Re:Midterm2 Meaning & Action

[kellogg]

Now, we saw that Jisu was very skillful at giving a complex answer. Eunkyeong was too, although she dropped a bit of the last question.

Seong-eun's answer is not so long. But she STILL drops a bit of the question. Have a look:

I'd like to use the game instruction from the elementary school English teacher's guide book of sixth grade (p. 223) to look for solutions to the problem about "Meaning and Action".

T: It's time for a game. Shall we play a game? This is a "Snap" game. Let's play the game. I'll tell you how to do the activity. Here we go!

T: Work in pairs. You need only one set of cards. (showing the cards and practicing one by one) Can you say it in English?

Actually, this sentence is wrong. It's not wrong grammatically. It's wrong TEXTUALLY. Let me show you why.

As you know, "it" is singular. And as you probably ALSO know, "it" is a second order symbol. "It" stands for some singular noun that has already been given in the text.

What is that singular noun? Well, it can't be "cards", because "cards" is plural. So it must be "set", because "one set" is singular. So what this sentence really means is this:

T: Can you say one set in English?

Ss: !!!!

Now, that is wrong, because that's not what the teacher wants to say. The teacher REALLY wants to say this:

T: Look! This is a set of cards. And this is a card. And this card has a sentence. Can you say it in English?

You can see that "Can you say THIS in English would be better. Why? Because "it" is a second order symbol. But "this" is an index!

Ss: (paying attention to the picture cards) The tiger is stronger than the cat. (Ss & T are practicing all the sentences with cards.)

Put the cards in the middle of the desk.

When I say the sentences you pick up the right picture rapidly. (!)

The tiger is stronger than the cat.

If you touch the card at the same time, do "Rock, paper, scissors."

You can get the cards. Collect them.

The student who collects the most cards is the winner. (!!!)

a) Can you find examples of symbolic, second-order symbolic, and third-order symbolic meaning? Which meanings do you think the children will understand?

I can see many symbolic meanings. Each English explanation followed by Korean description about how to play the game is symbolic. As the (?) professor Kellogg showed, "the activity" is a symbol for "the game". The word "game" is more familiar, understandable, concrete to the children than "activity", but the teacher may use the words of the same concept to get the children exposed to what a real discourse develops in real life, that is, the pupils get to notice that a real discourse normally develops from the concrete to the abstract.

Right. But this does not simplify matters in any way. When we provide an equally difficult word that stands for another word we are really NOT making matters easier. If anything, we are just adding confusion.

The teacher talk, "Here we go" is absolutely the same as "Let's play" or "It's time for a game" in meaning.

Right. But when we provide an equally difficult sentence that stands for another sentence and has a VERY different word worder, we are really NOT making matters easier. If anything, we are PREVENTING the children from understanding.

So they are in the second-order symbolic relationship. "Here we go" is the second-order symbol for "Let's play" or "It's time for a game".  If the children or the teacher translate (or write that on the board) the second-order symbol into Korean (or written English on the board), that can be third-order symbolic.

OK--but let's not get too far from the data, Seong-eun. Can you find parts of the data that ARE easy to understand and explain WHAT makes them easy to understand?

You've given some very GOOD examples of complex, many-layered symbolic meaning. Well done. But they are all NEGATIVE examples. We still have to teach the kids, we have to get the kids to understand. Can you find parts of the data that do this?

Remember, the question asks you to do this:

Which meanings do you think the children will understand?

I think third level symbolism is not seen well understandable to the primary kids. Because the kids have to struggle to get meaning through the three different unclear layers. Symbolic and second-order symbolic meaning maybe better understood by the young learners in Elementary school, but it's probable for the teacher to use third-order symbolic meaning to get the kids' attention or very often to give more information to some of the curious/inquisitive advanced kids.

I agree. One of the reasons why I want you to do this, Seong-eun, is so that you see how UNCLEAR our teacher talk can be!

b) How does the teacher get attention, give information, and check for integration of knowledge? Can you think of a BETTER way?

I think it is not clear to find where and how the teacher gets attention and checks the integration of knowledge in the instruction of Teacher's Guide Book. Most part is seen for giving information.

Well, of course, I think that's not true. I don't think "Here we go" is a way of giving information. What about these?

When I say the sentences you pick up the right picture rapidly. (!)

If you touch the card at the same time, do "Rock, paper, scissors."

You can get the cards. Collect them.

So I think that what Seong-eun says here is simply not true. Why did she make this mistake?

I think it's because we have a very ADULTOMORPHIC view of what language does. For us, language is all about communication. But we are not children. If you listen to children, really listen to them, you will see that they are doing lots of very noncommunicative things with language.

For example, they spend a LOT of time talking to themselves! Even when they talk to each other, it's often not about information. Even when it's about information, it's often not information that they can't get more easily by other means (by looking or showing rather than listening or telling).

If I have to do it though, the beginning part of the teacher's talk through the way of statements ("It's time for a game", "I'll tell you how to do the activity"), commands ("Let's play the game", "Here we go" ??? Is it a command?), question ("shall we play a game?") to motivate the students to pay attention what they are supposed to do is seen for getting attention. But it seems redundant and distracted from the grammatical realization for communicative function in class, which is that the commands are for getting attention.

Commands are certainly NOT the only way of getting attention. For example:

T: Hello, everybody!

T: 3 학년!

T: Right! OK! 자! Now....

None of these are commands. The advantage of commands is not simply that they are grammatically simple. There are ICONIC and INDEXICAL advantages as well:

a) Commands are short. So they are quite sharp and perceptually salient. They often do not have subjects or objects which distract the learners.

b) Commands have clear, canonical, DOWN intonation. So they are quite marked and hard to ignore. They stand out.

Now, which of these advantages is an INDEXICAL one? Which is an ICONIC one?

Sorry--I forgot. You don't believe that the distinction between iconic and indexical meaning is an important one.

Take a look at this:

"In an earlier paper (van Lier, 2002) I argued that there are three phases or moments to language and language development: mutality, indexicality, and predicality, largely coinciding with the three blocks in the decalogue. The first phase, also called primary intersubjectivity by Trevarthen (1990) is characterized by a connectedness between caregiver (most often the mother) and baby, during the first nine months or so of life. Vocal interaction at this point is sensory, direct, immediate, rhythmic, affective. Language use is primarily voice, rather than speech (even though the mother willuse actual utterances, songs, stories and so on.) As I mentioned earlier, the second phase begins when caregiver and infant can jointly focus on an object elsewhere in the environment (rather than just focus on each other). At that point interaction becomes triadic, including infant, caregiver, and object of attention. That is generally regarded as the point at which language develops (Reed, 1996; Eco, 2000), hence my earlier remark that language begins with indexicality or deixis. This second phase is the indicational phase, the 'look here', 'what's that' and 'gimme that' phase. Trevarthen calls this phase secondary intersubjectivity (1990). It is primarily characterized by lexical development and formulaic speech acts. The third phase, the development of predicational langauge, moves into the symbolic realm, with the ability to discuss things that are not here and now, and the development of narrative, logical reasoning and (...) grammar. The important thing to remember is that one phase does not replace the previous one; rather, it sweeps the previous one along with it, and the new mode of langauge use incorporates previous modes into multiplex menaing-making processes, gradually transforming the sensory world into a world mediated by language. When the child goes to school, maybe reaching the foruth grade or so, the symbolic aspects of language become more and more salient, the object in the triadic interaction becoming increasingly abstract and decontextualized. Without the help of the indexical plane, and without the emotional boost provided by iconic support structures, the child would face an uphill battle, and might get lost in confusion. Now, let's apply this to the second language learner. Not only is the pace of development accelerated furiously, all the aspects of the targetlanguage, iconic, indexical, and symbolic, hit the learner smack in the face simultaneously. In fact, in school the iconic and indexical aspects may be stripped away in decontextualized curriculua (and keep in mind that for the second language learner everything appears decontextualized, since the new context and the metaphors are not yet familiar. In the case of the foreign language curricula tend to be very linguistic and formal, so that there is almost no opportunity to develop an iconic relation of emotinoal mutuality with the language. The deep emotional connectedness we feelw hen we use our mother tongue may remain elusive, since we are denied systematic opportunities to speak for ouirselves. Moreover, tehre may be few opportunities to engagein triadic work that would allow for the devleopment of indicational skills as a way into more predicational ways of using the new language. We can see, therefore,t hat a triadic semiotic view such as that developed by Peirce more than a hundred years ago, can give us improtant insights into how to organize language education." 

van Lier, L. (2004) The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston, Dordrecht, New York and London: Kluwer Academic Press. pp. 71-72.

The teacher is giving information by command ("Work in pairs", "Put the cards in the middle of the desk“), statements ("You need only one set of cards.", The tiger is stronger than the cat."), and some other ways ("When I say...", "If you touch the card...", "The students who...").  But those ways of giving information don't seem useful, effective, and desirable.

Why not?

The teacher is also checking integration of the information by asking question ("Can you say it in English?"). In my opinion, the better way to get attention, give information, and check the integration of the information might be suggested like this:

T: Let's play a game.

   This is "Catch a Fly" game. (sic)

   We will play... what?

Ss: "Catch a Fly" game. (sic)

T: Right. Let's play "Catch a Fly". There are strong, fast, or big flies. Which one do you want? A strong fly? A big fly? A fast fly?

   Look. I have many flies here. One, two, three, four,...How many?

   Good. You play with your partner. You need cards. Only one person cuts.          Who will cut? You or your partner?

   Good boy/girl.

   Hands up. Listen. The tiger is stronger than the cat.

   Whose fly? Who caught the fly? Can you say it in English?

(The lesson will keep going on and on...)

As you see in the small part of the transform above, we can notice that the teacher uses commands ("Look", "Let's ...", "Listen") to get attention, statements ("This is...", "There are...", "Only one person cuts", etc.) to give information, and questions ("We will play... what?", "How many?", "Who will cut?", etc.) to check understanding. It is a better way to do so, because the three basic communicative functions (getting attention, giving information, and checking integration) in the classroom are considered to be congruent with the three grammatical realizations (commands, statements, and questions).

Yes, but it's not just about GRAMMAR, Seong-eun. Look:

The advantage of STATEMENTS is not simply that they give information.  There are INDEXICAL and SYMBOLIC advantages as well:

a) Statements are longer. So they are relatively flat in their intonation. The important information usually comes at the end and is marked with a stress.

b) They tend to begin with the speaker and end with the hearer.

Now, which of these advantages is an INDEXICAL one? Which is an SYMBOLIC one?

The advantage of questions is not simply that they put the burden of grammar on the ASKER. There are INDEXICAL advantages as well:

a) Questions often END with a questioning intonation, either UP or DOWN. This suggets that it's the hearer's turn to speak, and it functions like a kind of traffic light, telling the hearer when to stop and go.

b) Questions often BEGIN with a clue to the nature of the answer. For example, "do you" questions have "yes" or "no" for the answer, "what" questions will get some kind of noun, "when" will be a time adverb, "where" a place adverb, "how" will be an adjective or adverb, "how many" a number, etc..

Now, which of these advantages is an INDEXICAL one? What about the other one?

c) Suppose you wanted to ADD action and TAKE AWAY abstract meaning to this activity. How would you do it? Suppose you wanted to TAKE AWAY action and add abstract meaning? How would you do it? What would you do it with your kids: add action or take it away?

I would take away abstract meaning and add action by reforming the abstract name of the game "Snap game" into concrete name "Catch a Fly" to help the kids notice what they are going to do. I expect the children to guess what and how to do with what thinking of a fly as their picture cards to catch the fly with his/her hand(swatter) very quickly.

A very good idea. But it's not just adding action. It's also adding a particular kind of CONCRETE symbolic meaning. Best of all, it means adding INDEXICAL meaning.

The name of this activity could be changed into some other concrete/specific ones like "Listen and Catch/snatch/snap", "Touch the card quickly", and so on.

"Catch a Fly" is pretty good!

I can also take away action and add abstract meaning through checking questions as shown above, that is, Ss are asked to count the cards needed to play the game and to negotiate who will cut the cards out of the book ("How many?", "Who will cut?"). It could be a good way to add abstract meaning by motivating kids to vary/reformulating the grammatical rules which are already used to them, that is, for example, the teacher would get the kids to reform the grammaticality in the sentence, "The tiger is stronger than the cat" into "The cat is weaker than the tiger". I think it's possible to add action and take away abstract meaning by providing iconic and indexical meanings into the teacher talk especially in the beginning of the activity through concrete clear language, objects, pictures, and the teacher's actions/gestures in order to help the kids understand what they are supposed to respond/react/speak. Likewise, adding abstract meaning and taking away action would not be difficult by putting something like RULES (e.g., language forms like grammar) that make kids to think and internalize them moving away from the repetitive, simple, and easy activity with no deep thinking.

THis is not so clear! There are ALREADY language forms in it. What do you mean?

Try taking away action by taking away the slapping motion. What could you replace it with?