|
Chae-heun pointed out (AFTER the class on Monday night!) that the categories we used to code Eunsook's data OVERLAP.
It's NOT true that a word is always a symbol. It's TRUER to say that a word is always an icon: that is, a word is always a sound.
In fact, a lot of what the teacher says (in English) is treated as iconic. The children hear a sound (e.g. "Look!" or "Listen!") and they pay attention. But they don't see the word as standing for something else. They just hear the sound and pay attention, and it wouldn't matter if the teacher used a whistle or a bell or just waved a flag.
It would also be truer to say that most words are indexes, only some of them are symbols. When the teacher says "Look" or "Listen", the "extra meaning" is not in the word at all. The extra meaning is there in whatever they are supposed to look at: a picture, or a word.
If they are supposed to look at a picture, then the word "Look" is not just a sound. It's also (along with a gesture) a kind of index. What kind of index? Well, it's sound (and a gesture) that indexes an ICON--a thing that just stands for itself. (But of course there are some pictures that can stand for other things, so the child doesn't always know if a picture of a foot means "foot" or if it means "kick" or "shoe" or whatever).
If the children are supposed to look at a word, then the word "Look" is also not just a sound. It's also (alongside the gesture) a kind of index. But this time it's an index of a different kind: it indexes a symbol.
Of course, it's also possible to interpret the word "look" as a symbol. That's what we do when we do this:
T: Children! What is the difference between "look" and "see"? Why do we say "look at this" but we say "see this"? Why are they different?
And it's possible to interpret it as a second-order symbol as well. Like this:
T: Children! What does "look" mean?
S: 보다!
Eunjeong wants to know why we have to talk this way. Why do we need C.S. Peirce and semiotics and Vygotsky and so on? Because it seems possible (and even PROBABLE) that MOST language use is NOT symbolic! It seems possible (and even PROBABLE) that MOST language use is iconic and indexical, especially in the child's mind.
But let's find out. One way to find out is to code the data and then figure out what is what. The problem we had with doing this is that what is usually not just one thing. So we are going to try some categories that are a little easier to use, because they are more grammatical.
Let's SUPPOSE (just for the moment) that when the teacher uses COMMANDS (명령) such as "Look!" or "Listen!" the teacher is drawing the children's attention to some physical thing in the environment or asking them to perform some physical action. After all, that's what a command is usually for, at least in the classroom. So it seems a reasonable assumption that commands are more or less linked with iconic meaning-making.
Let's SUPPOSE (again, just for the moment) that when the teacher says something like "This is Zeeto!" or "This is a game" that the teacher is making a statement, naming things, or providing some kind of information about the world or about language. In other words, the teacher is using language to indicate something. It seems a reasonable assumption that statements have some kind of consistent, coherent relationshiop to indexical meaning making.
Notice that a LOT of these statements begin with a deictic, that is, with "this" or "that" or "those" or "these" or "the" or "then" or "there" or "here" or "now", expressions which are indexes that point to icons, and they END with nouns like "Zeeto" or "game" or "pencil" or "English class", expressions which are symbols.
Finally, let's SUPPOSE for the moment that when the teacher says something like "What's this?" or "Who is that?" or "Is this your cap?" or "Why?" the teacher is ASKING for a piece of language, and that this language is usually NOT a deictic. We don't do this:
T: Who is that?
S: Him. (sic)
T: What is this?
S: It. (sic)
T: What time is it?
S: Now. (sic)
So it seems reasonable to assume that there is some relationship between QUESTIONS and SYMBOLS.
Let's CODE the data into COMMANDS, STATEMENTS, and SYMBOLS. But let's be careful! Chaeheun pointed out (and she's RIGHT) that in the classroom things are NOT always what they seem. For example, teachers use statements to give commands:
T: I want you to open your books.
And they use questions to make statements.
T: What is this?
S: It's a pig.
T: That's right.
We already saw that in SOME of the data we've got some INDIRECT questions. For example:
T: Do you know the answer?
We also got some language that is INTONATIONALLY a question but GRAMMATICALLY a statement.
T: You don't know the reason but you know the answer?
This is already an important result, Chae-heun! Tomasello actually estimates that only about 15% of what children hear consists of normal, complete sentences. So how DO children learn grammar?
What we'll do is assume (with Vygotsky) that EVERYTHING exists in the EXCHANGE, inter-mentally, before it exists in the TURN, intramentally. We'll assume that a command is this:
T: (Wants the student to do something)
S (does it)
And a statement is this:
T: (Wants the student to know something)
S: (knows it)
And a question is this:
T (Wants the student to SAY something)
S: (says something)
Let's see if it works. I'll do Yongho's data. It's in Korean!
:
T today, it's a game (statement--teacher wants to give information)
T game? (question--teacher wants acknowledgement of information)
S what game? (question--student wants the name of the game)
T what game? (question--teacher is using a y/n intonation with a wh-question to indicate uptake)
T Yes no game (statement--teacher is answering own question)
S AH~ (iconic)
S OX! (statement--student is guessing that it is a familiar game)
T OX game? No. yes no game. (question--teacher is using y/no intonation to indicate uptake. then the teacher answers own question to provide a statement. This is used to make sure that everybody pays attention, by slowing down the flow of information and ensuring that everybody will follow. The teacher does this because he thinks the children are having trouble following.)
T that is, you say yes or no (statement--notice the use of a "verbal process" verb: "say" Very difficult.
T and you lose. (statement--notice the use of the conditional--very difficult)
S ??? (iconic--this is really the OPPOSITE of "AH~)
T uh? 무슨 뜻이야? Look. Hello teddy bear (iconic + Korean + command + greeting: teacher is using a puppet to try to SHOW rather than TELL because the previous attempt at TELLING the rules was clearly NOT successful.)
TB hello. Hello every one (iconic + greeting)
Ss Hello (greeting)
TB how are you today? (question: teacher wants children to answer with an adjective or adverb)
S I'm fine, (symbolic: statement)
S thank you (symbolic: statement)
S I'm very well (thanks)
S I'm terrible (symbolic: statement--teacher's attempt was VERY successful. Compare with the previous attempt to explain the rules when the kids responded with "????")
TB terrible? (question--Teddy Bear uptakes)
S very well (symbolic: statement)
TB very well? (question: Teddy Bear uptakes)
S I'm happy (statement)
S yes (indexical)
T yes? (question: teacher uptakes) Ok (iconic) teddy bear gets one point. (statement)
S ah~~ (iconic)
T if you say yes (statement)
T I win (statement)
T and if you say no (statement)
T I win! (statement)
Notice that this explanation is actually MORE complex than the previous explanation when the kids answered with "????". Here the teacher uses EXPLICIT conditionals. But because it REFERS TO and INDEXES the previous EXAMPLE, the children understand it this time.
S 잘난 척하지 마! (command)
Ss (laugh) (iconic)
Why do we want to do this? Because there is an UNCONSCIOUS expertise being formed here. The teacher is learning how to SHOW and TELL. We want to study THAT!
dk