How do children (and adults) acquire language? What might this have to do with reading?

I think that language is acquired as a combination of innate abilities that children are born with & personal experiences that are learned, a combo of the popular debate of nature vs. nurture. From the Wikipedia article, the idea of Universal Grammar is a new theory to me; while it makes sense, I never heard of it before. This theory, where some grammar is innate to all humans, was developed by Chomsky & he argued that children have innate abilities that allow for language to be acquired. He also says that children are born with LAD in their brains (a Language Acquisition device). I agree with the Nativist Theory, also from the Wikipedia article, saying that it's a combo of nature AND nurture. I also agree with the Nativist theory that learning language is natural, like a dolphin learning to swim. I believe that the Critical Period plays an important role in acquiring language. This is the time frame in which children can learn a language; after a certain age, it's almost impossible to learn the syntax, or the rules for how sentences are structured. However, I found the age limit in the Wikipedia article surprising for the end of the critical period. They claim that the crucial period lasts till around the age of 12 & I assumed it would be younger than that.

While the second article by Ciaran O'Riodan was more based for time after the critical period & for learning additional languages, I found he made a few interesting points in relation to how children & adults acquire language. First, he says that learning a language takes several years, which of course is true. To truly master a language, even a first language, it's an ongoing process. Also, O'Riodan mentions that it's important to first learn to pronounce because if you learn to read before you know the sounds, you'll learn wrong pronunciation, which is hard to later fix. So, he suggests first just listening to get the basics, then imitate it. This made me think of babies as the develop language: it's natural that youngsters listen for almost a full year before they start pronouncing & imitating words.

I found the third article "Mama Teached Me Talk" very interesting in relation to our central question of acquiring language. I agree that even though our parents didn't necessarily "teach" us how to walk or talk, we still "learned" from them. Like in the other article, we begin by imitating what we hear our parents say as best we can, & then we repeat phrases. However, this isn't ALWAYS the case. As the article states & I truly believe, children don't always repeat like a parrot. Instead, they take it all in & absorb what they hear, learn the "rules" & create their own grammar to create their own phrases that they've never heard said by an adult. For example, a three year old that I babysit will often say things like, "I have two foots!" or "I holded the phone." This proves to me that this young child understands the basic rules that to form a plural, we add "s" & to to make a verb past tense, we add "ed." This further proves that the child isn't simply repeating back what he hears adults say. It proves that this three year old already understands the basic rules, but he just hasn't learned the many crazy exceptions to our English language. I don't know if it's the "right" thing to do, but I usually correct this three year old when he says a sentence like that. I'll say back to him, "No, you have two FEET," or "No, you HELD the phone." He usually repeats it the correct way, but has no concern as to why his way wasn't right. I think that comes with time & constantly hearing how phrases are said. I found it interesting that this last article said that kids will constantly adjust their grammar until it matches correct grammar, all through their Critical Period.

Lastly, two of the articles mentioned Genie & how she failed at learning language after the Critical Period. I remember watching a documentary on her in high school in my sociology class, & now it makes a lot more sense. At the time, I didn't fully understand why this girl couldn't grasp the concepts of language. Now, it's much more clear: after that Critical Period, acquiring language is a much more complex task.

As a final thought, this question has made me think about teaching a foreign language at a young age. I personally am AWFUL at Spanish & French (the two languages I attempted to learn in high school & college) For whatever reason, I can't grasp it. On the other hand, my sister is practically fluent in Spanish & wants to eventually be a Spanish teacher. My point is that I don't know why she seems to learn foreign languages so much easier than I do, but I do think that the younger we start children in school in learning a foreign language, the better. If we reach them before their Critical Period is up, they will probably absorb much more of the language than they would if they waited till high school like I did.

The analogy I like to think of is that we have to reach students during their Critical Period, when their brains are like sponges, able to absorb MUCH information.

My Thoughts on the Three Online Articles

After reading the 3 online articles about literacy, the last one on silencing teachers is the one that stands front runner in my mind. The 1st thing that got my attention was the picture at the beginning of the article, of a person being decapitated. While it made no sense to me at 1st, once I read the article, I understood the connection- stripping teachers of their voices, abilities & professionalism. This article truly scares me; this poor teacher that got punished for advocating for her students. What kind of message does that send to society, other teachers, students? It tells others that you will be punished for standing up for what you believe in. It's awful. I didn't even know what scripted reading was before I read this article- it seems like such an absurd idea- to script teaching. I didn't go to college to become an actress & follow a script. That's basically how I interpret scripted reading- it's acting & it doesn't belong in the classroom. Teachers are professionals & this program doesn't allow for teachers to use their expertise to best serve their students. Anyone off the streets can read a scripted curriculum to students- it's just ridiculous. This article proved to me that students of various abilities will suffer with a program such as this, because it doesn't allow for teachers to differentiate to their individual needs. Another thing in the article that grabbed my eye was that K & 1st graders only focus on letters & sounds- & not at all on meaning & comprehension- that all they see are decodable texts. While decoding is essential at this age, these students also need to being learning to comprehend. I just don't understand a program where teachers read a script & call that teaching, & the students are silent. As a teacher, how can you even informally assess a silent student? In my opinion, this seems like a downward spiral & I hope that I never face a situation such as this, where I have to choose between staying silent to keep my job, or truly teaching my students so they will benefit.

I didn't find the other 2 articles nearly as controversial, but I didn't find them all that helpful either. While I enjoyed the 1st article on illustrations in children's books, I didn't connect with it that much. It made me think of the Caldecott children books that win awards for their pictures, & I try to have some of those books in my classroom library, but besides that, I wasn't all that engaged. I did like though, how the author mentioned that it's interesting to see how these artists are able to "bring the books to life." Also, I kinda liked how the exhibits they have show the illustrator's thoughts & processes behind their finished pictures. This is comparable to the writing process, how before the published story, there is a beginning of pre-writing & brainstorming, or similar to in reading, how there is a beginning of activating prior knowledge & predicting before reading the story. Still, my overall impression of this article was how will this really apply to me teaching literacy?

The wikipedia article was neutral; it was factual info that I had no feelings to, good or bad. It was interesting that the "traditional" definition of literacy differs from the more modern definition, in that now it includes being able to read & write so you can COMMUNICATE effectively in society, so that others will understand you. I liked this since I believe that comprehension & critical thinking is the goal of all reading. Finally, I also agree with the article that literacy is a continuum of learning.

Hello!

Hello! My name is Kelly & this is my very 1st blog. Welcome to my page! I've never blogged before, so bare with me! This is my 1st graduate course towards my Masters of Arts in Reading & I just completed my 1st year of teaching- 8th grade Language Arts. Anyway, enjoy my page!