Well, I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I really struggled with Vygotsky. I'm not sure if it was just the really dense plethora of information, or just fighting off cold and migraines, but boy, did Vygotsky have a lot to say. Okay, end rant...
It was really interesting to read his critique of Piaget, who we very briefly covered in our linguistics class. In fact, I felt like I had to re familiarize myself with his theories besides the information Vygotsky provided. One of the parts that interested me the most was the section on egocentric speech. According to Vygotsky, "egocentric speech does not provide communication...Egocentric speech is, therefore, useless. It plays no essential role in child behavior" (29).
I felt many aspects of Vygotsky's criticism of the role of egocentric speech in child development was really insightful and just made a lot of sense. I thought the example with the child drawing the streetcar really highlighted it. Although the child did not communicate directly with the people he was upset that his pencil broke, he communicated it verbally "It's broken" but also physically through the representation of the broken streetcar in his picture. The connection between language and activity I thought was crucial, as the child was showing he understood the meaning of broken through the drawing of a streetcar. So while Piaget thought egocentric speech was something that happened when children are small (and that they would eventually grow out of) I feel this show it is an important step in development of not only verbal speech, but the consequences behind meanings of words. He may have heard the word "broken" but not had truly understood it until it happened to him. And then he showed his understanding of the word through the drawing. It reminded me a lot of our discussion from a few weeks ago and how children naturally change the verb tenses. With regards to the tenses, as a child naturally grows, the syntax he or she develops almost corrects itself. I feel the same type of idea could be seen with egocentric speech, whereas its a fuller understanding of the word because its happening to him, and he is experiencing it, even if the only communication he is having is between himself and that paper.
It would seem that egocentric speech is imperative to human being growth, as it never really leaves us, only manifests itself in a form of "inner speech" as Piaget refers to it. Vygotsky makes the argument that adults "thinking out loud" is no different than egocentric speech, and this seems like a really good observation (32). I'm pretty sure I can think of several dozens of situations where I have talked to myself out loud.
The other aspect of the egocentric speech I thought was interesting was when Vygotsky compared the schema of development, "first social, then egocentric, then inner speech--contrasts both with the traditional behaviorist schema--vocal, speech, whisper, inner speech--and with Piaget sequence--from nonverbal autistic thought through egocentric thought and speech to socialized speech and logical thinking" (35-36). Comparing all the developments of speech, thought, and language side by side when I think about all the developments we have made in discovering thought and language and the connection between, and yet how far we have to go. It almost seems to a degree, that each child may respond differently in growth, so I wonder how much of nature v. nurture plays in to the child's development..
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
From the very beginning of this reading I became focused on a comment Vygotsky made about the importance of developmental changes in the interrelatedness of thought and language. Once he moved on to the discussion of ontogenetics, one question permeated my thoughts throughout the reading. How does the relationship and development of the relationship between thought and language differ between individuals? The first instance that hinted at an answer was Vygotsky's claim that "development of speech creates a favorable environment for autistic thinking." (23) This seemed at first contradictory, as Vygotsky had referred to Piaget's hypothesis that autistic thought was unconscious and uncommunicative, which seems elementally incongruous with language development. Also, the idea was postulated that imagination, a large function of autistic thinking, was based on memory. Both imagination and memory rely heavily on the senses, imagery and therefore, symbols. We think of words as symbols of what they represent, but not in the sense of symbols associated with non-linguistic units of memory. However, if true, this raises the question of children whose socio-economic position has forced them into reality at an earlier age than other children, and so further away from an existence dominated by imagination; whether or not the language development of these children suffers as a result?
Furthermore, Vygotsky's arguments seem to regularly return to the utilitarian nature of language. If there is not a purpose or stimulus for a certain type of language use, whether it be social/communicative or autistic, then, obviously, the language is not used or left at a stage of underdevelopment. If types of thought development are linked to types of language development, then the corresponding thought processes of neglecting speech development will also become underdeveloped. Correct? So, students who are not challenged or engaged communicatively are more likely to be underdeveloped in both speech and thought? If true, this directly affects literacy in that it is not a person's knowledge of canon or the legitimacy of a person's thoughts that are questionable, but the ability to think and express thought that becomes problematic.
Furthermore, Vygotsky's arguments seem to regularly return to the utilitarian nature of language. If there is not a purpose or stimulus for a certain type of language use, whether it be social/communicative or autistic, then, obviously, the language is not used or left at a stage of underdevelopment. If types of thought development are linked to types of language development, then the corresponding thought processes of neglecting speech development will also become underdeveloped. Correct? So, students who are not challenged or engaged communicatively are more likely to be underdeveloped in both speech and thought? If true, this directly affects literacy in that it is not a person's knowledge of canon or the legitimacy of a person's thoughts that are questionable, but the ability to think and express thought that becomes problematic.
No answers, just more questions...
I found the first section in Vgotsky very difficult. I'm reading this thinking, "I'm an English teacher damn it. Why can't I understand this?" Then I got out my unabridged dictionary and started hunting. I was surprised to see the word "autism" used the way he did. I had a difficult time divorcing myself from thinking of autistic children each time I read that word. What does that tell you about thought and language. The idea and the word were so closely associated in my brain, that I just couldn't subconsciously separate the two. It was only when I stopped and corrected my thinking, that I could move on to try to understand the point.
What is the age of crisis in psychology mentioned on page 15?
Vgosky writes on page 15 that "...facts are always examined in light of some theory..." Aren't facts also DISCOVERED in light of some theory?
On page 21 Vgostky writes that animal psychoogy knows only the reality function. How can this be tested?
I enjoyed Vgotsky's discussion of the two types of egocentric and socialized language. I wondered about socialized language...Without others, would a child never learn to think or speak anything other than egocentric speech?
On page 39 Vgotsky quotes Lenin, "For even in the simplist generalization, in the most general idea, there is a certain bit of fantasy". I just thought that was a cool way to look at ideas because they are just a fantasy in the brain until they are tested or discussed.
After reading this chapter, I kept thinking about how we perceive those who cannot or will not speak. If someone is physically incapable of speaking, we sometimes assume he is incapable of higher level thinking. If we did not know who Stephen Hawking was, would we assume he was incapable of thought?
Chapter 4 was fun to read. On page 75 Vgotsky states that there is no physiological reason why chimps cannot speak. Where does the thought process fail them? (I am already making a judgment here)
We've come a long way since Vgotsky. He writes on page 75 that there is no hope that antropoids can learn to speak and, "Not a hint of their using signs has ever been heard of". I remember Koko, (was he a chimp or a mountain gorilla?) and several articles in National Geographic and a woman working with him on sign language.
On page 78 Vgostky writes that some animals do have a speeh of their own and that Learner "compiled a dictionary of 32 speech elements, or 'words' ". In light of some of our recent discussions on literacy, isn't Vgotsky saying that animals have their own literacy? I know this is not the point of his research, but this made me think that there are probably thousands of literacies in thousands of cultures and cultures within cultures, so who's saying ours is best? What's so superior about Western civilization and its academia?
What is the age of crisis in psychology mentioned on page 15?
Vgosky writes on page 15 that "...facts are always examined in light of some theory..." Aren't facts also DISCOVERED in light of some theory?
On page 21 Vgostky writes that animal psychoogy knows only the reality function. How can this be tested?
I enjoyed Vgotsky's discussion of the two types of egocentric and socialized language. I wondered about socialized language...Without others, would a child never learn to think or speak anything other than egocentric speech?
On page 39 Vgotsky quotes Lenin, "For even in the simplist generalization, in the most general idea, there is a certain bit of fantasy". I just thought that was a cool way to look at ideas because they are just a fantasy in the brain until they are tested or discussed.
After reading this chapter, I kept thinking about how we perceive those who cannot or will not speak. If someone is physically incapable of speaking, we sometimes assume he is incapable of higher level thinking. If we did not know who Stephen Hawking was, would we assume he was incapable of thought?
Chapter 4 was fun to read. On page 75 Vgotsky states that there is no physiological reason why chimps cannot speak. Where does the thought process fail them? (I am already making a judgment here)
We've come a long way since Vgotsky. He writes on page 75 that there is no hope that antropoids can learn to speak and, "Not a hint of their using signs has ever been heard of". I remember Koko, (was he a chimp or a mountain gorilla?) and several articles in National Geographic and a woman working with him on sign language.
On page 78 Vgostky writes that some animals do have a speeh of their own and that Learner "compiled a dictionary of 32 speech elements, or 'words' ". In light of some of our recent discussions on literacy, isn't Vgotsky saying that animals have their own literacy? I know this is not the point of his research, but this made me think that there are probably thousands of literacies in thousands of cultures and cultures within cultures, so who's saying ours is best? What's so superior about Western civilization and its academia?
Symbols and structure (aka there is no escape)
Preface: Ray is ill. He had an awesome time in Florida, then his immune system gave out. 3 words: Jenna's Jello Shots.
Alrighty then. Diving in at the wrong end (and hoping I won't injure myself in the process), let's start with p. 92--"...for a long time to a child a word is a property, rather than a symbol of an object." Simple, right? As always seems to be the case, yes and no. Earlier on the same page, Vygotsky quotes Wallon regarding children making words into attributes of an object. The fact of Vygotsky delineating these details means he thought them notable, but why? Here's my take; it's probably not his. i like to follow an idea outwards till it is concrete, absurd, or both. Bonus points if you know the technical term for this type of argument. Not recognizing the symbolic function of words is an immature form of thinking. This is applied to children in the text, but how often do we naively operate the same way as supposed mature adult intellects? I feel as if I'm dancing around what I'm trying to get at, mainly because it's difficult to generate a nominal example, so I will instead give a few adjectives instead.
Corrupt.
Dirty.
Traditional.
Pure.
Alien.
Attractive.
Ok. Pick the object you want to use any of the above adjectives on. If you (or I) do not recognize that the words are linguistic tools, culturally created symbols, we may pair up "Corrupt" and "Senator," making the adjective an inseperable part of the object's structure. This limits our thinking, strengthens the artificial limitations of our world, and makes us unable to see the possibility of any potential change in that sphere of our world.
This is even more powerful when we recognize that children (speakers generally) are capable of using a symbolic tool before recognizing it as one. Getting used to a limited set of these linguistic tools is the way we all start the process of verbal thought, but the acquisition of new tools allows the expression of more thoughts.
I'm trying to stick with short and sweet, so just ask me about the chimps on the "Planet Earth" video in class.
Alrighty then. Diving in at the wrong end (and hoping I won't injure myself in the process), let's start with p. 92--"...for a long time to a child a word is a property, rather than a symbol of an object." Simple, right? As always seems to be the case, yes and no. Earlier on the same page, Vygotsky quotes Wallon regarding children making words into attributes of an object. The fact of Vygotsky delineating these details means he thought them notable, but why? Here's my take; it's probably not his. i like to follow an idea outwards till it is concrete, absurd, or both. Bonus points if you know the technical term for this type of argument. Not recognizing the symbolic function of words is an immature form of thinking. This is applied to children in the text, but how often do we naively operate the same way as supposed mature adult intellects? I feel as if I'm dancing around what I'm trying to get at, mainly because it's difficult to generate a nominal example, so I will instead give a few adjectives instead.
Corrupt.
Dirty.
Traditional.
Pure.
Alien.
Attractive.
Ok. Pick the object you want to use any of the above adjectives on. If you (or I) do not recognize that the words are linguistic tools, culturally created symbols, we may pair up "Corrupt" and "Senator," making the adjective an inseperable part of the object's structure. This limits our thinking, strengthens the artificial limitations of our world, and makes us unable to see the possibility of any potential change in that sphere of our world.
This is even more powerful when we recognize that children (speakers generally) are capable of using a symbolic tool before recognizing it as one. Getting used to a limited set of these linguistic tools is the way we all start the process of verbal thought, but the acquisition of new tools allows the expression of more thoughts.
I'm trying to stick with short and sweet, so just ask me about the chimps on the "Planet Earth" video in class.
I think my brain needs a band-aid...
All this meditation, clarification, and metacognition as the result of reading Vygotsky has made my brain hurt. Sore, even. I've thought of so many questions, I don't know where to start. Of course, the answers may have been right before my eyes. . . but I just don’t know where. If the ego develops through external contact, how do people who are born deaf and blind think? If the cognitive process benefits from the presence of inner speech, again, how do they think? How do they communicate when inner speech (which is learned from one’s environment) doesn’t develop? How can they imprint and organize their conscious content? All the theories certainly make sense for what we consider “normal” individuals, to a certain extent, but how can they make sense when one is hearing impaired or both hearing and sight impaired? Especially when word meaning and sound is so important to thought and our thought process, how is reality perceived without the benefit of hearing? Or of seeing? Vygotsky maintains that thought and speech cannot be studied separately. But what about those individuals who for some reason cannot speak? They understand what is being said to them, but they cannot respond verbally. And, if speech movements facilitate reasoning, can people with disabilities involving hearing and/or speech reason the same as a person without such disabilities? Does the brain find a different avenue to reason, to think, to explore reality? If thought and speech unite into verbal thought, wouldn’t there have to be other possible theories of the thought and language connection (problem) for those who cannot hear and/or speak?
Enquiring minds want to know the answers to these questions and more. Of course, I understand the broader implications of Vygotsky, that environment (connected to one’s socioeconomic status) plays a huge role in a child’s development, something we have been discussing since day one. I had never actually considered, though, that a child may understand a word, but not be able (no matter how many times you explain it) to understand the adjoining concept, that it’s a matter of maturity. By the way, if I begin talking to myself out loud, am I being childish or immature? Or am I enhancing my reasoning capabilities?
And, does all of this explain how sometimes I just can’t put my thoughts into words? How I can just have a thought and not really be able to express it. You mean it’s not a sign of senility? That others have this problem, too? I’m so looking forward to our discussion!
Can’t help but wonder if I really am thinking. Or do I just think I’m thinking?
Enquiring minds want to know the answers to these questions and more. Of course, I understand the broader implications of Vygotsky, that environment (connected to one’s socioeconomic status) plays a huge role in a child’s development, something we have been discussing since day one. I had never actually considered, though, that a child may understand a word, but not be able (no matter how many times you explain it) to understand the adjoining concept, that it’s a matter of maturity. By the way, if I begin talking to myself out loud, am I being childish or immature? Or am I enhancing my reasoning capabilities?
And, does all of this explain how sometimes I just can’t put my thoughts into words? How I can just have a thought and not really be able to express it. You mean it’s not a sign of senility? That others have this problem, too? I’m so looking forward to our discussion!
Can’t help but wonder if I really am thinking. Or do I just think I’m thinking?
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Thought is speech minus sound...
...I wish my mother would do that. No sound. Just thoughts that never come out of her mouth. I don't even want to see her email thoughts. Nothing. Ok...moving on...
So the whole process of inner speech and the roots of the mind...The whole idea that if our inner thoughts were spoken they would be unintelligible, or rather, it would not resemble language as we know it, is really intriguing. Inner speech is almost a language all its own. I would give a page number here but there are so many pages that loosely refer to this, there would be a list of pages and it seems unnecessary. Well, more in chapters one and four than in three. I read in one sitting and didn't really stop...my mind kept going with the words on the pages. So this is the idea I want to talk about-the idea that one thought is almost uninterpretable in language and has to be revised to make it understandable when it is spoken.
It's relatively often that I am talking to someone, and I am thinking of something I want to tell them. Seems simple enough. But when I try to tell them, I feel like I have to rearrange my thoughts completely in order for what I am thinking to make sense when it comes out of my mouth. I didn't realize I did this until I read these chapters and actually thought about it. If I said what I was actually thinking, Vygotsky is right--I know that my thoughts would almost sound like a cross between gibberish and English. It's like I can think of what I want to say with one or two words, but actually speaking--it's a whole different story. The person wouldn't know what I was talking about. I have to put this word or two into an intelligible English sentence. Turning thoughts into words is second nature, but I suppose when you pick each word and each thought and each process apart, it's a task that takes some...thought. But the process is so quick that nobody thinks to do that unless you are asked to read this book. I've been thinking about my thoughts. I'm not one to try to over analyze, and since I am now aware of thought, I've had trouble figuring out if I am over analyzing my own thoughts or if I'm just simply trying to analyze my process of thinking. Is it the same difference? Julie, why do you do this to me every week?
We don't think in terms of topics or subjects. Well, that what Vygotsky says. I've been trying to analyze that one, too...when I am thinking, is it a subject or is it just all expressive thought with no direct correlation to the subject of that expressive thought? I suppose not. They're just thoughts about something I read or saw or heard. I guess that's where the subject part of it ends. The thought process just picks that subject apart without any direct relation to it...I guess that would be considered redundant. Your own thoughts know what they are thinking about.
The whole idea of analyzing thinking and speaking is intriguing. It makes me wonder about the inner speech of people when I know they are trying to re-word what they are thinking before it comes out of their mouth.
So the whole process of inner speech and the roots of the mind...The whole idea that if our inner thoughts were spoken they would be unintelligible, or rather, it would not resemble language as we know it, is really intriguing. Inner speech is almost a language all its own. I would give a page number here but there are so many pages that loosely refer to this, there would be a list of pages and it seems unnecessary. Well, more in chapters one and four than in three. I read in one sitting and didn't really stop...my mind kept going with the words on the pages. So this is the idea I want to talk about-the idea that one thought is almost uninterpretable in language and has to be revised to make it understandable when it is spoken.
It's relatively often that I am talking to someone, and I am thinking of something I want to tell them. Seems simple enough. But when I try to tell them, I feel like I have to rearrange my thoughts completely in order for what I am thinking to make sense when it comes out of my mouth. I didn't realize I did this until I read these chapters and actually thought about it. If I said what I was actually thinking, Vygotsky is right--I know that my thoughts would almost sound like a cross between gibberish and English. It's like I can think of what I want to say with one or two words, but actually speaking--it's a whole different story. The person wouldn't know what I was talking about. I have to put this word or two into an intelligible English sentence. Turning thoughts into words is second nature, but I suppose when you pick each word and each thought and each process apart, it's a task that takes some...thought. But the process is so quick that nobody thinks to do that unless you are asked to read this book. I've been thinking about my thoughts. I'm not one to try to over analyze, and since I am now aware of thought, I've had trouble figuring out if I am over analyzing my own thoughts or if I'm just simply trying to analyze my process of thinking. Is it the same difference? Julie, why do you do this to me every week?
We don't think in terms of topics or subjects. Well, that what Vygotsky says. I've been trying to analyze that one, too...when I am thinking, is it a subject or is it just all expressive thought with no direct correlation to the subject of that expressive thought? I suppose not. They're just thoughts about something I read or saw or heard. I guess that's where the subject part of it ends. The thought process just picks that subject apart without any direct relation to it...I guess that would be considered redundant. Your own thoughts know what they are thinking about.
The whole idea of analyzing thinking and speaking is intriguing. It makes me wonder about the inner speech of people when I know they are trying to re-word what they are thinking before it comes out of their mouth.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Hard Reading-The Theories, The Children, The World Today
Well, Lev Vygostsky is difficult. After reading and rereading I have put him in a place of my mind.
I enjoyed the sociocultural elements of Vygostsky's psychology addressed in the updated Thought & Language title. The original Thought & Speaking title (translation limitations?)seemed to be limiting. Our society does gets bogged down with the spoken word as a sign of intelligence. The babbling of very young children to their gestures expressing needs to communication with others and finally self reflection offer a way of social interaction to progressive cognitive growth of thought and language. The words children are exposed to become meaningful through their experience. First Egocentric speech is discussed as it directly relates to self while socialized speech builds into a relations to and between self and others. "To put it quite simply, we may say that the adult thinks socially, even when he is alone, and that the child under seven thinks egocentrically, even in the society of others" (27). Experience gives meanings to words for the child. That experience is grounded in interaction with others. Today non-human and impersonal interactions are rampant in children's lives. Play has become about tasks rather than the imagination which I believe is the first step to inner thoughts.
When we address the social construct of the 21st Century, maybe we are seeing a regression where humans of all ages have regressed into egocentric speech that carries into the internal speech. The thought and language that is all about "the me". Today logic, morals, and ideals may be losing ground in the social construction thanks to wars, famines, politicians, media,inequalities, etc. The second hand experience of the news and the background sound bits for technological toys bombard children. What would be the findings in any of the studies today? Would children progress in their development or would they stagnate? Possibly the studies can be proof of what we need to do as a society to facilitate the development of thought & language.
For children with limited speech capabilities, the lack of development of external spoken words is often assumed by the community as a lacking of developmental skills. Our society places a great importance on the verbal communication often to the exclusion of the non-verbal and the shy. While the external speech requires a common reference for group understanding, internal speech can be anything you want-you could be trying to figure concepts out in your mind until you might desire to put the concepts into verbal utterances. Our society places much value on how people speak vs. how they think. We need to help those children who learn outside the accepted education.
All children can participate in the "equal realities-the world of play and the world of observation" (47). Humboldt's work with play goes beyond imagination into role-playing and acting for life. He documented the importance of play not only for the socialization of children but for the contemplation for adults. Piaget did say, "the child never really comes into contact with things because he does not work. He plays with them, or simply believes them without trying to find the truth" (55). Today the child does not always come into contact with people because things are integral to the child's world. The influences of home and pre-school (or lack of either)can not be ignored.
I believe everyone should make time for play as well as reflection. If children learn by observation and socialization, what are our responsibilities as adults?
I could not get into the chapter on animal developement. Sorry, years of Jane Goddall in Africa have tainted and tired my belief in the value of cross-over of studies of animals and humans.
I enjoyed the sociocultural elements of Vygostsky's psychology addressed in the updated Thought & Language title. The original Thought & Speaking title (translation limitations?)seemed to be limiting. Our society does gets bogged down with the spoken word as a sign of intelligence. The babbling of very young children to their gestures expressing needs to communication with others and finally self reflection offer a way of social interaction to progressive cognitive growth of thought and language. The words children are exposed to become meaningful through their experience. First Egocentric speech is discussed as it directly relates to self while socialized speech builds into a relations to and between self and others. "To put it quite simply, we may say that the adult thinks socially, even when he is alone, and that the child under seven thinks egocentrically, even in the society of others" (27). Experience gives meanings to words for the child. That experience is grounded in interaction with others. Today non-human and impersonal interactions are rampant in children's lives. Play has become about tasks rather than the imagination which I believe is the first step to inner thoughts.
When we address the social construct of the 21st Century, maybe we are seeing a regression where humans of all ages have regressed into egocentric speech that carries into the internal speech. The thought and language that is all about "the me". Today logic, morals, and ideals may be losing ground in the social construction thanks to wars, famines, politicians, media,inequalities, etc. The second hand experience of the news and the background sound bits for technological toys bombard children. What would be the findings in any of the studies today? Would children progress in their development or would they stagnate? Possibly the studies can be proof of what we need to do as a society to facilitate the development of thought & language.
For children with limited speech capabilities, the lack of development of external spoken words is often assumed by the community as a lacking of developmental skills. Our society places a great importance on the verbal communication often to the exclusion of the non-verbal and the shy. While the external speech requires a common reference for group understanding, internal speech can be anything you want-you could be trying to figure concepts out in your mind until you might desire to put the concepts into verbal utterances. Our society places much value on how people speak vs. how they think. We need to help those children who learn outside the accepted education.
All children can participate in the "equal realities-the world of play and the world of observation" (47). Humboldt's work with play goes beyond imagination into role-playing and acting for life. He documented the importance of play not only for the socialization of children but for the contemplation for adults. Piaget did say, "the child never really comes into contact with things because he does not work. He plays with them, or simply believes them without trying to find the truth" (55). Today the child does not always come into contact with people because things are integral to the child's world. The influences of home and pre-school (or lack of either)can not be ignored.
I believe everyone should make time for play as well as reflection. If children learn by observation and socialization, what are our responsibilities as adults?
I could not get into the chapter on animal developement. Sorry, years of Jane Goddall in Africa have tainted and tired my belief in the value of cross-over of studies of animals and humans.
The chicken or the egg
I looked through some old textbooks from my master's degree days to see what they had to say about Lev Vygotsky and his work. One book dedicated a chapter to his work and the other book mentioned him twice. I am glad that this is required reading because I really didn't know much about his own thoughts about his work. I knew some theories - like the Zone of Proximal Development, but that's about it.
So Piaget and Vygotsky don't agree on the order that speech develops. Has there been a landmark study [that, perhaps I should know but I don't] that definitively defines the order that speech and thought develops? Somebody enlighten me if one exists.
I want to focus on Vygotsky's discussion of the effects of environment on speech. "Whether the child's talk is more egocentric or more social depends not only on his age but also on the surrounding conditions" (Vygotsky 55). I attended a reading conference today and heard two different speakers refer to Hart and Risley landmark study of children's exposure to vocabulary. I believe we touched on this in class once before, but I'll give some additional background information about that study. In their book, Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experiences of Young American Children, Betty Hart and Todd Risley discuss their longitudinal study (lasting 2-1/2 years) involving 42 families. Each month they recorded one hour of conversation (every word uttered) between professional, working class, or welfare parents and their children. They estimate that a 3 year-old from a professional family will hear 11 million words in a year, children in working class families hear about 6 million words, and a child from a welfare family will hear only 3 million. That means that 3 years into life, some children already have an 8 million word listening vocabulary advantage over other children.
Although Vygotsky was referring to a child's spoken language and not his listening vocabulary, this would obviously have a huge impact on that as well. So, yeah, Vygotsky is right - the social aspect in a child's speech at home is huge. Hart and Risely also discovered that welfare kids heard more negative statements like, "Don't do that" or "Get the remote control" and professional children were the recipients of more positively couched statements like "Good for you" and "That's right!"
I'll bet Vygotsky would love to weigh in on the ramifications of this study in regards to the development of speech and thought. Without a doubt, the "surrounding conditions" and "social milieus" (56) DO matter.
So Piaget and Vygotsky don't agree on the order that speech develops. Has there been a landmark study [that, perhaps I should know but I don't] that definitively defines the order that speech and thought develops? Somebody enlighten me if one exists.
I want to focus on Vygotsky's discussion of the effects of environment on speech. "Whether the child's talk is more egocentric or more social depends not only on his age but also on the surrounding conditions" (Vygotsky 55). I attended a reading conference today and heard two different speakers refer to Hart and Risley landmark study of children's exposure to vocabulary. I believe we touched on this in class once before, but I'll give some additional background information about that study. In their book, Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experiences of Young American Children, Betty Hart and Todd Risley discuss their longitudinal study (lasting 2-1/2 years) involving 42 families. Each month they recorded one hour of conversation (every word uttered) between professional, working class, or welfare parents and their children. They estimate that a 3 year-old from a professional family will hear 11 million words in a year, children in working class families hear about 6 million words, and a child from a welfare family will hear only 3 million. That means that 3 years into life, some children already have an 8 million word listening vocabulary advantage over other children.
Although Vygotsky was referring to a child's spoken language and not his listening vocabulary, this would obviously have a huge impact on that as well. So, yeah, Vygotsky is right - the social aspect in a child's speech at home is huge. Hart and Risely also discovered that welfare kids heard more negative statements like, "Don't do that" or "Get the remote control" and professional children were the recipients of more positively couched statements like "Good for you" and "That's right!"
I'll bet Vygotsky would love to weigh in on the ramifications of this study in regards to the development of speech and thought. Without a doubt, the "surrounding conditions" and "social milieus" (56) DO matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
