tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post5459886819092371869..comments2024-03-25T17:14:36.888+00:00Comments on BishopBlog: Parent talk and child languagedeevybeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15118040887173718391noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-15694615572321273162014-02-19T18:24:35.686+00:002014-02-19T18:24:35.686+00:00The causal-correlational confusion in the understa...The causal-correlational confusion in the understanding of child language development, so well-explained in the postblog, unfortunately spills over to education and instruction. That is, the research is interpreted to promote fatally flawed initiatives.<br />Rather than seeking to build on minimal language prerequisites, effort is focused on eliminating or decreasing deficits. Trying to ameliorate deficits is a loser for two reasons: first, the Matthew Principle that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and second, it fails to capitalize on the child’s “natural” development apart from the intervention.<br /><br />Identifying the minimal prerequisites and building on those assets is a much more productive enterprise. An infant with pre-speech capability can be taught to communicate with “Baby Signs,” developed by Acredolo and Goodwyn. These infants will have a larger “vocabulary” than the “80 words” alleged in the Guardian article. A child who can speak in full sentences and to participate in everyday conversation can be taught how to read with appropriate Alphabetic-Code based instruction. Few children in the Hart-Risley study would lack the necessary prerequisite, and the instruction would “immunize” them from the “specific-learning deficits” and “dyslexia” that become identifiable only years later.<br /><br />The “how to” technology for these instructional accomplishments is realized not through “research” but through the “D” in “R&D”, a missing element in the education sector,. “More research” is certainly needed, but research only begats more research—a never-ending frontier. To obtain reliable means of accomplishing specified intentions—technology –entails a different modus operandi. But that’s a whole nother story.<br />Dick Schutzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09815175767173164494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-61735444766481543312014-02-17T17:39:48.098+00:002014-02-17T17:39:48.098+00:00Yes, a great read and a beautifully structured pie...Yes, a great read and a beautifully structured piece, Dorothy.<br />One thing you don't talk about though is the different practices adopted by different cultures. For example, Clifford Pye (1986) described the Quiche people of Central America as not modifying their speech in interactions with their children in the way that is common here. He says: 'Vocal interaction between infants and parents is minimal ...They certainly lack any concept of talking with their children for the sake of stimulating their linguistic development.' (Page 86) In spite of this, Quiche children grow up to be fluent speakers of their (indigenous Mayan) language.<br />Brice Heath's work with black communities in south-west USA also found that parents were less likely to address their children using child directed speech (baby talk) than is common here. <br />Of course, there are methodological problems here to do with researchers from one culture studying people from another culture and making unreflective cultural assumptions about the kinds of interactions that are taking place.<br />In addition, there are also other issues to take into consideration, such as the fact that a good deal of 'pre-verbal behaviour has a conversation-like structure' (Bancroft in Mercer and Swann, 1996) and it must be difficult to determine precisely how much this contributes to a child's linguistic development.<br />As both you and Dominik make clear, there needs to be much more research and far less anecdote. But then it's mostly the anecdotal that the media is interested in.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13315146014179526480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-57859951786495716582014-02-17T14:10:23.870+00:002014-02-17T14:10:23.870+00:00Thanks for being the voice of reason here once mor...Thanks for being the voice of reason here once more. But I think there's even more complexity to be had. The problem is that most researchers in language development, particularly in the educational context and learning impairment context (rather than pure language acquisition) have a very impoverished view of what constitutes language. (See here for an overview of things to know: http://metaphorhacker.net/2012/09/the-complexities-of-simple-what-simple-language-proponents-should-know-about-linguistics/ and http://metaphorhacker.net/2014/01/5-things-everybody-should-know-about-language-outline-of-linguistics-contribution-to-the-liberal-arts-curriculum/).<br /><br />The typical language teacher finds it hard to distinguish whether the source of a child's inability to speak comes from lack of vocabulary, communicative reluctance, dialect interference, syntactic/morphological limitations or a genuine language impairment. <br /><br />Some of these would have a clear correlation to exposure (which the school should provide) and others much less. For example, it doesn't seem to matter how rich a morphology a language has, children seem to acquire it even with very impoverished input. The same goes for some fundamental syntactic constraints (e.g. the famous coordinate structure constraint). That's what Chomsky's 'poverty of the stimulus argument' is all about. We also know that crossculturally the amounts and types of language exposure vary enormously. So at the very least, we know, it's not parents, but general environment that plays a role (most notably siblings and older peers in many cultures).<br /><br />However, we also know from Ewa Dabrowska's research (and others in the Tomasello tradition) that internalizing basic syntactic principles like recursion does not mean a person can process recursive sentences of any complexity. And exposure seems to be a clear correlate here (professors are better than undergrads who are better than cleaners at the same institution). <br /><br />Knowledge of vocabulary is also almost ex definitio related to exposure. But it is not clear what and when that exposure needs to be. There seem to be no limits to how many words we can know as studies on bilinguals show. And they can acquire them far past any putative critical developmental period (I don't think I've learned half the words in this comment before I was 22).<br /><br />There are also cultural factors such as patterns of interaction (famously African American adults do not ask their children the types of questions their teachers ask them). And lets not forget about the generations of Scots speakers being told that they speak 'bad English'.<br /><br />So when we talk about the impact of different environments on language development, we should ask development of what language? There are many syntactic features that seem to require some level of maturation that simply switch on between 9 and 11 for most children in school. How about development in the ability to construct a narrative? How about development of humour and figurative language? The studies I've looked at about problems with metaphor processing in autism seemed to be utterly confused about what constitutes a metaphor (it was some time ago, so things may have improved).<br /><br />I read the Telegraph article in shock. Beginning with "Children are starting school barely able to speak because their parents are too busy to talk to them, a leading teacher has warned." makes me question the basic competence of the 'leading' teacher or the journalist (or both). No mention of evidence or how it is measured. A population of 4-5 year olds half of whom have vocabularies of 30-50 words would be a rare find on which scientists should converge as if a new uncontacted tribe was discovered. Or it could be that somebody with no competence, empathy or responsibility is in charge of measuring the children's language ability. We don't just need more research, it seems, we need a campaign to save our children from irresponsible scare mongers. Dominik Lukešhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03071876778771965740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-65807956565993054762014-02-17T13:16:04.704+00:002014-02-17T13:16:04.704+00:00Great read. The model A approach also leads a lot ...Great read. The model A approach also leads a lot of parents who could raise their children bilingually to believe the 'myth of time on task' (to steal Fred Genesee's words) where their children are doomed to fall behind if exposed to two languages. Of course, despite less input in either language, this isn't what happens.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18339161236550880741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-35806730673851216032014-02-17T13:09:01.925+00:002014-02-17T13:09:01.925+00:00I would think the real model of language developme...I would think the real model of language development is a combination your Models A, B, and C. It's like Model B, but with a causal arrow from Parent Talk to Child Language Time 2, too, and additionally a Risk Factor X which affects both Child Language 1 and 2 and Parent Talk. See also this <a href="http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/HomePage/Group/TuckerDrobLAB/website/pdf/Tucker-Drob%20&%20Harden%20(in%20press,%20Developmental%20Science)%20Reciprocal%20G-E%20Transactions.pdf" rel="nofollow">this study</a>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com