Nature book - Year 4 / age 7-8
The garden
The garden has got a pond with lilly pads and a fish.
Round it has got flowers and a tree.
there is a patio.
It has got lotf of grass
Page 9
In are yard ther is a big tree
I see bloutit in it my dad put a Bold box on the tree.
We have a swing the stains came the robns we put bred and seeds.
The star of Wathapd
One day i whet to intanmost
I sow a lagtayttit & a {unclear}
it was good i whet to the capays & I got some keyl mit cake.
Then i whet {unclear}
The end.
Wild animals - Year 5 / age 9-10
Jungle animals
The tiger has strips all over his coat.
The lepord has spots here and there.
The poor hippotamas has a probics.
Th gorilla is covered with hair.
The giraffe has, by heack a very long neck.
The elephant has a large trunk.
The lion is king of the jungle,
but they all run away from the skunk.
The African Jungle {extract}
One sunny morning leo the lion was thinking. He was thinking of the jungle to make it nicer. Hello leo! replied Hisser, 'what are you doing today?' Well I want to change the jungle, to make it nicer. I don't want you to "said Hisser. I like it as it is she said. I am the king said leo arngreyley. Nila, leos wife came back from the jungles in north Africa. The pack of monkeys up a tree from leo, were very happy to see Nila.
Friday, 9 December 2016
Children's writing
Children's spelling
- Doubling consonants – e.g. breezzy, dissappeared
- Spell phonetically – e.g. ment, brite
- Stressed and unstressed letters – knife = nife, stomach = tomach
- Vowel combinations – i.e. ‘I comes before e’ e.g. coulourful
- Suffixing and prefixing – e.g. living = liveing
- Initial letter – e.g. England = Ingland
- Insertion - adding extra letters
- Omission - leaving out letters
- Substitution - substituting one letter for another
- Transposition - reversing the order of letters in words
- Phonetic spelling - spelling words according to the standard phonemes that graphemes make
- Over/undergeneralising of spelling rules - applying or not applying rules in inappropriate contexts or one specific context
- Salient (key) sounds - only including the key sounds
Cohesive features
- Connectives
- Punctuation – full stop, colon
- Order of the text
- Tenses used
- Paragraphs
- Headings, sub headings
- Consistency of audience
- Anaphoric references – referring to the past - last week
- Cataphoric references – referring to future – later on
- Continuity of style
- Conventions followed
- Structure
- Illustrations
- Layout
- Consistency of sentence lengths
Stages in the development of writing - DOCTOR CATHY BARCLAY 1996
Stage 1: SCRIBBLING STAGE
- Random marks on a page
- Writing and scribbles are accompanied by speaking
- Writing + drawings
- Produce wavy lines which is their understanding of lineation
- Cursive writing
- Letters are separate things.
- Usually involves writing the name as the first word.
- Child usually puts letters on a page but is able to read it as words.
- Child spells in the way they understand the word should be spelt- own way.
- Attach spelling with sounds.
- Are able to spell most words.
Stages in the development of writing - B.M. KROLL 1981
Stage 1 - Preparatory Stage
Stage 4: INTEGRATION STAGE (12+)
- The child learns the basic principles of spelling.
- Learns the basic motor skills needed to write.
- The child writes in the way they would speak.
- Uses mainly short declarative sentences including mainly 'and' conjunctions.
- Incomplete sentences as they don’t know how to finish the sentence off.
- Child becomes aware of the difference between speaking and writing.
- Recognises the different writing styles available e.g. letter, essay.
- Lots of mistakes.
- Use writing guides and frameworks to structure work.
- Write to reflect thoughts and feelings.
- Child develops a personal style.
- Child understands that you can change your style according to audience and purpose.
Tuesday, 29 November 2016
Children's authors
It is clear that the most popular children's authors are those such as J.K Rowling, Roald Dahl, C.S Lewis and Beatrix Potter. I believe that these authors have been successful because they use tools such as imagery and humor in their novels to keep children engaged. The use of drawings and images in the novels make reading more fun for children who may not want to read, and humor and rhyme are other tools that these authors use frequently to make their stories more entertaining, so that the children really want to read them. One book I remember from my childhood is “Hairy Maclary from Donaldson’s dairy” by Lynley Dodd. I believe that this book was particularly memorable to me due to the use of engaging illustrations and rhyme throughout the whole story. The rhyme and layout of the novel allowed it to be read almost as a song either to or by the child, this means that it would be more fun for the child and would encourage them to read more often.
Teaching children to read
The most popular method of teaching children to read is through the use of synthetic phonics. This is where the teacher breaks words down into the sounds they make – for example, ‘dog’ would be broken down into ‘d’, ‘o’ and ‘g’ and then the sounds are blended to make ‘dog’. This technique can then be transferred to learning to read and write as the sounds in words can be converted into letters onto paper. However, there are some arguments against this method which suggest that synthetic phonics cannot be used to teach children to read everything, for example words such as ‘friend’ are more difficult to decode and cannot be broken down into sounds. This could mean that another method of teaching would have to be suggested in order for the child to fully develop their reading. Although there are some criticisms, it could be said that the method of using sounds to teach children could be more simple for children to understand and it has been found that children who are taught to learn with phonics are up to 2 years ahead of those who used other methods,
Another method of teaching would be using reading schemes. The most popular reading schemes are Oxford Reading Tree, Collins Big Cat and Rigby Star. These reading schemes are developed in conjunction with literacy experts. The Oxford Reading Tree for example, is supported by Debbie Hepplewhite, who developed the synthetic phonics method. Most schemes begin in the Foundation Stage and progressively become more difficult. For example, Key Stage 1 books are written with a mix of high-frequency and decodable words to develop a range of reading strategies in the children, while Key Stage 2 books cover a wide range of genres and subjects, linking to the curriculum. This would develop their reading further and expand their vocabulary. When a child is ready to progress to ‘normal’ reading, most discover their own books they would like to read and do this freely. However, some critics believe that the books that are used in reading schemes have bland content and a uniform appearance, which could even delay children's access to the real world.
The Miscues
Correction:
A common sign of a competent reader, a correction is a miscue that the student corrects in order to make sense of the word in the sentence.
Insertion:
An insertion is a word or words added by the child that are not in the text.
Omission:
During oral reading, the student omits a word that changes the meaning of the sentence.
Repetition:
The student repeats a word or portion of the text.
Reversal:
A child will reverse the order of the print or the word. (from instead of form, etc.)
Substitution:
Instead of reading the word in the text, a child substitutes a word which may or may not make sense of the passage.
It is clear that the most popular children's authors are those such as J.K Rowling, Roald Dahl, C.S Lewis and Beatrix Potter. I believe that these authors have been successful because they use tools such as imagery and humor in their novels to keep children engaged. The use of drawings and images in the novels make reading more fun for children who may not want to read, and humor and rhyme are other tools that these authors use frequently to make their stories more entertaining, so that the children really want to read them. One book I remember from my childhood is “Hairy Maclary from Donaldson’s dairy” by Lynley Dodd. I believe that this book was particularly memorable to me due to the use of engaging illustrations and rhyme throughout the whole story. The rhyme and layout of the novel allowed it to be read almost as a song either to or by the child, this means that it would be more fun for the child and would encourage them to read more often.
Teaching children to read
The most popular method of teaching children to read is through the use of synthetic phonics. This is where the teacher breaks words down into the sounds they make – for example, ‘dog’ would be broken down into ‘d’, ‘o’ and ‘g’ and then the sounds are blended to make ‘dog’. This technique can then be transferred to learning to read and write as the sounds in words can be converted into letters onto paper. However, there are some arguments against this method which suggest that synthetic phonics cannot be used to teach children to read everything, for example words such as ‘friend’ are more difficult to decode and cannot be broken down into sounds. This could mean that another method of teaching would have to be suggested in order for the child to fully develop their reading. Although there are some criticisms, it could be said that the method of using sounds to teach children could be more simple for children to understand and it has been found that children who are taught to learn with phonics are up to 2 years ahead of those who used other methods,
Another method of teaching would be using reading schemes. The most popular reading schemes are Oxford Reading Tree, Collins Big Cat and Rigby Star. These reading schemes are developed in conjunction with literacy experts. The Oxford Reading Tree for example, is supported by Debbie Hepplewhite, who developed the synthetic phonics method. Most schemes begin in the Foundation Stage and progressively become more difficult. For example, Key Stage 1 books are written with a mix of high-frequency and decodable words to develop a range of reading strategies in the children, while Key Stage 2 books cover a wide range of genres and subjects, linking to the curriculum. This would develop their reading further and expand their vocabulary. When a child is ready to progress to ‘normal’ reading, most discover their own books they would like to read and do this freely. However, some critics believe that the books that are used in reading schemes have bland content and a uniform appearance, which could even delay children's access to the real world.
The Miscues
Correction:
A common sign of a competent reader, a correction is a miscue that the student corrects in order to make sense of the word in the sentence.
Insertion:
An insertion is a word or words added by the child that are not in the text.
Omission:
During oral reading, the student omits a word that changes the meaning of the sentence.
Repetition:
The student repeats a word or portion of the text.
Reversal:
A child will reverse the order of the print or the word. (from instead of form, etc.)
Substitution:
Instead of reading the word in the text, a child substitutes a word which may or may not make sense of the passage.
Friday, 18 November 2016
Transcript analysis
Imitation and reinforcement are the most crucial tools for children's language acquisition. Evaluate this idea using the theories.
There are a number of theorists who believe in imitation and reinforcement when children are learning language. This includes Skinner, who’s theory relies on positive and negative reinforcement. To define these ideas, positive reinforcement is where a child receives a positive response to their speech which includes; praise, echoing, responding and reformulation. Negative reinforcement contrasts this teaching process, as it is when a child receives negative feedback to their speech including; negatives, ‘telling off’ and in some contexts, reformulation. The following transcripts (A and B) include Tom, aged 2 years and 7 months, and his parents.
In Text A, Tom is fixing bikes with his mother and in one instance says “I sitting on the bike (.) it make noises”. Tom makes an elision of the adjective “make”, where the standard form would be “makes”. The idea that imitation is crucial to language development is enforced when his mother responds “it makes noises”. Echoing not only correlates with Skinner’s idea of positive reinforcement, but it could also be said that Vygotsky’s theory of the Zone of Proximal Development comes into play here. This repetition of the phrase will act as scaffolding to his language, and help Tom to learn. In the two texts, Tom is said to be in the telegraphic stage of language as he is beginning to form utterances, but his grammar is not yet standard. However, it is shown that Tom may be progressing to the post-telegraphic stage when he uses the pronoun “it”. The fact that Tom is using anaphoric referencing in his language shows that his thoughts and ideas could possibly be more complex than he is able to communicate, and therefore could be gradually developing his language. This could also be due to the constant positive reinforcement he is receiving from his mother.
Again in Text A, when discussing his fathers bike Tom shows again that his language is not fully developed in the utterance “the dad bike”. His mother follows this with reformulating his speech with “dad’s bike”, which is again giving him positive reinforcement. The idea of scaffolding from Vygotsky’s theory is supported once again as it is shown that Tom has learnt from his mother when he says “yeah (.) the dad (.) dad’s bike (.) dad’s bike mum (.) dad’s bike”. Tim first corrects himself after repeating the non-standard form “the dad”, and recasts his language to the standard, possessive form “dad’s bike”. This evidence may show that children do, in fact learn from both positive reinforcement and ‘scaffolding’, and would refute Chomsky’s universal grammar theory that children are born with the ability to use and understand language. However, although Tom uses “dad’s bike” correctly further on in the interaction it could be said that he may not have actually retained this information. If we were to accept Piaget’s theory that children learn in stages, it would be likely that Tom would return to using the non-standard form.
In Text B, Tom is shown to be seeking positive reinforcement from his mother when he says “is these drawing Cartoon Network cup of tea mum”. The interrogative followed by the vocative “mum” for clarification shows that he is seeking a positive response, and could also show that he is himself unsure of how to phrase the interrogative and is possibly looking to learn from his mother. Although the utterance is non-standard, the use of the determiner “these” acts as a deictic reference and could suggest that his language is more complex than displayed in this example. However, this could also be Tom expecting his mother to understand his question within their context. Although Tom is in the telegraphic stage at this age, the fact that he uses the vocative “mum” rather than the diminutive “mummy” we would expect from a child of 2 years, this could suggest that his language is developing more quickly than the average child. This could refute Piaget’s theory of the stages of language, if Tom really is learning more rapidly than Piaget’s stages suggest.
When Tom uses the interrogative “did I kill you” in Text B, he is overextending from when his mother said “what you squashed it”. When his mother reformulated his utterance earlier in the interaction, this could act as an example of Vygotsky’s idea of scaffolding his learning. However, we could accept Piaget’s theory of stages here as Tom does not learn from this and continues to use the verb “kill”. This could be because Tom may be in a state of panic after thinking he “killed” the sheep after “squashing” it, and then overextended this panic to his mother after he “stood” on her fingers. However, it is unusual that a 2 year old child would be using the verb “kill”, and this could possibly suggest that his background with his parents is unlike the average background a child would have – as he may be exposed to more mature ideas at a younger age by his parents. Although his mother does respond “um (.) did you kill me”, in this context it could be said that this is negative reinforcement as the filler “um” could suggest that she may not have been paying attention to Tom, and she did not answer his question or offer any helpful response.
To conclude, there are a number of theorists that believe that imitation and reinforcement are crucial for children's language development are highly supported in these transcripts. The parents both use positive reinforcement regularly and it is shown in Tom’s language throughout that he is benefitting from this. In particular, his mother uses imitation as a form of positive reinforcement and it has seemed to encourage Tom to improve his language independently. So, with many respected theorists such as Skinner and Vygotsky supporting this idea, it could be easy to accept the idea that imitation and reinforcement are the most important tools. However, theorists such as Piaget and Chomsky contradict this idea. Although these theories do refute the statement, when analyzing the two transcripts Piaget and Chomsky’s ideas were not heavily supported, which makes it easy to accept the statement.
There are a number of theorists who believe in imitation and reinforcement when children are learning language. This includes Skinner, who’s theory relies on positive and negative reinforcement. To define these ideas, positive reinforcement is where a child receives a positive response to their speech which includes; praise, echoing, responding and reformulation. Negative reinforcement contrasts this teaching process, as it is when a child receives negative feedback to their speech including; negatives, ‘telling off’ and in some contexts, reformulation. The following transcripts (A and B) include Tom, aged 2 years and 7 months, and his parents.
In Text A, Tom is fixing bikes with his mother and in one instance says “I sitting on the bike (.) it make noises”. Tom makes an elision of the adjective “make”, where the standard form would be “makes”. The idea that imitation is crucial to language development is enforced when his mother responds “it makes noises”. Echoing not only correlates with Skinner’s idea of positive reinforcement, but it could also be said that Vygotsky’s theory of the Zone of Proximal Development comes into play here. This repetition of the phrase will act as scaffolding to his language, and help Tom to learn. In the two texts, Tom is said to be in the telegraphic stage of language as he is beginning to form utterances, but his grammar is not yet standard. However, it is shown that Tom may be progressing to the post-telegraphic stage when he uses the pronoun “it”. The fact that Tom is using anaphoric referencing in his language shows that his thoughts and ideas could possibly be more complex than he is able to communicate, and therefore could be gradually developing his language. This could also be due to the constant positive reinforcement he is receiving from his mother.
Again in Text A, when discussing his fathers bike Tom shows again that his language is not fully developed in the utterance “the dad bike”. His mother follows this with reformulating his speech with “dad’s bike”, which is again giving him positive reinforcement. The idea of scaffolding from Vygotsky’s theory is supported once again as it is shown that Tom has learnt from his mother when he says “yeah (.) the dad (.) dad’s bike (.) dad’s bike mum (.) dad’s bike”. Tim first corrects himself after repeating the non-standard form “the dad”, and recasts his language to the standard, possessive form “dad’s bike”. This evidence may show that children do, in fact learn from both positive reinforcement and ‘scaffolding’, and would refute Chomsky’s universal grammar theory that children are born with the ability to use and understand language. However, although Tom uses “dad’s bike” correctly further on in the interaction it could be said that he may not have actually retained this information. If we were to accept Piaget’s theory that children learn in stages, it would be likely that Tom would return to using the non-standard form.
In Text B, Tom is shown to be seeking positive reinforcement from his mother when he says “is these drawing Cartoon Network cup of tea mum”. The interrogative followed by the vocative “mum” for clarification shows that he is seeking a positive response, and could also show that he is himself unsure of how to phrase the interrogative and is possibly looking to learn from his mother. Although the utterance is non-standard, the use of the determiner “these” acts as a deictic reference and could suggest that his language is more complex than displayed in this example. However, this could also be Tom expecting his mother to understand his question within their context. Although Tom is in the telegraphic stage at this age, the fact that he uses the vocative “mum” rather than the diminutive “mummy” we would expect from a child of 2 years, this could suggest that his language is developing more quickly than the average child. This could refute Piaget’s theory of the stages of language, if Tom really is learning more rapidly than Piaget’s stages suggest.
When Tom uses the interrogative “did I kill you” in Text B, he is overextending from when his mother said “what you squashed it”. When his mother reformulated his utterance earlier in the interaction, this could act as an example of Vygotsky’s idea of scaffolding his learning. However, we could accept Piaget’s theory of stages here as Tom does not learn from this and continues to use the verb “kill”. This could be because Tom may be in a state of panic after thinking he “killed” the sheep after “squashing” it, and then overextended this panic to his mother after he “stood” on her fingers. However, it is unusual that a 2 year old child would be using the verb “kill”, and this could possibly suggest that his background with his parents is unlike the average background a child would have – as he may be exposed to more mature ideas at a younger age by his parents. Although his mother does respond “um (.) did you kill me”, in this context it could be said that this is negative reinforcement as the filler “um” could suggest that she may not have been paying attention to Tom, and she did not answer his question or offer any helpful response.
To conclude, there are a number of theorists that believe that imitation and reinforcement are crucial for children's language development are highly supported in these transcripts. The parents both use positive reinforcement regularly and it is shown in Tom’s language throughout that he is benefitting from this. In particular, his mother uses imitation as a form of positive reinforcement and it has seemed to encourage Tom to improve his language independently. So, with many respected theorists such as Skinner and Vygotsky supporting this idea, it could be easy to accept the idea that imitation and reinforcement are the most important tools. However, theorists such as Piaget and Chomsky contradict this idea. Although these theories do refute the statement, when analyzing the two transcripts Piaget and Chomsky’s ideas were not heavily supported, which makes it easy to accept the statement.
Tuesday, 18 October 2016
Zachy transcript analysis
When comparing the two texts, it could be discussed that in ‘Zachy drawing a banana’ there were 27 interrogative used. However, in the ‘Zach and the healing robot’ transcript there were just 14. This could be due to observer effects – the fact that Halla is aware that she is recording the interaction, may mean that she may alter her language to cater for the aim of the investivation into language. So, this could explain why in the ‘Zachy drawing a banana’ text, Halla may not only use more interrogatives due to the context of the interaction, but because she is trying to collect more relevant and comparable data. When compared to ‘Zach and the healing robot’ she uses almost half of the amount of questions used in the first transcript. It could be discusssed that this is because in this context, Zach was the “project leader”. This may mean that Zach feels as if he has more authority and Halla may ask fewer questions due to not being so much in control. Zygotsky’s theory into the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) would give an idea into why these caregivers use so many interrogatives when interacting with a child. The theory of the ZPD is that there is a difference between what a child is able to do alone, and what they are able to achieve with help. So, Halla may be using this amount of questions in order to create the ‘scaffolding’ for Zach’s own learning.
In the ‘Zachy drawing a banana’ transcript, Zach says “Yes/ I course you can mummy”. This could show that at a younger age, Zach may not have yet learned politeness features such as ‘please’ or ‘thank you’. So, when Zach says “I course you can mummy” this would be his way of encouraging Halla to help him. This could actually be said to be quite an intelligent technique as Zach has clearly learned how to get what he wants in this way, and does this while also not being rude or using authority. However, in the ‘Zach and the healing robot’ text, Zach first asks “Can you do it mummy?” using no politeness features, but then after Halla helps him, Zach replies saying “thank yooou”. This could mean that at a slightly older age, Zach has began to learn his politeness features, but is still too young to fully understand them. As the text continues, it becomes evident that Zach is aware of the possibly metaphorical authority he has as the ‘project leader’ in this context. This is shown when Zach announces that “we don't need breakfast” and later strongly replies “no” when asked if they could have breakfast while the robot is healing. So, this has shown that Zachy (while not always using them) understands when and where to use politeness features, and also understands the idea of authority and that it means that he doesn't need to use these features.
In the healing robot transcript, Zach uses discourse markers when saying “it's gonna be a long time though(.) but we’re not gonna have breakfast still”. This shows that Zachy understands what he is trying to say, but is unsure of how to say it and so corrects himself saying “still” which is Zach showing he is trying to clarify what he is saying. This would support Chomsky’s Nativist theory as it shows that children may have an innate ability to understand the structure of language (known as universal grammar) but may not have developed the correct vocabulary yet. However, the ‘Zachy drawing a banana” transcript may counteract this idea as Zach very rarely corrects his own grammar. This would mean that Skinner’s idea that children are born as empty vessels is correct, and that Zach is still learning his lexis and grammar from his environment. A support for this would be when Zach exclaims that he doesn't like “bolognay”. The use of the onomatopoeia could suggest that Zach is purely learning from his caregivers and doesn't understand what “bolognaise” is. However, Zach attempts to understand this when he overgeneralises “lasagne” to bolognaise. This shows that Zach is trying to learn and understand, which may support Chomsky’s idea that he may have an innate drive to learn language.
The use of pauses varies slightly in the two transcripts. In the ‘Zachy drawing a banana” text, there were 26 pauses taken by Zach. However, in the healing robot transcript Zach uses 32 pauses. In the second transcript, Zach is slightly older than in the first. This could explain why the length of his pauses increases. At an older age, Zach’s language would begin to develop and become more complex. This could mean that Zach is more conscious of mistakes and is taking longer to think of what he is going to say in conversation. So when compared to the first transcript, his language is slightly less complex and so he may use fewer pauses because he is less conscious of his mistakes as he isn't yet aware that they are mistakes. This shows how children’s language may develop from the two-word stage to the telegraphic stage – as his language begins to develop and become more complex as he gets older.
Skinner’s theory of positive reinforcement could be used throughout both transcripts to discuss how the caregiver (in this case, Halla) helps the child's language to develop further through encouragement. When Halla uses phrases such as “well done”, “very good” and “you are a star” in both texts, this would show Zach that what he has said was impressive and so encourage him to repeat what he has done. So, if this technique is used throughout Zach’s learning of language, whenever he would say something new and more complex, politeness features would be applied to ensure him that what he is saying is correct and that he should continue to expand his knowledge. It is shown in the texts that this technique may have helped Zach to develop as in the second transcript his language is slightly more complex, and Halla still uses positive reinforcement. So this may support Skinners idea because it is shown that Halls applies positive reinforcement techniques in both interactions and also shows that Zach’s language had improved.
To conclude, it is clear that the two transcripts are fairly similar. Both ‘Zachy drawing a banana’ and ‘Zach and the healing robot’ support Skinner’s operant conditioning theory and Zygotsky’s Zone of Proximal development theory. However, it is clear that Zach’s language is more complex and diverse in the healing robot transcript and so differs slightly to the ‘drawing a banana’ text. It is clear that these two transcripts support the idea that language may be innate, and learned in stages. However, the texts also do not fully support any of the child language theories and so they may not be correct. Saying this, there are aspects of the two interactions that could be explained and used as evidence for certain parts of each theory.
In the ‘Zachy drawing a banana’ transcript, Zach says “Yes/ I course you can mummy”. This could show that at a younger age, Zach may not have yet learned politeness features such as ‘please’ or ‘thank you’. So, when Zach says “I course you can mummy” this would be his way of encouraging Halla to help him. This could actually be said to be quite an intelligent technique as Zach has clearly learned how to get what he wants in this way, and does this while also not being rude or using authority. However, in the ‘Zach and the healing robot’ text, Zach first asks “Can you do it mummy?” using no politeness features, but then after Halla helps him, Zach replies saying “thank yooou”. This could mean that at a slightly older age, Zach has began to learn his politeness features, but is still too young to fully understand them. As the text continues, it becomes evident that Zach is aware of the possibly metaphorical authority he has as the ‘project leader’ in this context. This is shown when Zach announces that “we don't need breakfast” and later strongly replies “no” when asked if they could have breakfast while the robot is healing. So, this has shown that Zachy (while not always using them) understands when and where to use politeness features, and also understands the idea of authority and that it means that he doesn't need to use these features.
In the healing robot transcript, Zach uses discourse markers when saying “it's gonna be a long time though(.) but we’re not gonna have breakfast still”. This shows that Zachy understands what he is trying to say, but is unsure of how to say it and so corrects himself saying “still” which is Zach showing he is trying to clarify what he is saying. This would support Chomsky’s Nativist theory as it shows that children may have an innate ability to understand the structure of language (known as universal grammar) but may not have developed the correct vocabulary yet. However, the ‘Zachy drawing a banana” transcript may counteract this idea as Zach very rarely corrects his own grammar. This would mean that Skinner’s idea that children are born as empty vessels is correct, and that Zach is still learning his lexis and grammar from his environment. A support for this would be when Zach exclaims that he doesn't like “bolognay”. The use of the onomatopoeia could suggest that Zach is purely learning from his caregivers and doesn't understand what “bolognaise” is. However, Zach attempts to understand this when he overgeneralises “lasagne” to bolognaise. This shows that Zach is trying to learn and understand, which may support Chomsky’s idea that he may have an innate drive to learn language.
The use of pauses varies slightly in the two transcripts. In the ‘Zachy drawing a banana” text, there were 26 pauses taken by Zach. However, in the healing robot transcript Zach uses 32 pauses. In the second transcript, Zach is slightly older than in the first. This could explain why the length of his pauses increases. At an older age, Zach’s language would begin to develop and become more complex. This could mean that Zach is more conscious of mistakes and is taking longer to think of what he is going to say in conversation. So when compared to the first transcript, his language is slightly less complex and so he may use fewer pauses because he is less conscious of his mistakes as he isn't yet aware that they are mistakes. This shows how children’s language may develop from the two-word stage to the telegraphic stage – as his language begins to develop and become more complex as he gets older.
Skinner’s theory of positive reinforcement could be used throughout both transcripts to discuss how the caregiver (in this case, Halla) helps the child's language to develop further through encouragement. When Halla uses phrases such as “well done”, “very good” and “you are a star” in both texts, this would show Zach that what he has said was impressive and so encourage him to repeat what he has done. So, if this technique is used throughout Zach’s learning of language, whenever he would say something new and more complex, politeness features would be applied to ensure him that what he is saying is correct and that he should continue to expand his knowledge. It is shown in the texts that this technique may have helped Zach to develop as in the second transcript his language is slightly more complex, and Halla still uses positive reinforcement. So this may support Skinners idea because it is shown that Halls applies positive reinforcement techniques in both interactions and also shows that Zach’s language had improved.
To conclude, it is clear that the two transcripts are fairly similar. Both ‘Zachy drawing a banana’ and ‘Zach and the healing robot’ support Skinner’s operant conditioning theory and Zygotsky’s Zone of Proximal development theory. However, it is clear that Zach’s language is more complex and diverse in the healing robot transcript and so differs slightly to the ‘drawing a banana’ text. It is clear that these two transcripts support the idea that language may be innate, and learned in stages. However, the texts also do not fully support any of the child language theories and so they may not be correct. Saying this, there are aspects of the two interactions that could be explained and used as evidence for certain parts of each theory.
Friday, 14 October 2016
Coursework investigation - Methodology
In my investigation,
I will be analysing the use of Grice’s Maxims and comparing the difference
between these uses between face-to-face conversations, and those over a
walkie-talkie. To do so, I will be recording one person’s conversations through
both a walkie-talkie and face-to-face conversations at Holly Hedge animal
sanctuary, over the course of 1 – 2 hours to give me a reliable data
collection. Grice’s Maxims are quantity, quality, relation and manner and I
will be collecting quantitative as well as qualitative data from this in order
to broaden my analysis of the language used.
My hypothesis
is that more Maxims will be used in face-to-face conversations, and that
language over the walkie-talkie (technology) will be less complex. I will also
be using quantitative analysis of the maxims in order to compare which are used
most often, and if this differs over the use of technology. My expectations are
that the Maxim of quantity will be used least often over the use of technology,
but the Maxims of quality and manner may be used more frequently.
Ethicality
I will get full,
informed consent from everyone (over the age of consent) who may be recorded
during the investigation by creating a note explaining that they may be
recorded, what the data will be used for and who is likely to see it. These
people will most likely be staff, and so will be over the age of consent and
able to sign their informed consent for the investigation.
Reliability
I will be
recording the conversations over 1 – 2 hours until I have collected enough data
to analyse while still being reliable. I will aim to collect 10 recordings from
over the walkie-talkie, and 10 face-to-face conversations as I am expecting the
conversations to be relatively short.
Comparability
I will be
recording one specific person’s conversations with all of the other staff at
Holly Hedge as I believe I will get the broadest range of data for my analysis
this way. If possible, I will most likely focus on the manager, as I am
expecting that this will enable me to collect the relevant and complete data.
This will most likely be in the same context as the manager is usually in her office,
and this will ensure that there are no confounding variables that will affect
the data I will collect.
Tuesday, 22 March 2016
Quiz: Do you know your bants from your manspreading?
Quiz
An online dictionary has released a list of 1,000 new words, how many of them do you know? test your knowledge of contemporary English.
An online dictionary has released a list of 1,000 new words, how many of them do you know? test your knowledge of contemporary English.
Pragmatics
Pragmatics is the area of language study associated with exploring how contextual factors influence meaning. One way of looking at this is to explore how the act of interpretation itself relies on all kinds of background knowledge about the world that text producers and receivers hold.
Your schematic knowledge
You can test your own schematic knowledge by looking at the following list of countries. What do you think of when you read the name of each? What differences are there between the kinds of knowledge you hold for each? For which countries do you have a rich schema, and for which a relatively poor one? What might have influenced this? Think about those you might have visited, read about, seen on television and so on.
- France
- Spain
- Algeria
- Australia
- Japan
- Honduras.
Conversational maxims
One of the things we can assume when someone speaks to us is that they intend to convey some kind of meaning, and therefore that communication is essentially a cooperative enterprise between speaker and listener.
One of the ways that language study has explained this cooperative principle is through the use of what the linguist and philosopher Paul Grice (1975) called conversational maxims:
The maxim of quantity: do not say too little or too much.
The maxim of quality: speak the truth.
The maxim of relevance: keep what is being discussed relevant to the topic in hand.
The maxim of manner: be clear and avoid ambiguity.
Grice didn't claim that these maxims acted as rigid rules but rather that when they were broken (as often happens when we speak to each other) they gave rise to what he called implicatures, implied meanings that listeners were intended to infer from speakers’ comments.
Politeness
Another way that speakers support communication with each other is through what might be called a ‘super-maxim’: being polite by being mindful of others’ personal or face needs.
In face theory, first developed by the sociologist Erving Goffman (1955), an individual has both positive and negative face needs. Positive face needs are those associated with feeling appreciated and valued, while negative face needs are the desire to feel independent and not be imposed upon. Interactions between people therefore have the potential to be face-threatening acts (FTAs), and consequently speakers can choose from a range of politeness strategies to minimise this loss of face.
Deixis
A final important area of study in pragmatics is deixis. Deictic words are words that are context-bound in so far as their meaning depends on who is using them, where they are using them, and when they are using them.
Deictic terms belong to one of a number of deictic categories, the three main ones being:
- Person deixis (names and personal pronouns)
- Spatial deixis (adverbs of place such as ‘here’, ‘there’, demonstratives showing location such as ‘this’ and ‘that’, orientational words such as ‘left’ and ‘right’, and deictic verbs such as ‘come’ and ‘go’)
- Temporal deixis (adverbs of time such as ‘today’, ‘yesterday’ and ‘tomorrow’). Each of these both locates a speaker in and points from a particular deictic centre.
Deictic expressions are commonly used when speakers share the same time and space since they can point to objects and refer to events that can commonly be understood.
All information from Cambridge Elevate
Graphology
Many texts rely on the use of layout, space, images, colour and different font types to help convey their meaning. Often, these can be used in very obvious ways to help support meaning; at other times, their use may be more subtle. In all cases, graphological features tend to combine with other language levels to help support interpretation.
Types of graphological features
Layout, shape and space
The layout of a text is often related to its genre. For example, shopping lists, emails, menus and advertisements all tend to have prototypical layout features so that they are visually easily recognisable.
Typography
Typographical features are those related to the way that fonts are used and set out in texts. These may include aspects of type, size, colour, effects (for example, using bold, underlined or italicised font), the choice of background against which a font is set, and any spacing that is used. The careful use of typographical features can help readers to follow writing clearly, highlight important points, and aim to produce dramatic effects.
Wednesday, 16 March 2016
Grammar
Morphology
Morphology is the study of how words are formed. For example, a noun in its plural form such as apples, is made up of two morphemes, a base or root apple, and an ending or suffix -s. In some words, the root has an element added before it, for example unhealthy has a prefix un- added to its root healthy. Together prefixes and suffixes are known as affixes.
Some affixes have an inflectional function as they show the tense of verbs and the plural form of nouns (for example -s). Others have aderivational function as they help to form a new word by being added to a root (for example un-).
Phrases
Words can be categorised into word classes related to the function they serve and the kinds of characteristics group members display. Moving up the rank scale, these words can form larger structures called phrases.
Noun Phrases
Noun phrases are groups of words centred round a noun that acts as the ‘head’ of the phrase. Other words in the phrase fulfil certain functions in relation to this head.
For example, the noun television can form the larger structure the television, which is a noun phrase with a head word television and adeterminer the. It can also form a longer noun phrase, the expensive television (this time containing a determiner and a pre-modifier,expensive). And, it can form an even longer noun phrase – the expensive television in the corner (this time adding a qualifier that doesn't modify the quality of the television itself but rather gives information as to its location as a post-modifier). Together then a noun phrase's constituent elements are:
- head word (h)
- determiner (d)
- modifier (m)
- qualifier (q).
Verb Phrases
In a similar way to a noun phrase, a verb phrase is built around a head word, the main verb. Verb phrases are generally less complex than noun phrases but can, in addition to main verbs, include auxiliary verbs that help to show either tense (the primary auxiliary verbs be, do and have), or show someone's degree of commitment towards an event or person (the modal auxiliary verbs such as may, could, must).
Clauses
In the same way that words form phrases, phrases form larger structures called clauses. These are groups of words centred round a verb phrase.
Clauses also have constituent elements that we can label and comment on depending on their function.
| Constituent element | Description |
| Subject (S): usually a noun phrase | Acts as the key focus of the clause and is often the focus of a relational verb process or the agent of a material verb process |
| Object (O): usually a noun phrase | Identifies the entity being acted on by the action of a verb process |
| Complement (C): usually a noun phrase | Is the attribute of a subject in a relational verb process |
| Adverbial (A): usually an adverb or prepositional phrase | Identifies the circumstances of a verb process in terms of time, place or manner |
Sentences
The terms simple, compound and complex sentences can be used to describe single or multi-clause structures. This fits in with the traditional definition of the sentence as having to contain a verb. Sentences that do not contain a verb, but are recognised as such through the use of a capital letter and full stop are orthographic sentences, and are a common feature in written texts and are often used to give a punchy, emphatic stress to an idea or feeling.
Sentence functions
In use, clauses and sentences have one of four functions:
- 1forming statements (e.g., I read a ghost story.)
- 2forming questions (e.g., Did you read that ghost story?)
- 3giving commands (e.g., Read that ghost story!)
- 4making exclamations (e.g., What a scary ghost story!)
All information from Cambridge Elevate
Sub-word classes
Most word classes can also be further examined and broken down into sub-classes. This is useful because it helps you both to understand some subtle differences within the broad word class categories and to fine-tune your identification of a particular feature in order to explain how and why it operates in a text.
All information from Cambridge Elevate.
| Word class | Sub-class | Description | Example |
| Nouns | Proper | Refer to names of people or places | James, England |
| Abstract | Refer to states, feelings and concepts that do not have a physical existence | love, anger | |
| Concrete | Refer to objects that have a physical existence | countable (can be pluralised, e.g., cup) | |
| non-countable (do not take a plural form, e.g., furniture) | |||
| Verbs | Material | Show actions or events | hit, jump, wash, build |
| Relational | Identify properties or show states of being | be, appear, seem, become | |
| Mental | Show internal processes such as thinking | think, believe, wish | |
| Verbal | Show external processes of communicating through speech | say, shout, scream, whisper | |
| Adjectives and adverbs | Base | The basic form of an adjective or adverb, modifying another word | big, interesting, carefully |
| Comparative | A form used to compare two instances either adding ‘-er’ or using ‘more’ | The parcel was bigger. That was a more interesting game. He read more carefully. | |
| Superlative | A form used to compare more than two instances, identifying a best example | That was the biggest parcel. The most interesting game. It was the most carefully he had ever read. | |
| Pronouns | Personal | Refer to people and are differentiated in terms of person (1st, 2nd, 3rd), number (singular or plural) and gender (male or female) | I (first person singular), you (second person singular/plural), she (third person, singular, feminine), they (third person, plural) |
| Demonstrative | Orientate the reader or listener towards a person, object, or idea either nearby or further away | this, these, that, those | |
| Indefinite | Refer to a person, object or idea that is non-specific | someone, anybody, everything | |
| Determiners | Articles | Show that something is definite or indefinite | the (definite), a/an (indefinite) |
| Possessives | Show ownership | my, your, her, our | |
| Quantifiers | Show either specific or non-specific quantities of a noun | one, two (specific), some, any, a few (non-specific) | |
| Conjunctions | Co-ordinating | Link words or larger structures such as phrases and clauses together where they are equal (see also Unit 6) | and, but, or, yet |
| Sub-ordinating | Link clauses together to show one is dependent on another (see also Unit 6) | because, although, while, for |
Word Classes
Together these categories form three of the four main word classes – nouns, verbs and adjectives:
- noun: a word that names a thing or concept
- verb: a word that shows a state of being, action or event (we can call this a process)
- adjective: a word that modifies a noun.
In addition, a fourth major class of word is the adverb. Adverbs act in a similar manner to adjectives, but they modify verbs, adjectives or other adverbs, for example:
He ran quickly (adverb modifying the verb ‘ran’).
It was a very slow game (adverb modifying the adjective ‘slow’).
They were incredibly well organised (adverb modifying another adverb ‘well’).
These four word classes have the most members and are generally open to new membership. Nearly every new word that comes into the English language can be placed in one of these classes. Consequently, noun, verb, adjective and adverb are known as open or lexical word classes.
In contrast, a smaller group of word classes exists that tend to have a much smaller membership, have very fewer new members and tend to be used to provide connections and cohesion between other words. The following are known as closed or grammatical word classes:
- pronoun: substitutes for a noun, often referring back or forwards to them (e.g., ‘he’, ‘she’ ‘they’ ‘it’)
- determiner: adds detail or clarity to nouns (e.g., ‘the’, ‘my’, ‘some’)
- preposition: provides connections between words often showing a sense of place or time (e.g., ‘in’, ‘on’, ‘between’, ‘during’)
- conjunction: provides connections between the larger structures phrases, clauses and sentences (see Unit 6, e.g., ‘and’, ‘but’, ‘because’).
All information from Cambridge Elevate.
Monday, 15 February 2016
The Guardian - Mind your language
Page
This page is a collection of articles about the English language, discussing very different things. The page contains articles discussing serious matters such as the empowerment of women and gay marriage, but also (slightly) less important topics such as "where to stick your apostrophe". Overall, the writers on The Guardian are discussing the uses and abuses of language.
Type "Illegal" into Google, Chances are it will Autocomplete to "immigration"
The article is focussing on colloquial language, the fact that "certain words just go. They tessellate. They interdigitate. Like harmonic notes and complementary colours and best friends at school, certain words sit nicely together" - but particularly the associations formed between "migrant", "immigrant" and "illegal". When a child was playing a word association game, they happened to be given the word "illegal", to which they quickly responded with "immigrant". The power of colloquial words is evident in the fact that after being autocomplete, and read on social media so may times it seems that even in our brains we autocomplete "immigrant" and "illegal", permanently taking the innocence.
Gay or straight, let's embrace the language of marriage equality
"Gay marriage" is discussed in this article as a term that is quite peculiar. Much like the opening sentence - "Today I got out of my gay bed, kissed my gay boyfriend goodbye, went to the gym with my gay neighbour and then cycled my gay bike to my gay job", it seems ridiculous that this is how same-sex relationships are discussed. It seems that the fact that marriage is a religious ceremony (which is becoming less common in the 21st century), this type of marriage must be labelled as being almost 'unnatural' and 'wrong' compared to what a lot of people see as 'normal' marriage. The article suggests that this term could be changed to "same-sex marriage" as it seems less loaded than "gay". Although I do agree that the term itself seems superfluous, I can't see why "gay marriage" has to be labelled - it's just the marriage of two people after all.
This page is a collection of articles about the English language, discussing very different things. The page contains articles discussing serious matters such as the empowerment of women and gay marriage, but also (slightly) less important topics such as "where to stick your apostrophe". Overall, the writers on The Guardian are discussing the uses and abuses of language.
Type "Illegal" into Google, Chances are it will Autocomplete to "immigration"
The article is focussing on colloquial language, the fact that "certain words just go. They tessellate. They interdigitate. Like harmonic notes and complementary colours and best friends at school, certain words sit nicely together" - but particularly the associations formed between "migrant", "immigrant" and "illegal". When a child was playing a word association game, they happened to be given the word "illegal", to which they quickly responded with "immigrant". The power of colloquial words is evident in the fact that after being autocomplete, and read on social media so may times it seems that even in our brains we autocomplete "immigrant" and "illegal", permanently taking the innocence.
Gay or straight, let's embrace the language of marriage equality
"Gay marriage" is discussed in this article as a term that is quite peculiar. Much like the opening sentence - "Today I got out of my gay bed, kissed my gay boyfriend goodbye, went to the gym with my gay neighbour and then cycled my gay bike to my gay job", it seems ridiculous that this is how same-sex relationships are discussed. It seems that the fact that marriage is a religious ceremony (which is becoming less common in the 21st century), this type of marriage must be labelled as being almost 'unnatural' and 'wrong' compared to what a lot of people see as 'normal' marriage. The article suggests that this term could be changed to "same-sex marriage" as it seems less loaded than "gay". Although I do agree that the term itself seems superfluous, I can't see why "gay marriage" has to be labelled - it's just the marriage of two people after all.
Eight words that reveal the sexism at the heart of the English language
Article
This is an article that highlights the sexist remarks inside the Oxford English Dictionary. It mentions things such as marked forms, as well as derogative terms that are aimed at women. The article begins with discussing the sexist comments about women used to describe certain words, and what we associate with them. The word "rabid" being followed by "feminist" in the dictionary, suggests that being a feminist is a negative thing and maybe that it can be seen as a derogative form. Again, words such as "nagging" are followed by "wife", as well as "grating" and "shrill" being used to describe women's voices but not the men's. This all talks about women in a negative way, constantly putting them down and being insulting rather than using more positive terms such as "strong" which may have been associated with men.
It is mentioned that The Oxford Dictionary publishers have noted that these things are not their own views, but from things we would likely hear in general English conversation, thus suggesting that the problem is with English Speakers, and not this dictionary itself. As the article continues, it mentions and explains certain words that are now found in the dictionary which are a derogative to women, a marked form or just politically incorrect. Words such as "hussy" and "governess" are discussed, which are used in a way to put women down and insult them. This article shows how social conditions have left their mark on our language, and how it is still evolving and changing. Hopefully, our language will evolve and grow in a way that allows it to not be sexist, but for now there is a problem at the heart of the English language.
This is an article that highlights the sexist remarks inside the Oxford English Dictionary. It mentions things such as marked forms, as well as derogative terms that are aimed at women. The article begins with discussing the sexist comments about women used to describe certain words, and what we associate with them. The word "rabid" being followed by "feminist" in the dictionary, suggests that being a feminist is a negative thing and maybe that it can be seen as a derogative form. Again, words such as "nagging" are followed by "wife", as well as "grating" and "shrill" being used to describe women's voices but not the men's. This all talks about women in a negative way, constantly putting them down and being insulting rather than using more positive terms such as "strong" which may have been associated with men.
It is mentioned that The Oxford Dictionary publishers have noted that these things are not their own views, but from things we would likely hear in general English conversation, thus suggesting that the problem is with English Speakers, and not this dictionary itself. As the article continues, it mentions and explains certain words that are now found in the dictionary which are a derogative to women, a marked form or just politically incorrect. Words such as "hussy" and "governess" are discussed, which are used in a way to put women down and insult them. This article shows how social conditions have left their mark on our language, and how it is still evolving and changing. Hopefully, our language will evolve and grow in a way that allows it to not be sexist, but for now there is a problem at the heart of the English language.
Tuesday, 2 February 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)