Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Cognition vs Language
Think about do babies THINK and have COGNITION first or do they start producing speech/language first. Consider all of the video clips we watched. You can view those and more at http://stuff2view.blogspot.com/ . Are babies thinking and developing cognition and meaning prior to being able to produce speech and language? Or do babies have the ability to produce speech and language before they are aware of meaning? You may wish to look at the chapter for this week, chapter 5 and consider the difference between vocalization and speech (or review the resources on Blackboard for Week 1).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I work in daycare. And there are times that i am in the infant room, and the babies are cooing and gooing, but it makes me think that babies think and develop cognition, before they can learn speech and what everything means. I work now in the 3-4 year old classroom, and i have some children who say things, but i dont think they understand what they are saying, i believe they are just repeating what they have heard. This is how i feel. Please feel free to engage in saying something else!
I have to agree. I have four little sisters and have been around kids my whole life. I think kids have a thought process and cognition long before they know how to communicate. I think this helps to explain why kids can use sign language often much sooner than they can verbally talk. They don't have the muscles and abilities to verbally talk yet. In fact, I think cooing and babbling is a sort of way for them to exercise and develop those muscles neccessary for them to talk.
So you would agree more with Piaget, correct? You are saying that babies are cognitively aware of their environment. They are processing information BEFORE they are able to formally produce language or are communicating. Is this correct? Any additional specific examples to support cognition before language?
I think it ia a little bit of all, cognition and production. It is one of those things that is an individual perspective, and will never be proved concretely one way or another. I think babies imitate sound and children acn be taught to say words that they have no clue what they mean. But I also think babies produce sound ( I know it is not speech or a language) but the sounds they are making might have some meaning to them. I used to babysit twins when I was younger, alot younger and they developed their own language from the time they were 6 mos old. I and her parents had no clue what they were saying but they seemed to know.
Its one of those mysteries. We are complex beings.
For your test question you will need to take a specific model and unravel your mystery - since you are a complex being! ;)
I have to say that I believe babies mainly imitate what they are hearing first and then begin to understand what it is that they're saying. Many babies first words are mama and dada, but I think its because their parents coach them to say these words by repeating them constantly and not because they understand who their parents are. In the Jenna Talking video it showed this because the little girl was simply repeating back everything that her dad said, not making sentences but saying every word that her dad said.
Imitation of what is heard without truly understanding the meaning - with which model does this most closely align, Erica?
I do agree mostly with Piaget. As for other examples, if you watch children play together, especially those who are around each other a lot like siblings or cousins, they play and "talk" to one another. They don't seem to have any trouble communicating what they like, want, need, etc. from each other. They often even use gestures to communicate such as pushing something out to say, "Here, you can have it," or pulling something in close to them as if to say, "No, I don't want to share. This is mine." I have seen this kind of scenario many times with my little sister and cousin when they were both about the same age before they could talk. I've also seen it with my little cousins who are sisters about a year apart.
Cognition demonstrated via gestures before spoken language!! Aha!
I think that I believe Piaget's theory that cognition comes first before language. The reason I believe this is because:
1. Children identify with language by imatation, but they do not understand what they are doing/saying. An example of this is when you slip up and say a curse word in front of your child, and your child screams it in church three days later (lol). In this situation, the child does not understand that the word they are saying is bad, but they process the word anyway (well enough to repeat it over and over again).
2. I think that many young children speak with body langauge and guesturing like Sammi was saying above. For example, my brother did not speak at all until he was six years old. My mom says that I spoke for him, and she thought it was 'freaky' how I could tell her what he wanted, needed, or did not want. However, I remember that I could tell these things by his body language, facial expressions, and other nonverbal cues because I was around him so much. The only question I have is: Would that be considered langauge? My brother sent a message using body langage and non-verbal cues, I recieved it, and then translated it to my mother using spoken langague. Great! I thought that I understood this, but now I am having doubts. I still think that cognition comes before language.
You're doing great, Erica!!! You're thinking through the information and that's what it takes. Let's work on categorizing and organizing it next.
The first idea is cognition - what are babies aware of in their environment? What do they recognize and know? Is thinking, awareness, recognition of someone familiar present PRIOR to a child's language ABILITIES? That's Piaget vs Chomsky. Chomsky would say - boom, baby drops from the womb and in that moment everything he needs to develop language he has. The LAD is there. All kids - regardless if the hospital is in Rome, Canberra, Monrovia or Somerset will develop language in virtually the same way at the same time. Because of that language is innate.
Vygotsky says - each are independent systems. Cognition is developing. Language is developing - both independently. As the child matures they will become interdependent and work together.
Now - if you talk about language ACQUISITION and language DEVELOPMENT you need to move to those models...Skinner, Chomsky also has a view, Bloom, etc. Do children imitate, talk to talk, talk because of meaning and they want to convey that, etc.
Children can imitate and produce words without understanding it - - which model of language acquisition does this fit?
Would that fit the Pragmatic-Interactionist model?
I dont see how anyone would doubt that cognition came first. I mean, seriously people believe that their dog has emotions and understanding and feelings! How can we NOT believe that even an infant can feel these things. Its been proven a fetus can feel pain in the womb! So wouldn't you believe that they came out feeling, seeing, knowing something? Maybe I feel this way because I am a Christian. I just have to believe that we all are perfectly planned beings that are born with something inside of us. We are special and unique and intelligent right from the start.
Post a Comment