Thursday, 10 September 2015

The Stages of Language Acquisition


Children's Language Development- Spoken


 
Stage One: Babbling:

Babbling is the first stage of Children's Language Acquisition. It isn't a major stage but some theories say it's the first as it is the first stage where children attempt to talk. Babies recognise their mother's own voice after the first few weeks of being born. It's usually at 8 months that the baby begins using it's vocals to talk. Babies tend to learn by imitation and babbling stage is just like that. Within the first few months the baby hears sounds surrounding them and tries to reproduce them, albeit with limited success. The babies attempts at creating and matching the sounds which is what we call babbling. After babbling for a few months, it begins to link the words or sounds it's making to objects or actions. From 8 months-12 months the baby gains more and more control over not only it’s vocal communication but physical communication as well, like body language and gesturing.  When the baby uses both verbal and non-verbal means to communicate, only then does it move on to the next stage of language acquisition.

 

Holophrastic / One-word stage:

In this stage, children are around 12-18 months and learn to produce single words to mean phrases or sentences. An example would be "play" which could mean I want to play or "Teddy" if they want their teddy. During this stage, nouns make up around 50% of the vocabulary compared to verbs and modifiers which make up around 30% and questions and negatives which make up the rest. The reason that this stage is called the holophrastic stage, is because sometimes children's production of speech is longer and is considered as being only one unit or a whole phrase, which is called a Holophrase. An example would be "Gosleep".

Children learn the ability to distinguish between interrogative, declarative and imperative phrases, and despite their limited grammatical structuring, are able to aid their communication more effectively. For example: 'Dada?' said with a rising tone, would imply a question. 'Dada' said with a falling tone, would imply declarative statement.  'Dada!' said in an exclamation, would imply imperative statement. Children also learn words usually in a certain order. The most common are nouns first, particularly the names of objects directly involved in the baby’s life e.g. ball and doll. The second most frequent is action words often used to get attention. E.g. “bye-bye”, “up” “look”. Describing words, personal, social and function words usually come later on.

 

Two word stage:

The two word stage is around the age of 18-24 months and is made up of primarily two word sentences. These sentences contain 1 word for the predicate and 1 word for the subject. . 'Baby chair', 'Mummy eat' and 'Cat bad' are all examples of utterances at this stage and as it may be obvious, require interpretation. During this stage we see the appearance of single modifiers e.g. “That dog”, two word questions: “Mummy eat?” and the addition of the suffix onto words to describe something that is happening : “Baby Sleeping.” Context of an utterance can help the ambiguity behind such statements. For example: 'Baby chair' could mean:

·         Possession: 'this is baby's chair'.

·         Request/command: 'put baby in chair'.

·         Statement: 'baby is in the chair'.

 

The Telegraphic Stage:

This stage is between the age 2-3 and could be considered the most important. The stage is named this because it is similar to what is seen in a telegram; containing just enough information for the sentence to make sense. This stage contains three and four word sentences. Sometime during this stage the child begins to see the links between words and objects and some of the children's utterances are grammatically correct, for example: "teddy looks tired."  However others have grammatical elements missing: "This shoe all wet"- it's missing is to make it correct.

Children are more likely to keep hold of content words (nouns, verbs and adjectives, that refer to real things) and function words (that have grammatical function: pronouns and verbs) are often lost.

Overgeneralisations are also found at this stage, which is when children make errors in their allowance of variety. For example:

§  The inflection -s to mark plurality is seen to be added to irregular verbs: sheep: sheeps

§  The inflection -ed to mark past tense is seen to be added to irregular verbs: go: goed

Such examples would suggest that children try to figure out grammar by themselves,  not by hearing them from the people around them in their environment. Children would not hear 'goed' from the adults around them. 

 During this stage a child’s vocabulary expands from 50 words to up to 13,000 words. At the end of this stage the child starts to incorporate plurals, joining words and attempts to get a grip on tenses.


As a child’s grasp on language grows it may seem to us as though they just learn each part in a random order, but it's not the case. There's a definite order of speech sounds. Children first start speaking vowels, starting with the rounded mouthed sounds like “oo” and “aa”. After the vowels come the consonants, p, b, m, t, d, n, k and g. The consonants are first because they are easier to pronounce then some of the others, for example ‘s’ and ‘z’ require specific tongue place which children cannot do at that age.

As all human beings do, children will improvise something they cannot yet do. For example when children come across a sound they cannot produce they replace it with a sound they can e.g. "Wun" instead of "Run."
 

Reference:

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAAahUKEwjaw_HTn-rHAhXDltsKHbQlCNI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thestudentroom.co.uk%2Fattachment.php%3Fattachmentid%3D25709%26d%3D1151420036&usg=AFQjCNHQ-68vokbrzro4t3msVWF0nTtsmQ&bvm=bv.102022582,d.bGg

https://sites.google.com/a/sheffield.ac.uk/all-about-linguistics/branches/language-acquisition/what-is-child-lanuage-acquistion

https://enlsac2max.wordpress.com/stages-of-language-acquisition/

Thursday, 3 September 2015

Reading Log


Source One:

The Guardian. 2015. ICYMI, English language is changing faster than ever, says expert. [Online]. [Accessed 11 July 2015]. Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/01/icymi-english-language-is-changing-faster-than-ever-says-expert (In this article the writer explains that the English Language is evolving quicker lately due to social media and instant messaging. The Language Change can be found greatly in "text speak" terms. The writer explores terms like ICYMI (in case you missed it) and modern terms like "fleek" and "bae". They surveyed 2,000 people to see if they knew what these terms meant, and the results were very low.)

Source Two:

Hill, A. 2011. Singing to children may help development of language skills. [Online]. [Accessed 11 July 2015]. Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/may/08/singing-children-development-language-skills (The article explains that singing to children could actually help their language development. Sally Goddard Blythe, a consultant developmental education director has said that singing traditional lullabies and nursery rhymes to babies and infants before they learn to speak is essential in later educational success. It's a special type of speech which prepares the babies voice, brain and ear for language that it will soon be taught. Hill explains that there have been significant numbers of children that enter school and nursery that have inadequate language skills as their parents haven't helped to develop them.)

Source Three:

Sample, I. 2014. Talking to babies boosts their brain power, studies show. [Online]. [Accessed 22 July 2015]. Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/14/talking-to-babies-brain-power-language (In the article, she (Hill) explained that reading bedtime stories to babies improves their brain power and so sets them up for school success. A developmental psychologists has said that parents shouldn't just use simplistic baby talk and should expand the language they use to talk to their child. The psychologist described a series of experiments in which she tested children's language processing skills. It found that when parents chatted more with their children, their language processing improved and they learned new words more swiftly.

Source Four:

Gill, M. 2013. Have we literally broken the English language? [Online]. [Accessed 30 July 2015]. Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/13/literally-broken-english-language-definition (Throughout the article she (Gill) talks about how language is changing by how the word "literally" has changed. The original definition is "in a literal manner or sense" now, it means "to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling". It then states that we can't do anything about it as people would be surprised if it is used in the original sense of the word. Also if it isn't literally it's another word.

Source Five:

Kleinman, Z. How the internet is changing language. [Online]. [Accessed 25 August 2015]. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10971949 (In the article Kleinman writes about the different ways that internet is changing our language. An example would be 'to Google'. Years ago this phrase would have no meaning, now it means to search something on Google's search engine. Other ways are super slang in computers (Control, Alt, Delete) and Word play. An example of Word play is Lolcats. There would be a picture of a cat accompanied by a deliberately grammatically incorrect caption. She overall shows that this could be the future of our communication and language.

Sunday, 21 June 2015

Mini Investigation


Hypothesis: Older people (usually males) will hold the most power.

Transcript of separate conversations from Gogglebox from the same working class family:

-------- =separate conversations

J= Jonathan (Dad)        N= Nikki (Mum)       Jo= Josh (Son)       A=Amy (Daughter)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jo: Is that how you danced with your wrists dad at |bar mitzvahs|

J:                                                                                        |I know|

 N: Don’t criticize (.)  you’re father’s dancing  (.) he is fabulous

Jo: Is it (2) (dances) is |it| yeah

N:                                   |I| would never ever married someone who can’t dance (1) it’s such a turn off

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

N: He is so stunning (.) you’ve got to admit he’s so good looking

J: You really like him don’t |you|

N:                                            |He’s| one of the best looking men on this Earth

J: Uh |huh|

N:      |He| |is|

A:               |Apart | from dad (3) after |dad|

N:                                                                 |He’s| stun|ning|

A:                                                                                       |After|dad

N: Yeah after dad

J: Yeah she really meant that didn’t she

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

A: Dad (.) then their gonna come back at us (2)

J: Well unfortunately (.) they hate the west anyway (2) if don’t (1) if someone doesn’t have the ideology (.)

N: Then they |think|

J:                     |then| they’re going to destroy them just the same (1)

A: So then why don’t we just stay out of it and not get involved and |then|

N:                                                                                                                     |No because we can’t (.) they

J:                                                                                                                       |Because they will still all (.)

N: need| they need the support of countries like us and| America|

J: they’ll still attack us|                                                           |They| need (.) that’s why they are called allies (1) countries get |together|

A:                                     |So what’s| gonna |happen|

J:                                                                         |It’s| good fighting bad (.) it’s good fighting evil

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

·         Interruptions: J=5    N=5    Jo=0    A=3

·         Sentence length: J=70    N=70    Jo=17    A=34 

 
Through all three conversations, interruptions were a constant factor. There were 13 interruptions overall: 2 in the first conversation, 5 in the second conversation and 6 in the last. The higher amount of times that someone interrupts could suggest that they are the more powerful participant within a conversation. Stereotypically males are more likely to interrupt than women. This is from Zimmerman and Wests ‘Dominance Theory’.  Another theory that could support interruptions as a significant feature in analysis is Fairclough’s ‘Unequal Encounters’. One person supposedly is more dominant than the others in a conversation, although it can change; if one person is interrupting more than others, they could hold the influential power, and they may appear to seem more dominant.

The parents interrupt the most and equally which was what I had originally expected, although I did think that ‘J’ was going to interrupt the more as he’s the dad of the family. In the last conversation ‘J’ interrupts 4 times, which is the most in the conversation. In the second conversation ‘N’ interrupts the most (3 times) which could suggest that between them 'J' is more dominant.

 

Another attribute that could show who has the most power is sentence length. If someone has the most power and dominance then they most likely would have longer air time. The data shows that overall in all three conversations, oddly, both parents had an equal amount of sentence length. 'J' spoke 10 times and 'N': 11. The reason behind this could be that they both spoke  lot when explaining to 'A' in conversation 3.

'Jo' isn't surprising to have spoken the least words considering he only spoke twice. 'A' spoke nearly half the amount as her parents which does prove my hypothesis. However it disproves The Dominance Theory when comparing her to 'Jo', who should have spoke more than her.
 

Goes against the theory/hypothesis:

·         'A' interrupts 'N' which is odd as 'A' is 'N's' daughter and so it is expected that the mother would have more dominance and power so her daughter would be expected to not interrupt.

·         'A' also interrupts 'J'-who is also her parent which again is surprising as she would be expected to 'respect her elders' and act like 'J' has the highest power overall, which he should do.

·         So, overall 'A' acts completely unexpected to as she should do, according to theory.

·         What is also unexpected is that 'Jo' surprisingly doesn't speak that much. H is present in all conversations, yet only speak in one. The Dominance Theory states that males will interrupt more and hold more power, so theoretically he should at least contribute to show his power.

Monday, 15 June 2015

Overall of my Mini Investigation


Introduction:

The topic I have chosen is Gender, focusing on women being stereotypically emotive and men more dominant. The aspect of language that I have chosen to analyse is the context and length, also how straight to the point both sets of tweets are. MY hypothesis is that men are more dominant and straight to the point. Whereas women appear to 'waffle' and be more emotive linking the Dominance and Deficit Theory.

 

Methodology:

To make sure that my tweets were unbiased, I chose a tweet after every certain amount. So every third tweet was chosen so that it was systematic. Due to it being systematic, it didn't have any obvious anomalies.

 

Analysis:

Overall, we have found out that our data does not support our hypothesis. The primary reason is because we chose extremely different people: a political leader and a reality star. What's significant is how unexpected our results were. Ed Miliband was more emotive than Amy Childs. The quantitive evidence to support my hypothesis is that women use more emojis and hash tags and so could be considered emotive. However there is also evidence to disprove it.

 

Conclusion:

My findings disprove my hypothesis. The main problem was that our approach to the choice of people was wrong. We should have chosen people that were a lot more similar; instead of choosing a politician and a reality star, we could have chose two reality stars (like Joey Essex and Amy Childs) or two politicians (Ed Miliband and Theresa May).

Also the data we chose for Ed Miliband was from when he was under pressure to get public votes for the election. He had to be positive and supportive of the public.

 

For the Future:

The draw backs of using Twitter is that people can out what they want on it. They don't have to hide from anyone and may react differently than they naturally would.

In the future I would need to choose more suitable people for the investigation. I would also have to choose the tweets from a more suitable time when there wasn't any elections.

A similar age for the people would also be a positive.

Sunday, 14 June 2015

Transcript of The Apprentice


Transcript:

S: I  was the project manager I lost money (.) but the reason I lost money (.) and I could've made a fortune in that shopping centre this morning(.) if we started this |morning|

SA:                                                                                               |could've|

S:                                                                                                                cause I'm |good|

SA:|could've| (.) yeah (.) could've should've would've (.) yeah (.) but you didn't right

S: No Sir |Alan|

SA:         |No| (.) you didn't (.) yeah (3) I think I've heard enough (.) for me to make a (.) very difficult decision here |today|

C:                               |Sir| Alan may I say one more thing please (3)

SA: If you insist (1)

C: I think in this whole competition (.) if you sit back and remain quiet and under the radar (1) people assume their safe (1) and I've been bold and I know I'm vocal |and|

SA:                                                                                                    |you've| been bold |alright|

C: |and it |puts |me|

SA:                  |don't| worry| about that

C:                             |and| it puts me in a vulnerable position (.) I'm sorry I've |sat| here

SA:                                                                                                                |the| trouble is (.) you know (.) you never back off (1) you know what I'll tell you what I'm gonna do with you (.) I'll tell you what I'm gonna do with you (1) I'm getting sick and tired with you denying all of this (.) I'm sick of looking at you (.) now get out that door (2) get back to the bloody house (.) ok (.) get back to the house (.) yeah (.) because you're gonna be the next team leader (.) I'm sick of looking at you at the moment (.) get out that door (.) and get back to the house

 

Explanation:

1.       What is interesting about the language used is that despite the formal setting, there are constant interruptions. Although it is Sir Alan who interrupts the most (six times), which could be because of his power status. Both his influential and instrumental power allows him to be able to interrupt without sounding rude.

2.      I could use the Dominance Theory when analysing the transcript. Zimmerman and West put forward the idea that men interrupt more than women. This can be proven by comparing Sir Alan's interruptions, 6, to Claire's, 3.

3.      I could also compare the type of grammar that all three people. They have different levels of power and so use different types of words when talking to each other.

4.      The title I could use for an investigation into data like this could be: How does interruptions in formal situations show the difference in our language?

5.      Real data that I could collect is a transcript from a business meeting or formal situation.

Thursday, 16 April 2015

Romance Fiction


Romance fiction with Clichés


This is the moment that every girl dreams of. Finding her true love.

As she walked up to the top of the stairs and overlooked the crowd of dancing masks, her eyes caught on another pair that were as black as coal. Tall, dark and handsome was one way to describe him, she thought. He looked at her, gazed almost, like he knew her.

Before she could take a step down the stairs he disappeared into the deep, dark, depths of the crowd.

With her fitted mask on her face and Cinderella-esque dress, she descended the staircase and joined the in-sync dancers. She searched through the crowd to find her 'mystery man', but he was nowhere to be seen; she decided to let fate come out to play.

Heels danced, jumped and twirled. Voices, both tuneful and not, sang along with the band. She was having the time of her life; little did she know, destiny would intervene and transform her life completely.

 
As the night grew older, the band became more upbeat and the masks became sloppier. Alcohol filled, yet still with some sense of awareness, Caroline swayed through the dance floor.

She remembered the nights when she was younger, when her mum told her fairy stories. She read everything with princesses in: Cinderella, Snow White, Rapunzel-she loved them all. The thought of her Prince Charming coming to save her, still inspired her to this day. 20 years of age and she hadn't yet found the one, she thought of this as she bumped into someone causing her to fall to the floor.

"I'm so sorry." A deep voice spoke. She looked up and it was her mystery man.

"No, I'm sorry, I, er, wasn't looking where I was going." She quickly took the blame.

"Yes well however true that may be, you are the one on the floor so I'm obliged to take the blame." He smirked holding his hand out for me to take.

I stood up and knew that this would be a long night.

Monday, 13 April 2015

Theories of Language and Gender


Language and Gender Theories



1) William O'Barr and Bowman Atkins, Dominance Theory

The dominance theory says that if there is a difference in our language, it's because males have always dominated in both the home and workplace and females have then had to play the domestic roles.

The theory suggests that men are more likely to interrupt than women. In a study in Santa Barbara by Don Zimmerman and Candace West, within 11 conversations, men interrupted 46 times and women only twice.

Some theorists state that in language some people use language that's known as 'weak female language', however O'Barr and Atkins came to the conclusion that it's 'powerless language' and have nothing to do with females specifically.

 

2) Deborah Tannen, Difference Theory

The difference theory suggests that females and males do converse differently. Deborah Tannen is one of the main theorists to this approach. There are many features that effect our language and how we speak including our environment and cultures. Deborah suggests that it starts in childhood that creates the difference. Parents would use words that talk about feelings where boys get spoken to using more verbs.

She said that there are six main differences (with what is found to be typically male coming first) in the language in men and women:

·         status vs support

·         independence vs intimacy

·         advice vs understanding

·         information vs feelings

·         orders vs proposals

·         conflict vs compromise

 

3) Robin Lakoff, Deficit Approach

The 'Deficit Approach' was mainly found by theorist,  Robin Lakoff. She said that women are disadvantaged in language use compared to men. She found that women's language conflicts with what is the male normal language.

She said that women's style of speech is ‘expressive of uncertainty, lack of confidence, and excessive deference or politeness', including features like hedges and tag questions. Our speech mirrors how lower we feel socially an personally to men and how they are treated. It is a concept that shows not only modern life but from decades ago. It is a widely considered idea that women have been treated lower than men for centuries and it reflects through their language.

 

Bibliography

http://www.allinfo.org.uk/levelup/enb2gender.htm

http://www.universalteacher.org.uk/lang/gender.htm#dominance

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CEUQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lancaster.ac.uk%2Ffss%2Fcourses%2Fling%2Fling201%2Fres%2Fdiss%2F2004%2Fwhite.doc&ei=Y9srVdDNMOqy7Qbwl4DwCQ&usg=AFQjCNESm0EE3sl3o08ep3tMkJKTdCFbUw&bvm=bv.90491159,d.ZGU