baby talk” is important and certainly has value as well. My family is quite large and thus it seems that there is almost always a baby at family gatherings. I can remember countless times when at a family party an aunt or uncle of mine has scolded another family member for the use of “baby language.” The myth that baby language does not help a baby’s linguistic development is clearly quite widely known. Knowing the effects of baby talk in developing a baby’s cultural awareness as discussed in Tomasello and phonetic understanding as discussed in Kuhl was certainly something I enjoyed taking away from these articles. I will certainly strive to dispel baby talk myths at my next family gathering!.
Andrew-- that's so interesting that people scold one another for using "baby language!" Now that you mention it, I can remember examples of this happening within my own extended family as well.
DeleteI am always in favor of having fun facts to dispel myths!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. As others have remarked, the connection lies in the social context of language acquisition, that language – inherent as it is – cannot be acquired without social interaction at the earliest age. Kuhl suggests that babies learn predominately from pattern-making and pattern recognition. Though she doesn’t mention adult interaction to the degree that Tomasello does, she does nonetheless touch on linguistic phonemes unique to certain languages, though none are uniquely inherent to one culture independently. For example, she writes that a Japanese baby is equally able to learn English phonemes if raised in an English-speaking home as an English speaker is to Japanese. It seems the ultimate answer to both articles may be to concede that both ideas are of equal value. Tomasello suggest that adult interaction with children is vital, particularly how adults affirm the meaning of words through body language and syntactic structure. Infants have an innate capacity for language, but meaning and structure doesn’t have the chance to flourish without social guidance. The connection doesn’t surprise me, because if language is truly innate (as music seems to be), it makes sense that we’re born with a linguistic structure that is dependent on social lubrication to function. If we’re intended to be social beings, and if language is inherent, to me it follows that language therefore can’t fully develop without social interaction, in spite of its inherent capacities.
ReplyDelete2. Tomasello argues that cultural and social interaction are vital to language acquisition, that without it linguistic development can’t fully occur. He says, for instance, that “[a] major part of the child's task in acquiring a language is thus to discover the way those around her use lexical symbols and how they interrelate them with syntactic symbols”. These skills, according to Tomasello, are interpretation with the child’s environment, that they aren’t inherent but learned through interpretation and association. He later writes, “First, in all of the world's languages that have been studied there are certain commonalities in the complex situations that young children are first motivated to talk about”. If the very roots of language are dependent upon a child’s circumstantial needs, how can language progress any further if these needs aren’t eventually addressed, or even present to begin with?
3. I suppose the most interesting idea I gathered is that as far as linguistic theory and knowledge has come, we have to return to Socrates and admit that we know nothing, or at least very little. Such seemingly contradictory theories arise with regularity, each providing a fresh approach that all but undoes previous attempts at understanding. Rather than being fatalist, though, I think we should continue to seek answers to these difficult questions, and build on one another’s ideas rather than brush previous ones to the side.
1. Both articles are connected in that they contemplate and interpret how a child learns, develops and produces sounds, words, phrases and language in general. Kuhl focuses on the ability of the baby and child to develop and mimic sounds. She states, "infants use two distinct learning mechanisms at the earliest states of language acquisition: one that recognizes sound through mental computation and another that requires intense social immersion (p.2/6)." On the other hand, Tomasello seems to focus more on just that second aspect, the "social aspect". Reading Tomasello's piece after our class, made me come to the conclusion that Tomasello is a mix between the ideas of Kuhl and Vygotsky. I relate Tomasello to Vygotsky as well because of how they both state the importance of social aspects on the development of the child. On page 70, Tomasello states, "Young children learn almost all of their earliest language in cultural routines of one sort or another... such as feeding, diaper changing, bathing... These routines scaffold the initial language acquisition of the child in the sense that they create, with no need of a conventional language... a shared referential context within which the language of the adult makes sense to the prelinguistic child." The adult is really the cataylist to the development here. And also in the Kuhl article, she states, "An infants ability to learn to speak depends not only on being able to listen to adults but also on the manner in which grownups talk to the child."
ReplyDeleteIn summary, both really discuss the importance of environment. It seem that babies and children need adults around creating the sounds for the child to "absorb" and progress language development. Adults need to be aware of our role in their language development and be good models.
2. As I stated above, Tomasello states that children absorb language and sounds from adults. They start by associating actions and routines with words, then are able to piece more together and even start "eavesdropping" at 19 months, paying attention to an adult that is not directly in contact with them(p.71).
3. I found the statistics in the Kuhl article interesting and it really made me think about how amazing it really it that babies can master a language so quickly. As I read both articles it made me reflect on my time as a nanny to twins from the ages of 8 months to 18 months. According to both articles, those are critical times for language development and I was blessed to experience and learn from watching and interacting with two infants at the same time. I can attest that much of what was discussed in both articles, that environment and repetition is key. I was able to get them to say please and thank you and a few other things, even though they may not have known exactly what they meant, they knew if they wanted something they couldn't whine but had to instead use the "magic words".
I agree -- I always find it fascinating how quickly children learn language. It seems that two years just isn't enough. Also, I love the continuum of researchers that you make, putting Tomasello as a cross between Kuhl and Vygotsky. Good work!
DeleteBoth articles, “The social basis of Language Acquisition” by Michael Tomasello and “How Babies Learn Language” by Patricia Kuhl discuss the acquisition of language in babies and the phenomenal yet fleeting capacity of language development. Both Kuhl and Tomasello complement each other by mapping out the cognitive development of a baby's basic language intake. They also bring attention to the fact that even for babies learning a language is not a passive process, but one that requires engagement, feedback, and attention.
ReplyDeleteKuhl’s approaches language acquisition from a statistical standpoint explaining how her “psychological tests and brain monitoring” ultimately demonstrated the need for social interaction in order to develop. As she states in her article “learning for the infant brain is not a passive process. It requires human interaction…” essentially supported by research states that children more quickly acquired (or distinguished differences of) an additional language through social interaction and at even such a young age driven by the “brain’s reward system.”
Tomasello takes a more social-anthropological approach to language acquisition. He also argues that babies development language through social interaction. He contends that a baby's social interaction can arise from imitation. A child “in some sense takes the point of view of the adult...she will be able to learn through the adult “ the end result of which is the appropriate usage of language.
I found it interesting that both articles were able to discover the process of language acquisition within autistic children. Linguistic acquisition is hindered within autistic children because as Tomasello states “do not understand what adults are doing with language and thus learn no language...” They both point out that linguistic expression is essential to the learning process in babies.
Both Khul and Tomasello address the nature versus nurture debate in early language acquisition. Their verdict: both play a complimentary role in language development. The two articles address the need for human interaction and motivation in language learning. Both take examples of autistic children as a way to argue how inability to read social cues hinders language learning.
ReplyDeleteTomasello presents more stages of language development, and explains how, as children broaden their linguistic skills, they question, imitate, reformulate, and interact increasingly with the language that is taking place in their culture (p. 80). Luckily, culture is predictable and full of patterns, and according to Tomasello: "[children] have the social-cognitive and social learning skills to take advantage of this structure" (p. 74).
I used to be skeptical of the use of "baby talk" for infants. However, according to Khul, such talk is engaging, and actually helps an infant learn. As a teacher, I am relieved to see that techniques such as "recasting" (Tomasello, p. 80) are useful in correcting children, as it is a technique I mostly use with older ELL students. I was especially happy to see both authors discuss motivation and human interaction as essential ingredients in promoting language. It makes me wonder, then, how much is language development hindered for a child who comes from a culture where they don't talk to or read to the baby; they just talk around him? Also, does a child growing up in an environment where more negative talk is happening lose the sense of reward or desire to communicate?
I too was surprised by the importance of baby talk in Kuhl's article. I always wrote off baby talk as silliness that probably hindered a baby's ability to learn language and am happy that that thinking was wrong.
DeleteI am still skeptical of the use of "baby talk". I have read mixed reviews of research on it. I also thought it was silly and inappropriate even if it's language used for babies. After reading Kuhl's article I was impressed at his explanations of it's importance. It has changed my point of view.
DeleteI agree with all of you- the idea that it is beneficial seems superficial or minimal at best, but babies are still able to pick up on the social cues that come from hearing and responding to language, even if it is "baby talk"
DeleteIn response to your last point, there are many cultures in the world that build language through constant presence. For example, cultures that strap their children on as they go about their daily work -- there may be some direct talk there, but there is also a lot of SURROUNDING language. Children learn language not just by direct instruction, but also by being surrounded by it. They are picking up phonemes as parents talk to each other and those around them.
Delete
ReplyDeleteBoth Tomasello and Kuhl are concerned about how social context and interaction are the true driving force of language acquisition. Rather than studying language as an isolated set of rules or something that is innately developed, they both focus on the child’s learning through increased awareness in interactions through cultural acts. As Tomasello focuses on language as a collection of lexical and syntactical symbols through child-adult relationships in particular to “imitate” and perhaps aspire to adulthood, Kuhl additionally supports parental context through the promotion of “parentese” and genuine interaction to achieve significant language gains and as the primary reason for doing so. Language then cannot exist independently of its social and cultural purposes, intentions and causes. After the prior Linguistics course, I think I had developed a bias to the criticized rule-driven formula as an innately abstract concept, yet it makes complete sense that the need to communicate is the driving force of language and governs its learning, rather than the rules being in place for us to assimilate and integrate.
As mentioned above, Tomasello focuses on how culture and social interaction are inextricably bound to language development and are the key triggers and purpose for this acquisition to occur. This is particularly noteworthy in the identification of lexical symbols via parental cues such as their visible interactions with objects and following the gaze to the object of discussion. Without these social cues, language would have no purpose and arguably no meaning and certainly no means of recognition to reality. Also noteworthy are the feedback and recasts of parental interactions where children understand where their response is either completely unintelligible and in need of alteration or else in need of refinement due to restating what was already said. Particularly at this young stage of life the child would be completely uninformed if not for the feedback of such interactions or the understanding of the nuances of parent response and their accompanying bodily gestures as cues. It is understandable that an argument against Generative Grammar is well-founded as the later rule-bound structures and written restrictions learned could not even exist without first being exposed to them in real-life situations to marry the symbol to meaning.
Yet the most surprising bit of information that stood out to me was from the Kuhl article in how the exaggerated speak of “parentese” actually benefits children in its exaggerative tones and pacing. My personal thinking was that this would actually make things worse as it’s not entirely true to speech that they will be acquainted with later in life. I think this be more due to when children are in elementary school I almost view the baby-talk as insulting to the children and perhaps degrading as they are no longer babies. Additionally, the potential to learn all of the phonetic sounds across languages through genuine interaction was very fascinating, though at the same time common sense. Of course every child would have an equal opportunity to develop the particular sounds necessary depending on the context and sounds they regularly hear in their interactions. I think the most surprising factor of this particular concept was that only the in-person interactions had an effect on the children’s language development of phonemes while the technological scaffolds had no bearing on language development at all as they are isolated sound bytes without context. I found this relevant to the technology discussion in class about whether iPads are magical for young children and potentially the next big thing for children learning in all contexts including language. If the study proved that technological distancing actually didn’t do anything for the children, does that mean there is indeed an age limit for technology to become effective in learning?
It's always fascinating to me when thousands of years of research and evidence is ignored. Such is the case right now with iPads and other smart devices replacing teaching children how to learn. Up until this point, it has been proven that children learn language via face to face interaction with adults. Why do we think iPads, which are clearly not face to face interactions, will teach our children language!? It goes counter to what has been happening since the beginning of language!
DeleteFantastic reflection, Derek. Lily, you and I are in complete agreement. I am quite concerned about linguistic communication as the current iPad generation ages.
DeleteBoth of the readings for this week explore how babies learn language. In the article “How Babies Learn Language”, Kuhl discusses the statistical aspect and learning benchmarks for babies whereas Tomasello discusses the social interactions necessary for babies to meet these benchmarks. In the context of nature vs. nurture, it would seem that Kuhl is more interested in the biology behind babies’ benchmark months of learning, or the nature side of the argument. Tomasello, in his article “The social bases of language acquisition” explores and discusses how babies’ ability to learn language is contingent upon the social implicitness of language learning. This connection does not surprise me at all as many of the first questions asked when discussing the psychology of any topic is “Is it nature or nurture?” As we already know, the reason language is learned is part biology and part socialization. What I found most interesting about the connection between the two articles is that the socialization of language seems to play such a massive role in the acquisition of language. Although peripherally I acknowledged that learning language is a social construct, I did not realize the connection to body language that babies innately cue in on.
ReplyDeleteTomasello specifically argues that learning language is a social behavior that is rooted in social interactions. More specifically Tomasello writes that “the most important social base of language acquisition, relying on this social-pragmatic view of language and social learning” (68). In other words, Tomasello describes how language learning is completely contingent upon social, real-life real-time interaction with adults. It is interesting to note that the author refers specifically to the role of the adult throughout the article (which lead me to question what qualifies an “adult” as an adult. Is a young parent, say fourteen, still as influential in the role of giving his or her child a language as say a 30 year old? Or is adult just being defined as a person in power able to structure a child’s life?). For example on page 69 Tomasello writes: “(i) adults structure interactions with children in culturally-specific ways, and (ii) children, at least by the time they normally begin to acquire language, have the ability to participate in these interactions intersubjectively.” As adults structure their days and their lives, they are subconsciously structuring the access points for their children to learn language. This also helps explain the reasoning behind children having the ability and desire to assist an adult in the activities of daily life. As an aunt I have watched my nieces and nephews several times over the years and have very fond memories of them at about 2 or 3 years old trying to help me fold clothes, clean up their toys, and express desire to help me cook. After reading Tomasello’s article, I now realize that this is in part due to the desire and need to socialize in the ways that they have learned how through their daily lives at home. What was also interesting is that in the Kuhl article she describes how babies do not learn language through television as well as children that interact with adults in the moment (3). It leads me to wonder about the effects of television on language acquisition and if it hinders children’s language capacity/learning skills or undoes some of the work and skills adults and babies put into the language acquisition process. I am also curious about how shows like Dora the Explorer impact babies’ language skills.
What was most interesting to me was how important body language is for children to be able to learn not only context of language but syntax and grammar as well. The fact that babies follow adult’s eyesight and are able to pick up on body language is something that I have not ever really thought about. This pushes me to interact more physically with family members and students moving forward in my teaching.
I also had not given much thought into how much social interaction is essential to language development. Students need to be given activities that have them interacting with their peers and surroundings to facilitate the language development process. As a teacher, I'd like to incorporate more of this in my lessons. When students are interacting with each other and working together in a purposeful way, the knowledge is produced from everyone in the class, and not just the teacher.
Delete1.
ReplyDeleteBoth articles discuss how quickly babies can learn language at such a young age. The Kuhl article discusses a more statistical approach to how babies learn to speak. It talks about how infants have the ability to master a language quickly and a lot of it comes from the hours spent listening to parents talk even if its the "silly vernacular or parentese". Their mental computation allows them to recognize sound. They also evolve their language skills through intense social immersion, which relates to Tomasello's article. Tomasello talks about the significance of social factors that affect the language a baby learns. He stresses that language is a social behavior. Tomasello also discusses how culture plays a big role on a child because of the interactions they have within their families which enforce language.
2.
Tomasello believes that culture and social interaction are two major factors that affect the way a child learns language. He states, "Language is social behavior. Its structures are social conventions. Its functions all derive in one way or another from communication. It can be acquired only through social interaction with other human beings. It requires for its acquisition specific skills of social learning." (Tomasello 67) He believes that this social interaction leads to communicative competence. The more a child interacts with his/her family through cultural activities, the more he/she will understand when it comes to language. Tomasello also writes, "Social interactional routines such as feeding, diaper changing, bathing, interactive games, book reading, car trips, and a whole host of other activities constitute the formats within which children acquire their earliest communicative conventions (Ratner & Bruner, 1978; Ninio & Bruner, 1978; Snow & Goldfield, 1983; see Bruner, 1983, and Nelson, 1985, for summaries)." (Tomasello 70) This shows that from a young age children learn to interact with their family members and with their environment which builds their language skills.
3.
I find it interesting that the Kuhl article explained how babies can go from babbling and mumbling to speaking full grammar correct sentences in just a few years. I find it very interesting how some children learn to speak two languages fluently by the age of 7, as the Kuhl article stated. I am amazed at how children can differentiate between two languages and use them appropriately by context.
Post by Elpida Vlahos
Delete1. Kuhl and Tomasello argue over the ways in which babies learn their first, (or second) language. Tomasello believes it is a matter of social interaction, and contingent on the amount of time adults spend speaking with and to a child. Babies are able to pick up on the ways in which adults speak to them and how it affects them socially. In a nature vs. nurture argument, Tomasello's views would be nurture-based; (i.e. using the appropriate words that will get them what they need). Kuhl views language acquisition as a natural process that occurs when babies are able to detect the phonemes and language patterns specific to their culture. While Tomasello sees its extent as social, Kuhl sees it as scientific.
ReplyDeleteTomasello argues that language acquisition is a social process rather than a developmental process. Children pick up on language as a social cue to get what they need, and do so by imitating the adults around them.
From these articles, I found the most interesting facts to be the statistics on how quickly students learn language. Children learn language at a remarkable rate at a young age, and it takes years for the rapidness of language to plateau.