Classroom Introduction- the Way Humans Communicate and

¶ … Classroom Introduction- The way humans communicate and share ideas and concepts in society is complex. How are ideas conceptualized -- how are they explained -- how does discourse relate- and how do humans understand messages -- what is true about language- what is not? These are just some of the issues surrounding theories of language acquisition and development. However, a full review of all current linguistic theories is out of the realm of this paper, thus we will concentrate on a single theory of language acquisition.

First, though, it is useful to understand the basic themes of theoretical linguistics, a branch of the science of speech concerned with the way humans use core factors of language, and how those core precepts are developed within a particular culture.

Regardless of the language grouping, human languages have three major commonalties: articulation (the production of speech sounds, sometimes including non-verbal cues); perception (the way human ears respond to speech and how the brain analyzes the messages and; acoustics (physical characteristics of sound like color, volume, amplitude, and frequency) (Ottenheimer 2006 34-47). As one might imagine, scholars and philosophers all have different ideas on the theoretical constructs of the way humans acquire, develop, and utilize language.

Even ancient philosophers like Plato had thoughts on whether children were born with an innate sense of meaning already inside their brain, or whether it was social interaction that caused different skills to be forthcoming. For Plato, not knowing or understanding the various language families, much of learning was relearning -- children were born with an innate sense of the world and just needed practice "remembering" how to communicate (Tomasello 2008).

After the Renaissance, and into the Age of Enlightenment, philosophers like Hobbes and Locke argued that knowledge (of which language is an essential determiner for them) emerged from the senses (Harrison 2002). Noam Chomsky, and other linguistic scholars, believe that human language is the sense of that language -- and culture. French, for instance, is a historical, social and political notion that is expressed linguistically as well. Thus, commonalties in culture (e.g.

The French, English, Italian, Swiss, etc.) are amended by language -- in this case, the commonalties of linguistic structure as opposed to the way Chinese would not be common to French; either in language or in human culture (Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis 2003). In the late 1950s, however, psychologist B.F. Skinner took past theories and formulated a newer approach -- the behaviorist theory of language acquisition.

In his 1957 book, Verbal Behavior, Skinner postulated that language was divisible into units and that was acquired through both repetition and reinforcement; it was a later step to move from repeating a word, "tree" for example, to understanding that the spoken and written words form a shorthand for an object; and that object need not be identical each time (e.g. The cognition that there is one general word for tree, but hundreds of examples) (Skinner 1992).

Some linguists embraced the theory, indicating that while it was incomplete, it did help explain some of the commonalties of linguistic behavior across cultures, and was at least a way to understand one of the aspects of language acquisition and development.

Others, however, saw behaviorism as deconstruction in the worst sense; a way to look at only one small part of language, to ascribe only physical nuances and characteristics to something far more complex, and to simply take "old experimental psychology," dress it up with a new bit of frosting for theory, and supply the operative word "conditioning' in order to establish the veracity of linguistic culture (Carroll (ed.) 1956, 41).

However, the very basis of this issue goes beyond just acquisition, and asks us to define the basis of usable linguistic theory in reference to robust discourse. Definition of Discourse -- Discourse analysis, or discourse studies, is a broad term for a rubric of approaches to written, spoken, or signed language and the way the participants interact. The object of discourse analysis -- discourse, writing, talking, conversation -- really any communicative event, are typically defined much like basic linguistic phenomena -- patterns of sentences, propositions, speech acts, etc.

However, contrary to much of traditional linguistics, discourse analysis not only focuses on the study of language use beyond sentence structure, it also works with naturally occurring language, and has relevance in a variety of social science fields (Blommaert 2005). Discourse analysis is not so much a single defining "noun," but more a way of approaching linguistics -- a template, if you will, as a research method to thinking about a problem.

It is neither completely quantitative nor completely qualitative, nor does it provide a tangible means of answering all the problems based on empirical research. Instead, as a method of research, it enable access to the ontological approach (proof via intuition and reason) combined with epistemological assumptions (how is knowledge acquired, how do we know what we know), when dealing with a project, statement, or even classification of text.

In other words, by using the discourse analysis method, one can find the hidden motivations behind a text or behind a specific method of research; then interpret that as a way to understand the author or conversation better. Since every text, every author, indeed every conversation has multiple levels in which it can be understood, discourse analysis allows for a more robust look at the entire picture, not just what we initially read, see or hear (Frohmann 1992).

Discourse analysis is a theoretical approach to what we are all trying to do in the classroom -- that is implement Bloom's hierarchy and teach beyond rote so that students understand the necessity for analysis and synthesis; and that they know how to handle subjectivity within a text. While the term discourse analysis is relatively new, critical thinking about situations and text is not.

What postmodern discourse theory does, though, is move from there being a single particular view of the world to one in which we can see the world as fragmented, and that individual interpretation is subjective -- an interpretation that is at least marginally conditioned by the social and cultural forces that surround us all. Somewhat akin to deconstruction, discourse analysis allows the community to actively participate in the interpretation of the conversation.

It is interesting that almost a century ago, one of the pioneers of modern educational theory, John Dewey, defined critical thought as: "active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusion to which it tends" (Dewey in Lyons (ed.) 2010).

The Discourse Community- In simple terms, a discourse community is a group of people who share a body of knowledge, group culture, or even something in common like language, interests, environments, or something even more unique -- a club, a meeting about an issue, or a classroom. Bringing people together from divergent group structures (demographics, psychographics, geographic, etc.) is quite common within the classroom, thus this becomes its own unique learning environment.

In any language class, too, there is often far more discussion and group sharing simply because of the relationship of the individuals to the text and to the rest of the group (language learning tends to break down some social barriers) (Porter 1992). Within this context there are six important distinctions, first developed by Swales (1990) that help us define a context in which we may create a more robust basis for language learning. A discourse community: 1. Has a broadly agreed set of common, yet public, goals.

For instance, in the classroom, the obvious goal is to ensure that a proper learning environment is available for students to learn a language; an effective curriculum available, and other specifics based on the particular class in question. 2. Have mechanisms of intercommunication among the members of the group. Any classroom, particularly that of a language learning environment has regular and clear sets of intercommunication between the instructor, the students, and between groups. Often, language communication is enhanced between members of the group 3.

Uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback. In the language classroom, formative assessments (feedback) are both immediate and regular. Each time a student repeats a phrase, reads, or is asked to translate, feedback and information are transferred. 4. Utilizes and then possesses one of more genres of communication so that its aims are met and move forward. Each classroom is unique, but moreover, the very nature of language learning allows for a clear differentiation in communication (speaking, answering questions, dialog, writing, reading, role-playing, explaining drawings, etc.). 5.

Has a specific lexis of opportunity. Usually, language learning is broken into a series of steps so that there is a broader understanding of expectations and learning targets. Each step has its own lexis of vocabulary, each part foundational towards the next. 6. Has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and expertise.

Again, depending on the structure of the class, during the semester, quarter or year, the teacher is the expert, the students the apprentices who will become experts; then each cycle of students there are novices progressing forward (Swales 1990). Discourse Analysis in Language Pedagogy- Specifically, discourse analysis in the classroom has important applications in the areas of phonology, grammar, and vocabulary development. Phonology -- Generally, phonology can be used to understand ethnic basis for what the student is bringing into the classroom.

Within the classroom structure though, pronunciation and intonation are the most vibrant ways we can use discourse analysis. Traditional pronunciation pedagogy breaks down each part of the sound and works within that microstructure to understand dialect. From a discourse analysis method, though, the problem becomes far more complex. What sound precedes, what sound comes after -- for when words and sounds follow each other in speech they may undergo considerable changes and modifications.

What then happens is that depending on the way the word is said, isolated or comes in context a list of assimilations of elision (where sounds from the citation for are missed -- example most men, becomes mos-men in conversation). When in a language classroom though, discourse analysis can help us understand and correct these issues so that the learner understands the correct pronunciation during the novice or learning stage (McCarthy 1991).

Grammar -- At its core, the methodology of discourse analysis is a way of conceptualizing language "in-use." Grammar is the way that sounds and words are structured (rules) that describe a particular language or group of speakers. Grammar evolves through usage and through the way populations are separated, so that specific forms of meaning can be ascribed to a way of thinking. Traditional grammar, or generative grammar, more of a modern Chomsky idea.

This theory says that each sentence in a language has two levels of representation- a surface structure and a deep structure in which the similarities between languages, culture and thought occur (Chomsky 1965). Using a discourse analysis method places a more important role on both texts with which grammatical concepts are presented and the connecting role between the grammatical forms.

"Knowing" grammar no longer means that one memorizes declinations and grammar facts, but the reasons behind the grammar and the way grammatical rules are used to convey meaning; context-dependent, mode, article use, etc. Once these basics are understood from an analytical point-of-view, discourse theory believes that there will be a greater understanding of the overall template of the grammar, and therefore a better understanding of the language in general. "Grammar…. Has a direct role in welding clauses, turns and sentences into discourse" (McCarthy 1991).

Vocabulary -- It is in the teaching of vocabulary that the discourse method excels. Vocabulary cannot be effectively taught out of context; it is only within a more macro environment of discourse that any intended meaning becomes clear. One might argue that there is a basic "dictionary" definition of a word, but the intended meaning of such words is not found until one finds a contextual approach. The word "tree," for example, has 18 dictionary definitions, with its most common dealing with a plant with a woody stem.

If the context of the sentence was, "Mary saw a large, very old, apple tree," this definition would work -- in context. If, however, the sentence was, "Hank forgot that the complexities of this particular data set require a different set of rules for the programming tree," the meaning is quite different. Thus, the meaning of the word, in this case, is not dependent upon rote vocabulary but on the actual phrase of use.

This is particularly true when dealing with specialized vocabulary for the sciences; with specific uses for words not just specific meanings. To be effective teaching grammar in a discourse analysis method, sentence level examples are not always complex enough to provide enough back up for language learning. "What are needed are many fully contextualized examples…. To provide learners with the necessary exposure to and practice with else, a function word that is semantically, grammatically, and textually complex" (The Handbook of Discourse Analysis 2003).

Discourse Analysis and Language Skills -- There are two distinct processes when teaching language: 1) transmitting the ideas and intentions to others and, 2) interpreting and understanding the text/message produced by another speaker. Discourse analysis asks use to produce knowledge using strategies that help the learning speak or write, using formative assessments to understand if the audience is on track.

When interpreting discourse we also combine strategies (listening, reading) while, at the same time, relying on our past experience to help put material in context as well as our anticipation of what we think might occur within the context of the sentence or paragraph. It is important that language teachers use both productive skills and interpretive events so that the inclusion of discourse becomes part of the paradigm of that language (Anthony et al. 2007).

Additionally, there are two types of learning/knowledge that are aided by the use of discourse analysis theory. Prior and shared knowledge, for instance, including repetitive skills, all involve activation of schematic and contextual knowledge. Schematic knowledge is usually defined as patterned knowledge -- something so innate that it just comes natural.

A pattern is activated by certain expectations -- a person sees a dog running and will classify it as a Boxer, based on the past-or-prior knowledge (this is obviously a goal in teaching a language, the so-called "think in the new language" idea) (David, Shrobe & Szolovits 1993). The second type of knowledge assisted by discourse analysis is contextrual -- or the overall perception of what the learner hears, sees, or infers from the situation.

This is more complex because it takes into account both the past and future, as well as subtle body-langauge signals and prior-knowledge. Language teachers can use discourse analysis to provide learners with a number of activities that stimulate both these types of knowledge, and move the new language into a part of the brain that allows one to analyze just what is happening in that language. During that process, "it is important that learners have the opportunity to combine… phonological signals…. Lexicogrammatical signals…. content organization…. And contextual features" (Schiffrin: 717).

Activities to Bolster Discourse -- For our purposes, there are three major tools that focus on the theoretical use of discourse analysis -- but in the more multi-disciplinary sense, and thus quite useful within the modern language classroom: The Social Languages Tool -- Humans build language through more than just words; they use vernacular phrases, idioms, less common terms, and structures that are not necessarily technical, but understood and engaging.

How one uses language is then interpretive of how one is perceived by peers (accepted within a group) or by the dominant culture (accepted use of language). Clearly this is constantly apparent in the contemporary world in which phrases like "down with it, " (I want to), "That be hap gear" (Those are nice clothes) are an accepted part of language, but not of the dominant culture.

Use of phrases that are more social language are not part of the strict lexicon in a language classroom, but discourse analysis of those phrases can allow for a greater understanding of the cultural viability of language (Stubbs 1984) The Intertextuality Tool - A relatively new form of theiry, intertextuality revolves around the shaping of texts' meaning by other texts. What other texts brought to the learner, what parts of other materials are then put into the language learner's toolbox.

It can also mean that within a text an author uses another text as a literary means of providing a more robust scenario, as in John Steinbeck's retelling of the Genesis story in East of Eden, but setting in the Salinas Valley in Northern California. Using intertextuality in the language classroom also allows for interpretation and more discussion about the actual meaning of the text. Use of intertextuality in wrtiing allows for greater depth within the writing assignment, and a push towards real understanding of the new languge (Jesson 2010).

The Situated Meaning Tool -- Meaning is quite complex in language. It required interpretation as well as expectations. Psychologists still do not know how we construct meaning, but do understand that when learning a language, meaning must precede understanding. Again, by focusing on context, by applying the entire picture of the phrase, routine guessing becomes more of a theoretical approach to dialog, and therefore holds greater meaning.

Drilling in different contextual uses forces the language learner to interrupt themselves cognitively, and to think about the manner in which shared meaning between people establishes a greater "true" meaning of the word or phrase (Gee 2010). Conclusions - Traditional theorists, like Skinner, approached language learning as the manner in which verbal behavior is mitigated by the same controlling variables as any other operant theory (Skinner; (Michael 1984).

For Skinner, language acquisition does incorporate verbal problems as dependent variables, but that old a certain common structure when analyzed vigorously, and indeed are the factors that are the most robust in helping students acquire a new language: Emission -- Responses emitted are usually interpreted to have sense, Energy Level -- Another term for response magnitude and veracity of the experiment, Speed -- Infers high strength if quick in response.

Repetition -- "Mary, Mary, Mary!" indicates urgent and symbolic behavior Limitations -- Individual differences may provide mislabeled limitations on data appealing factual. Overall Frequency -- The overall frequency, though, sent into a statistical model and of sufficient depth, provides validity to the approach (Skinner 1992) Summarizing Skinner's Language Acquisition Theory is, however, then fairly straightforward, and certainly provides both definitions and a template for operational cognition and linguistic function.

Table 1 -- Summery of Verbal Operants that are also part of Discourse Theory Precondition Verbal Operant Consequence Example Motivation Mand (verbal operant) Direct, Effect A child comes into the kitchen, Mom is preparing supper, and is harried; Child asks for a glass of milk; Mother stops, opens the refrigerator and gives the milk.

Physical Environment Tact Social Mary looks out the window and comments, "Gee, despite it still being February, it's so warm and Fall like today." Her friend comments back, "You're right." Verbal behavior of others Intraverbal Social A mother asks her son what score he received on today's spelling bee. He replies, enthusiastically, "An A." Mother says "Very, very good!" Verbal behavior of others Echoic Social Teacher says, "tree in German is Baum." Tom repeats, "Tree is.