How do children acquire and develop language

 

From the young age of fifteen months, children begin to develop linguistic skills of a basic level, for example making noises and sounds with their mouth and tongue. Bilingual children will develop slower as they are accessing different parts of the brain in order to access two different languages. The reason for only basic noises and sounds is the position of the larynx that doesn’t allow the throat to produce words. Over the next year from this age, the larynx will move down 3cm which will then allow the child to produce lexis and construct phrases, this is then known as the voice box. During the time in which the child is learning vocabulary and pronunciation, they are using 30 muscles in their face alone to speak, this then could affect the development of phonology as the child has to learn to use different sounds.

 

 

At 2 and a half years old, the child then goes on to learn 10 new words a day, in which they will use to describe in detail, communicate, construct sentences and use their vocab as an instinctive map for language (chompsky- universal language). A lot of sentence types at this age are declaritve, exampling alack of pragmatic skills. At this age, children mostly get the grammar correct all the time, as ‘children have an instinctive map for language’. It’s also this age in which children begin to develop self- awareness in which they recognise themselves in a reflection in the mirror and they realise they are their own person, hence why they say about the terrible 2’s in which children have their worst tantrums as they realise they are their own person and they don’t understand the concept of sharing and want everything for themselves.

This is article is based on the issue that ‘broken homes lead to damage the brains of children’; how dysfunctional family types lead to their children starting school with a lack of a mental capacity as their brain has not been able to develop properly. This article claims there is a link between the pattern of the family and lack of mental development.

In my opinion, children are able to develop their cognitive capabilities through social interaction and intellectual activities. It is possible that in these ‘broken homes’ there is lack of this, therefore limiting the child’s capabilities to learn and develop acquired skills. For example, a dysfunctional family may not have the time, ability nor want to read the child a book in bed, or take the time to teach them how to read basic literature. Thus setting up the children to potentially start school at a different level to the other students.

However, on the contrary I also believe that just due to the fact that children are from a dysfunctional family, doesn’t mean they will automatically face educational failure. In some cases those that are faced with non-broken homes will also potentially be troubled with ‘damaged brains’. In an article from ‘phycology today’, it reports that those from more privileged backgrounds are of the most distressing youth today. They show disturbingly high rates of substance use, depression, anxiety, eating disorders, cheating, and stealing.  As the kids approach adolescence, studies found they abuse the use of illegal substances, the same studies also found this among 10^th graders in a later study. Widespread cheating and random acts of delinquency, such as stealing from parents or peers, are also found to be more common among the rich.

U.K. Parliamentary language

The system
Within the uk parliamentary system, there are two houses of which the House of Commons have the role of legislating new laws, and observing financial issues, members of this house are elected bodies. The second part of the U.K. System is the House of Lords , this consists of hereditory peers in which have the responsibility of introducing legislation and checking the role of the government.

Parliamentary language
Parliamentary language refers to the discourse between members of the certain parliament, such lexis is likely to differ from everyday lexis.

Examples of parliamentary language:

Adjournment debate - usually a half-hour debate introduced by a backbencher at the end of business for the day. The subjects raised are often local or personal issues. There is also a series of short adjournment debates on Wednesday mornings.

Allocation of time motion (guillotine) - a means by which time for one or more stages of a bill is restricted, and the question is put on outstanding business, even though members may still wish to speak on that business (see Programme order).

Ballot (for Private Members' Bills) - drawn on the second Thursday that the House sits in each session. The 20 successful members put their bills down for discussion on particular days (Fridays).

Closure - the question "that the question be now put", i.e. that, although there are still members speaking or wishing to speak, the debate should be ended and the House proceed immediately to a decision. The Speaker has discretion as to whether to accept the closure and, if opposed, it requires not just a majority but also at least 100 members voting in favour; otherwise, the original debate is resumed. If the closure is agreed to, the question is then put immediately on the matter previously under debate.


Unparliamentary language 

Unparliamentary language refers to lexis within the parliamentary system that is seen as 'in-polite' and goes against the rules of parliament. Anyone who says anything if this sense, are asked to take back what they have said. 
- rat 
- swine 
- nazi 
-bullshit 
-liar 
- ignoramous 

http://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2016/mar/09/im-going-to-get-cancer-and-theres-nothing-i-can-do-about-it


This article displays the need for change in lexical choice when referring to Cancer in everyday context. The argument is that through lexical choice, of declaratives for example; "everything gives you cancer these days!', this lexis indicates imminent development through anything, which is obviously a misconception that is potentially socially constructed. Therefore the alternative of knowing there are specific precautions one can take in order to prevent the illness developing, is a lot clearer and correct phrase to prevent it seem as if everything does give you cancer - which it doesn't. Another argument in which this article proposes is the lexical choice of 'gives you' [cancer], this article argues that the semantics of this phrase needs to shift as nothing literally gives you cancer, in the sense that it for example hands you it. There's things that theoretically could potentially trigger a pre-existing condition, therefore it is wrong to say ' everything gives you cancer these days'.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2016/mar/09/im-going-to-get-cancer-and-theres-nothing-i-can-do-about-it

Language and occupation- doctors

 

This is a letter from one doctor to another written in 2003. Due to the format of this text, it is expected that there is Latinate and formal lexis, this may differ from a conversation between two doctors. This implies that the job of a doctor is to be professional and educated in all parts of their occupation and that the receiver of the letter is expecting a professional and formal standard. An example of the Latinate lexis are examples such as ‘deficiencies’, ‘initially’, ‘unambiguous’, ‘jeopardy’ and ‘institution’.

Within this letter, there is no occupational specific lexis, although there is semantic field, there are no form of words that are exclusive to being a doctor (jargon).  As this is a letter, the primary purpose may be different to one of a conversation between two doctors; this is more likely to include jargon. However it shows that the doctors role within a medical association is not limited to its primary function; there is also necessary interactions as written reports and letters; in which show differing factors of discourse between different job roles.

The letter is closed with ‘thank you for your attention’, which is less assertive and more focused on politeness and appreciation; this shows that within this occupational community, the writer of the letter is not the one with the power, and therefore in this occupation there is a system of hierarchy in which power can be negotiated.

 

Doctor’s slang

Within the occupational discourse, I found that exclusive to the doctors’ occupational community, there is such thing as ‘doctor’s slang’ in which is a folk linguistic allegedly created by doctors in order to secretly insult each other or their patients. For example NFN (Normal for Norfolk), FLK (Funny looking kid) or GROLIES (Guardian Reader of Low Intelligence in Ethnic Skirt).

Dr Fox recounts the tale of one doctor who had scribbled TTFO - an expletive expression translated as "Told to fuck off" - on a patient's notes.

Other examples of the slang are "Whopper with Cheese", "Handbag positive" or "Coffin dodger" could be lost forever.

(Source: BBC news)

 

Occupational lexis

HARRY

What do we have Kelsey?

KELSEY

GI obstruction...

HARRY

What do you need me to do?

KELSEY

(beat) Nothing really, he’s been referred and we’re getting ready to move him to theatre.

 

This is a section of a transcript from the hospital based programme. In this example they display the wide use of occupational specific lexis; as if it’s their own way of communicating.

Ochs and Taylor

Ochs and Taylor completed a study in 1992 in which they examined how the family is a political institution through conversational interactions. One argument they proposed is that families are political bodies in that certain members review, judge, formulate codes of conduct, make decisions that evaluate + impact the actions, conditions, thoughts and feelings of other members. 

Ochs and Taylor studied conversations at dinner times which they argue is the first time a whole family can interact with each other by giving stories about their day which draws in the participation of other members. Their findings state that mothers tended to be the introducers of the conversations the majority of the time and children only introduced 1/3 of the time. The class pattern was that the women would select fathers as primary recipients who would be the problematizes. The mother would usually be the person who would try to solve the problem.

In most western cultures, the language that parents use to address and interact with small children can be known as "parentese".