Child Language Acquisition
Noam
Chomsky’s CLA theory has adjusted the way I was originally going carry out my CLA investigation.
Chomsky
believes children are born with an inherited ability to learn any human
language. Children adapt to languages faster than an adult trying to learn a
new language would. Regardless of their intellectual ability, all children
become fluent in their native language within five or six years. Children are
able to make grammatically correct sentences however may misplace words, ones
with the same meaning although it wouldn’t make sense. Mistakes such as ‘I
drawed’ instead of ‘I drew’ show they are not learning through imitation alone.
They apply the suffix rule correctly however make a mistake with the wrong use
of wording. Children often say things which they cannot have learnt passively. Children understand the difference between statements and questions, and
adapt to the tone of the parent allowing them to react with the correct
response.
The
transcripts will be of parents and children, either talking whilst drawing or
situations like that where the child is focused on doing their own thing and
conversing with the adult (these transcripts each need to been of a similar
situation for the investigation to be fair). I’m going to prepare a few
transcripts and then analyse them with Chomsky’s theory in mind. In my investigation I’m going to see if they understand being corrected by
parents if they make a grammatical mistake, and determine if their age makes a
difference to conversing whilst focused on doing something.
My
original hypothesis was ‘The sentence mood used by the carer will affect the
length of answer the child will reply with’.
Notes
- Interaction
theory
- Sentence moods
– Declarative (used to make a simple statement. Most sentences
are declarative), interrogative (used to ask a question), exclamatory
(used for emphasis and emotion) and imperative (used for commands,
with the pronoun you always implied).
I
predict the use of interrogatives used by the carers will limit the length of
replies the child gives. The child will reply with a yes or no answer with
a limited explanation, however a declarative will push them to reply with more
wanting to give a detailed answer to which will feel as if it’s used to defend
their selves (to an extent).
The videos I will use as date will carry
the same sort of activities taken place by the children, although they seem
distracted, it’s going to help my investigation to see if they react
differently with less interest to the conversation or react fine with a
normal reply. I’ll be seeing if open and closed questions limit the reply
from the child and see how they react to sentence moods being used by the
adult.
During analysing the transcripts I’m
going to keep in mind these two theories to see if they work well together
considering sentence moods affects the way the child adapts to understanding language.
Hypothesis
The hypothesis for mixing both theories
will be ‘The sentence mood
used by the carer will affect the length of answer the child will reply with,
and the replies will include grammatical mistakes in which Chomsky’s theory
suggests’.
Transcript one
H: what are you doing now? (1)
Z: I don’t know (0.5) where's my little pad gone?
H: where is your little pad? (2)
Z: uh (1) here it is
H: here it is (12) what are you drawing (.) Zach?
Z: (.) a banana (0.5) and 3 things in the
banana (0.5)
H: a banana and what? (.) 3 things?
Z: yes (.) for the banana.
H: for the banana (.) what can the banana have (.) its three
things (.) what are they?
Z: it's got something on the top (.) so it’s a
banana (1) and it's got skins (0.5) you don’t want to eat skins
H: no (1) that’s right
Z: you eat just bananas
H: yeah (.) just the inside of the bananas (.) that's
right
Z: and here’s the bananas (.) here (points to part of the
drawing)
H: oh (.) well (.) very good (1)
Z: and here's the skins
H: oh (.) are the skins off are
they? ready (.) so the banana’s ready to eat?
Z: yeah (1)
H: what have you eaten today?
Z: (emphasises) bananas
This data is a good example of a child using small lengths of
replies in reaction to either a declarative or interrogative used by the
parent. At the start, Zach isn't open for discussion about the activity he's
doing, however the end of the transcript contrasts to my hypothesis.
Halla asks Zach 'a
banana and what? three things?' and Zach's reply is 'yes, for the banana', this
limited reply shows no interest in explaining what the three things are - a
reason may be because he's still drawing or miss-understood/heard her asking
the question. However, Halla states 'what can the banana have, its three things'
this seems more like a declarative which allows Zach to understand more and
then he replies with a long explanation. So far my hypothesis is correct
because Zach replies to the declaratives more willingly than actual questions.
Halla used a declarative to praise Zach which then made him point out more
things in his picture as if he was replying to an interrogative - for more appraisals.
There are two questions asked at the end, large questions, and Zach replies
with a closed answer 'yes' and 'bananas', he emphasises the word banana which
adds expression and excitement, however he only used the one word. This data
supports my hypothesis because he reacts more to declaratives than
interrogatives.
Chomsky’s theory
for this transcript doesn’t apply as much because the child is grammatically
correct and structures his sentences well, allowing people to understand what
point he is making successfully. He may be more experienced at speaking
correctly which goes against Chomsky’s point of children not learning things
passively. Zach says ‘you eat just bananas’ which in some ways seems structured
right however the correct phrasing would have been ‘you just eat bananas.’
Transcript Two
P = Parent C = Child
P: Hi!
C: (Mumbles quietly, points and make grabbing gestures with
hands)
P: Do you want this? (Child nods) What is it?
C: Mummy?
P: No it’s not mummy, what is this?
C: Cheese!
P: Here you go
C: Thank you
P: You’re welcome! (Enthusiastic)
C: A picture
P: A picture, can mummy move your milk? (3) Did you learn any
new words today?
C: Umm, Daddy
P: Daddy? You already knew that one, can you say your name?
C: Name
P: That’s not your name
C: Daddy
P: Say Caroline
C: Daddy
At the start of the video the parent used two declaratives to
start the conversation. It first started with a closed question and so this doesn’t
give the child an opportunity to say anything other than a yes or a no, the
child’s nod was followed by another question from the parent, however it was an
open question. She asked ‘What is it?’ which allows the child to explain what
it is she’s reaching for. The child says ‘Mummy?’ with a tone that implies she’s
using a declarative herself, however, Chomsky’s theory applies to her response
and a few other responses later where it suggests there is a language barrier.
It shows the child doesn’t understand what the meaning of the declaratives or
imperatives are so is unsure of what answer she’s meant to give.
Again, there aren’t any grammatical mistakes which are
unusual for a child as young as two – it goes against my hypothesis due to
thinking the younger they are the less understanding they are of successful structured
sentences. However, Manors are learnt passively which shows the child is
learning politeness and accepts words such as 'thank you' and 'please' to be a part
of her vocabulary. She says ‘thank you’ after being handed the cheese, and the
mother replies ‘You’re welcome’. The tone she said that in was like she was
praising her daughter for using her manors, almost sounded like she was surprised
she had said it. This may be because of her age, young children aren’t as
understanding of politeness and what effect it has on people. So this suggests Chomsky’s
theory is successful for this point due to having the child taught manors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2EertzeHjM
https://aggslanguage.wordpress.com/chomsky/
https://aggslanguage.wordpress.com/child-language-acquisition-revision/
