Linguistics and Children Essay Example for Free

Linguistics and Children Essay The power of language to reflect culture and influence thinking was first proposed by an American linguist and anthropologist, Edward Sapir (1884–1939), and his student, Benjamin Whorf (1897–1941). The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis stated that the way we think and view the world is determined by our language (Anderson Lightfoot, 2002; Crystal, 1987; Hayes, Ornstein, Gage, 1987). Instances of cultural language differences are evidenced in that some languages have specific words for concepts whereas other languages use several words to represent a specific concept. For example, the Arabic language includes many specific words for designating a certain type of horse or camel (Crystal, 1987). To make such distinctions in English, where specific words do not exist, adjectives would be used preceding the concept label, such as quarter horse or dray horse. Cultural differences have also been noted in the ways in which language is used pragmatically. In our American culture, new skills are typically taught and learned through verbal instruction (Slobin, 1979). In some cultures, new skills are learned through nonverbal observation. A distinction has also been made between cultures that encourage independent learning and those that encourage cooperative learning (McLeod, 1994). Differences in the social roles of adults and children also influence how language is used. Home and school contexts may represent different cultures, subcultures, or both and may influence language acquisition in noticeable ways. Nonverbal cues (e. g. , facial expression) and contextual cues (e. g. , shared experience) have different communicative roles in different cultures (Kaiser Rasminsky, 2003). In some cultures, prelinguistic children (who are not yet verbalizing) are spoken about rather than spoken to (Heath, 1983). Children may be expected, and thus taught, to speak only when an adult addresses them. They are not encouraged to initiate conversations with adults or to join spontaneously in ongoing adult conversations. Additionally, in some cultures, children who enthusiastically volunteer answers at school are considered show-offs (Peregoy Boyle, 1993). In some cultural settings, children are not asked recitational questions. Instead, they are asked only questions of clarification or for new information. Thus, when these children experience recitational questions in a school setting, they may be confused as to the purpose of the questioning and the expected response. Further cultural differences in how language is used in educational settings have been documented by Tharp (1994). These differences include variations in how stories are told, the wait time given by teachers to students during questioning sequences, the rhythmic patterns of the verbal interactions, and the patterns of conversational turn-taking. During the 1970s and 1980s, educators and linguists researched and debated the verbal-deficit perspective. This perspective contended that anyone who did not use standard English did not have a valid language and thus was verbally deficient. Although the verbal-deficit perspective has now been proven invalid, it is important to understand the research that was conducted to either support or discredit that perspective. Bernstein (1971), Bereiter and Englemann (1966), and Labov (1979) were among the researchers who studied language differences between different social groups, including middle- and lower-income groups and ethnic groups. This body of research identified specific differences in the way children from different socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds used language in school and out-of-school settings. Implications of this research have been widely discussed and interpreted in a variety of ways. Basil Bernstein (1971) documented the different linguistic codes used by children from lower- and middle-income families in England. Lower-income children were described as using a â€Å"restricted code† or highly contextualized language, while children from middle-income families used an â€Å"elaborated code,† or decontextualized language. His research also documented differences in school achievement for these two groups of children. Interpretations of Bernstein’s work concluded a cause–effect relation between language use and school success, supporting a â€Å"verbal deficit† perspective: the working-class environment of the low-income children created a verbal deficiency responsible for subsequent low educational achievement (Winch, 1990). Here in the United States, Bereiter and Englemann (1966) conducted further research from the verbal-deficit perspective. They focused on the language of preschool African American children in Urbana, Illinois. Bereiter and Engleman concluded that the language used by African American children was not a valid language and thus recommended that these children needed to be taught English in the school setting (Winch, 1990). Academically oriented preschool curricula were developed (e. g. , Blank, Rose, Berlin, 1978) to provide the needed English language training for verbally deficient children. William Labov (1979; Winch, 1990) explored social dialects of lower income African American children in urban settings. He studied the differences in children’s in-school and out-of-school (e. g. , playground) language competencies. His data directly challenged the verbal-deficit theory because it documented the elaborated and systematic linguistic properties of Black English. His research supported the idea that Black English was a separate language system with its own grammar and rules. Labov described dialects as having â€Å"slightly different versions of the same rules, extending and modifying the grammatical processes which are common to all dialects of English† (Labov, 1995, p.54). Labov’s research supported the idea that verbal differences are not verbal deficits. Because Labov’s research focused on language used in academic and nonschool settings, he also created a greater awareness of the role of context and dialect in communication. Tough (1977) conducted a longitudinal study of children from advantaged (college-educated, professional parents) and disadvantaged (parents who were in unskilled or semiskilled occupations) homes. The study began when the children were 3 years old, with follow-up at 5 1? 2 and 7 1? 2 years. At age 3, the disadvantaged children and the advantaged children showed significant differences in the ways they used language. Specifically, the disadvantaged children did not use language to recall and give details of prior experiences, anticipate upcoming events and possible outcomes, reason about current and remembered events, problem solve using language for planning and considering alternatives, reach solutions, create and sustain dramatic play events, and understand others’ experiences and feelings. When these children were studied again at 5 1? 2 and 7 1? 2 years, the disadvantaged children produced shorter, less complex responses. This research contributed to our understanding that children from different cultural environments may be learning to use language differently and may experience difficulty in participating in the language environment in classrooms. Further awareness of the role of cultural environments in the acquisition of language was influenced in the 1980s by ethnographic research techniques that were used by language researchers. Ethnographic studies have contributed significantly to our understanding of linguistic diversity. Ethnography uses participant observation in real-life settings and focuses on individuals within their social and cultural contexts. In her ethnographic study, Heath (1983) explored children’s acquisition of language at home and school in two communities in the southeastern United States. She found differences in communication in working-class black and white families as well as among middle-class townspeople of both ethnic groups. Heath also described differences in story structures, language, and sense of â€Å"truth† (fiction vs. nonfiction) that children learned at home that were different from those expected at school. To be successful at school, these children had to be able â€Å"to recognize when a story is expected to be true, when to stick to the facts, and when to use their imaginations† (Heath, 1983, p. 294). Heath’s research also documented valid and authentic differences in the ways language is used and in the ways in which children in those respective communities become competent language users. Heath concluded that the contrasts she found in language were not based on race, but on complex cultural influences in each community. The importance of family context in language acquisition was more recently described by Hart and Risley (1995, 1999). Findings from their longitudinal study document the significance of â€Å"talkativeness† in families in influencing language acquisition rather than the family’s socioeconomic status or ethnic group identity. Differences in language use were attributed to the complex family culture—not simply due to socioeconomic status or ethnic group identity. Among the families that were studied, the most important difference was in the amount of talking. Children in families where there was more talking developed higher levels of language in the areas of vocabulary growth and vocabulary use. These differences were strongly linked to school performance at age 9. Among these families, Hart and Risley (1995) identified five quality features in parents’ language interactions with their children: 1. Language diversity: the variation and amount of nouns and modifiers used by the parents 2. Feedback tone: the positive feedback given to children’s participation in the interaction 3. Symbolic emphasis: the emphasis placed on focusing on names and associated relations of the concepts and the recall of those symbols 4. Guidance style: parental interaction that used asking rather than demanding in eliciting specific behavior from the child 5. Responsiveness: parental responsiveness to requests or questions initiated by children Hart and Risley (1995) speculated that these categories may be â€Å"important for the language-based analytic and symbolic competencies upon which advanced education and a global economy depend† (p. 193). A current hypothesis on why children from diverse linguistic backgrounds experience difficulty in school is the socialization mismatch hypothesis. This hypothesis â€Å"predicts that children are more likely to succeed in school when the home language and literacy socialization patterns are similar to those that are used and valued in school† (Faltis, 1998, p. 23). This hypothesis has been applied to children who speak a nonstandard English dialect as well as to children who are learning a second language. Home language socialization patterns may differ from those favored in the school classroom in the following ways (Faltis, 1998): 1. The amount of talk directed to preschool children 2. The participation of young children as conversation partners with adults 3. Opportunities children have to explain or give a personal interpretation of events 4. The types of questions asked of children during storybook sharing 5. The forms of narrative that are used (e. g. , fiction, nonfiction, or ongoing narratives) In addition, the social interaction patterns used in the classroom may vary from the home culture’s with respect to expectations for competitive versus collaborative or cooperative activities as well as the â€Å"courtesies and conventions of conversations† (Tharp, 1994, p. 140).

Essay --

Congregation Bet Breira One does not simply walk into an unknown world without feeling some sense of fear or confusion. It is this unnerving feeling that wrapped its icy web around my gut as I stepped into the Bet Breira Temple. I pressed onto this unknown territory, full of regret for taking up this assignment and not choosing a religion that was closer to mine. This temple, that had always seemed to pose as a strange piece of architecture, became a totally different entity once I was inside. I felt like I was staring at a grand stadium, all of the pews lined up in rows leading towards the heavens all staring at one center altar. This place had its similarities to my usual place of worship back at St. Kevin Catholic church; however the people and the religious symbols that hung were completely new to me. It was as we entered however that the biggest surprise struck me. Accompanied by my Jewish friend Chris, I asked him, â€Å"Hey who is that woman wearing those strange clothes?† and all of my Catho lic upbringing could not prepare me for what he had to say next, â€Å"That’s the Rabbi.† As I recall the events that transpired, I realize my ignorance could have been perceived as sacrilegious had anyone noticed my face of disbelief. In Reformed Jewish Synagogues, Synagogues being the Hebrew word for Temple, women can be ordained as Rabbi’s. They go through the same process as men, learning the Hebrew language and mastering the Torah. The Torah is Judaism’s most sacred item, a book written by man through their God’s intervention. One difference between the different sects within Judaism is the differences of views of the Torah. Though Reformed Jews see the different Jewish laws to be guidelines, Orthodox Jews believe them to be essential laws... ... them and cares for them. It is through a Reformed Judaist view that God has been caring for humanity for thousands of years, and one can see the amount of pride there is in each of the parishioners. Ultimately I am very happy for partaking in this experience. Having visited a church that I have never gone to has not only taught me a valuable lesson about another group’s belief system but has also made me grown more appreciative of my current faith. I am glad that I was able to do research prior to coming to the synagogue because it helped me understand the events that were transpiring before me. However, much like looking up the â€Å"Spark Notes† of a book, no research compared to the actual experience of participating in their ritual. It was a great honor to have been allowed this opportunity and I now know that many religions have very similar religious dimensions.

Multiple Intelligence Theory Essay

Many students choose to attend APUS because the University fosters differing educational styles and empowers the students through education. The Student Handbook states, â€Å"The University System fosters an environment that promotes a life of learning for its constituents and uses feedback from its participants and supporters to improve the quality of its teaching, learning, and support†¦ The University System anticipates and adapts to its changing environment and responds to the needs of the organization and its constituencies in manners both appropriate and timely.† In the beginning of College 100, students are introduced to the different learning styles and the theory of multiple intelligences. By becoming familiar with other students learning styles and exploring the multiple intelligences students became more tolerant towards others and were able to strengthen their learning power. Being familiar with multiple intelligence theory, knowing the different learning sty les, utilizing appropriate classroom methods, and exploring the interdisciplinary classroom will empower students towards a lifetime of learning. Recognizing the multiple intelligence theory is the first step in capturing the different learning styles. â€Å"Howard Gardners multiple intelligence theory (Gardner, 1993) proposes the idea that we all have various levels of intelligence across a range of intellectual areas† (Pritchard, 2008). The concept that people learn in different ways, and perceive and learn by different methods is what makes up the theory of multiple intelligences. There are at least nine different intelligences in which people display in varying ways (Pritchard, 2008). The styles are as follows: linguistic, logical/mathematical, musical, spatial/visual, kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic, and existential (Pritchard, 2008). Student’s particular academic strengths have a direct impact on how effective their learning will be for their overall education. When applying multiple intelligences to the classroom, it is very important to cater to all the types of learning styles. When discussing learning styles in the forums of College 100, every student had a different way of learning that especially worked for them. If every single assignment or activity in a classroom is slanted towards visual learning, then the students who are auditory or kinesthetic learners will be at a serious disadvantage. These students will not be able to express themselves or be able to conform to the teaching style if their learning needs are not met. â€Å"In planning for multiple intelligences, teachers consider the range of activities related to the content of the lesson and the intended learning outcomes will give a range of opportunities to the children’s different intelligence strengths† (Pritchard, 2008). It is very important for a teacher to introduce a range of activities and presentations in order to make the most out of multiple intelligences. A learning style is reflected by a students preferred method of learning, which is a direct result of their type of intelligence. It is irresponsible for a teacher to assume that all of their students will learn in the same manner. The four main styles of learning are visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and extrovert. Every style has strengths and weaknesses. It is crucial in the educational environment to exploit the student’s strengths and protect the weaknesses. A student’s self-worth and esteem can be very much tied up with their learning capability. Teachers must exhibit a range of teaching styles, so that their students learning styles will be compatible. â€Å"Diverse personalities impact relationships, motivation, and ease of learning in classroom and work environments. Where there are diverse personalities within groups, people generally prefer and choose to be with others who are similar to themselves; individuals may even dislike those who have different attitudes and behaviors from their own† (Richardson & Arker, 2010). What Richardson and Arker are implying is that people of different personalities and learning styles tend to stick in the same groups. It would be to the benefit of everyone if individuals of different personalities and persuasions were put together in one group, that way the group will be more powerful and will benefit greatly from the input of everybody. A truly good teacher will ensure that they have designed their curriculum in such a way so that students learning needs are met. Classroom arrangements can be made so that individuals of similar temperaments are brought together in what is called compatibility scheduling. This arrangement will enhance the overall productivity of students as well as teachers† (Richar dson & Arker, 2010). As multiple intelligence theory has developed, advances in classroom methods have also been made. There are at least three different methods that combine multiple intelligence theory with learning styles in order to better the classroom environment. â€Å"Brain-based education supports the need to differentiate instruction† (Richardson & Arker, 2010). Some studies in brain research have shown that there is such a thing as a left-brain and a right-brain. People can be left or right brain dominate, which largely determines the individuals learning style. â€Å"Collaborative learning is a method of teaching and learning in which student’s team together to explore a significant question or create a meaningful project† (Educational Broadcasting Corporation, 2004). This type of classroom learning will serve to help the entire group. The students and teachers will be able to pick out the roles that suit them best, thus serving the group to the best of their ability. Another method that is similar to collaborative learning is cooperative learning. In cooperative learning, â€Å"Students work together in small groups on a structured activity. They are individually accountable for their work, and the work of the group as a whole is also assessed. Cooperative groups work face-to-face and learn to work as a team† (Educational Broadcasting Corporation, 2004). Cooperative learning is becoming a very popular method. It uses individuals best qualities for the betterment of the group. By using these methods in the classroom learning becomes an active process and engages all types of learning styles. The Western world has divided education into blocks, and then further divided the blocks into disciplines. While convenient on paper, it is clear that education and disciplines overlap, the world is a fluid place. Interdisciplinary education is an approach that blends different disciplines and utilizes multiple intelligence theory and varying learning styles. â€Å"The exponential growth of knowledge in the twentieth century revealed how disciplinary cultures and perspectives could discourage inquiries and explanations that spanned disciplinary boundaries. Disciplines, it now seems clear, are powerful but constraining ways of knowing† (Lattuca, 2001). By breaking down the walls of the disciplines, students are empowered to use their differing learning styles. This will result in students having positive experiences with education. Students will then seek out a lifetime of learning, and encourage other to seek knowledge. Recognizing the theory of multiple intelligences and defining each student’s learning style will lead to success in education. By utilizing methods such as brain-based learning, cooperative learning, and collaborative learning teachers can empower students by giving them the educational method that works best for each individual. Combining all of these aspects yields the concept of interdisciplinary learning, leading to a lifetime of successful education, teaching, and learning. References Concept to Classroom: Course Menu. (2004). THIRTEEN – New York Public Media. Retrieved December 2, 2012, from http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/index.html Lattuca, L. R. (2001). Creating interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary research and teaching among college and university faculty. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. Pritchard, A. (2008). Ways of Learning [electronic resource]: Learning Theories and Learning Styles in the Classroom. Hoboken, NJ: David Fulton Publishers. Richardson, R., & Arker, E. (2010). Personalities in the Classroom: Making the Most of Them. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 46(2), 76-81.

Analysis Of Jan Van Eyck s The Dutch And Flemish

The Renaissance was a time of rebirth, and evolution in artwork all around Europe. Up in the North, right behind the Italians, the Dutch and Flemish were gearing up for their own shift in artwork to surpass their neighbors. Following inspiration from their Italian neighbors, and the International Gothic style, they looked forward and redefined painting as a style, while also changing arts meaning. Making the characters true to life in artwork was a new feat never before seen until the High Renaissance in Italy. Jan Van Eyck took the Netherlands by storm by renovating the International Gothic style, and creating a more naturalistic style that spawned dozens of copiers, and inspired artists to strive for a more realistic, original view of the human body. He mastered both portrait artwork and religious altarpieces in a style of oil painting he invented. It conjured a movement of painting, which would soon change the European art scene as he passed away. Religious painting also took hit of Eyck’s artwork as it introduced the realism style religious figures in life-sized format. Jan van Eyck was a master of realism for the time period he lived in, and gave the north what Leonardo di Vinci gave to Italy. Renaissance artwork was groundbreaking because of its naturalistic style brought on by Jan van Eyck that created life like portraits, and dynamic story telling in altarpieces. Following the early Italian Renaissance, the Dutch decided to dip their feet in the pool of inspiration