The features of language learning for early years children

4.2.1 Language learning is a process of active construction rather than of passive acquisition

Since the 1950s, cognitive psychologists have put the significance of meaning back at the centre of human psychology, arguing that we should view children as active and intelligent social co-constructors of knowledge and culture (Wagner, 1998, p16). Thus, to children, language learning is also a key way of interacting with others and construct- ing the world - it is not just a one-way transmission.

In the 1960s, Noam Chomsky (1965), as one of the representatives of a nativist theory of language learning, proposed the concept of the ‘language acquisition device’ (LAD) which stressed on innate language learning capacity. This meant that children could not possibly learn language as quickly as they do unless the brain was programmed to ac- quire a significant, innate knowledge of grammar from a possible infinite number of grammars. To his point of view, language is biologically-based and he stresses acquisi- tion rather than learning. He insists that the LAD contains a universal grammar which refers to entire sets of rules or linguistic parameters, and its operation allows children to acquire complex language at a very early age.

However, Halliday (2004) argues that language is not just about learning grammar or syntax and children acquire basic grammar without needing to be taught. So, when we consider early years children, we should consider that they are already young intelligent makers of meaning – through words, facial expressions, gesture and physical movement (Wagner, 1998; Bruner, 1987). He points out that the child is not an isolated individual and learning language is not a process of acquiring some pre-existing commodity. To an early years child, language learning is a process of construction and is an intersub- jective and inherently social phenomenon (p. 308). If we see it as a process, then we

need to consider what resources we need for this process to flourish. But, as Bruner (1987) argues, language will also be the key tool to help them scaffold new knowledge, because it is through language that children will think and therefore acquire new mean- ings. Language is, therefore, central to a social constructivist theory of how we make meaning and learn. As Bruner (1996) claims, language is here being seen not only as a powerful technology for communication, but also as the key means of encoding ‘real- ity’, for representing matters remote as well as immediate, and for doing all these ac- cording to rules that permit us both to present ‘reality’ and to transform it by conven- tional yet appropriate rules (p.25). Thus, language is an instrument or medium for chil- dren to develop their cognition and develops through social interaction.

Piaget performed his famous ‘three mountain’ experiment with pre-school children to investigate whether they could see something from another’s point of view. When he put a doll in different positions and asked the children to describe what the travelling doll could see, most of them failed to give the right answer and tended to describe this from their own point of view. Thus, he stated that pre-school children are still egocentric and limited in their logical thinking. However, as Margaret Donaldson (1987) pointed out, some of Piaget’s experiments can be critiqued, as he failed to take into account the power of language in a child’s cognitive processes. Donaldson and her colleague re- designed his research, renaming the experiment ‘hide from the policeman’. Here, two elements were highlighted: a recognizable story and careful instructions and explana- tions of the situation through a series of questions. More than 80% of pre-school chil- dren were able to give the right answer as to where the doll could stand so as not to be found by the policeman. Donaldson argued that pre-school children are more capable than Piaget thought to problem solve and take on another point of view, provided the instructor first helps them make human sense of the situation and the task. Importantly, the clarity of the instructor’s motives and intentions were key in making the children understand the task; in other words, the use of language was of central importance to the children’s cognitive development. To sum up, language learning should not only focus on the outcomes, but also on the processes that help children learn and become capable language users, viewing them as active learners and meaning makers rather than as passive receivers of language.

4.2.2 The importance of the uses of language in the learning progress

Halliday (2004) summarized three stages of children’s language development: 1) learn- ing language 2) learning through language 3) learning about language. The first stage is at the level of what he terms ‘protolanguage’, which does not include wordings, grammar or vocabulary. Children only master certain basic functions of language to express and exchange meaning. The second stage is at the level of language awareness. The child becomes conscious of language and language itself is treated as educational knowledge rather than common-sense knowledge. Halliday points out that context is important at this stage, as children use language as a tool to build up a picture of the world in which they live.

Halliday also highlights the functions of language, including: instrumental; regulatory; interactional; personal; heuristic; imaginative and informative functions. The earliest of these is the instrumental function that children use for the satisfaction of their needs, progressing eventually to the use of the informative function for effective communica- tion. As argued above, then, language learning should focus on process rather than a simple outcome based model.

When a child goes to kindergarten, she has to deal with more complicated relationships and situations than she has been used to before. One feature of this period, Halliday insists, is a rapid growth in children’s vocabulary, use of grammatical structures and dialogue. Thus, the child gradually comes to see language as a means of communicating their shared experiences and as an effective channel of social learning. Language learn- ing for kindergarten children, then, should not concentrate on increasing vocabulary and clear pronunciation, but also focus on creating different contexts for language use. The social function of language should be placed at the centre during this developmen- tal stage.

4.3 Drama as a way to benefit early years children’s language development

As a social activity, drama activities match the social function of language in the actual world and help children practise their language socially in two ways. On the one hand, drama creates different contexts and clear purposes for children to talk and communi- cate, encouraging them to speak and transmit their understanding and intentions (Pren-

diville and Toye, 2007). Drama can be seen as a key way of learning language in spe- cific contexts. Heathcote believes ‘drama activities can reveal and stimulate many styles and levels of language that traditional classroom instruction cannot and does not provide’ (Wagner,1998, p.34). As the research of Wilkinson (1988) found, drama pro- vides greater opportunities for a varied use of language than can usually be found in the classroom. Taylor (2000) argues that, in drama, the specific contexts provided by role and story lead children to choose different forms of speech when they adopt different roles (p.89). In this way, drama can actively frame their language use and helps them practise the social skills of listening and speaking appropriately in specific contexts (Neelands, 1992; Prendiville and Toye, 2007).

More importantly, drama creates the motivation and desire for children to talk and ex- perience the social function of language, which is a primary function in language de- velopment. As Bolton (1984) argues, in the traditional classroom, teacher and children normally talk about the knowledge content in ways which distance it from past experi- ence, emotion and real life. Such talk, he argues, cannot release the power of language to have them see how we impact others through language:

‘The language experience in classrooms is often restricted to teacher-student and student-teacher talk related to the classroom content, unless a teacher…decides to pro- vide alternative language experiences by transforming her classroom through the power of drama…allow(ing) youngsters to create personal meanings and explore the concepts that make us human.’ (p.68 in Wagner ed. 1998)

In drama, children gain a greater understanding of language as a powerful tool, enabling its user to ‘act upon’ rather than ‘be acted upon’. (Wilkinson, 1988, p.12)

On the other hand, the drama activity of role-playing benefits children’s language and moves their cognitive development towards a more abstract level. By taking on differ- ent roles, children can learn how to communicate through different modes or language types which they might have no chance to use in their daily lives, extending the range of their language registers and styles (Nelson, 1988). Moreover, within specific con- texts and roles/people they talk to, children have the chance to practise different moods, tones and speeds with selected actions, symbolic gestures or body movements. Drama

also provides them with experiences that enhance their ability to judge the appropriate- ness of verbal and nonverbal communication strategies in a wide variety of imagined experiences. Such experiences can raise their levels of social cognition (Wagner, 1998, p.35). As Vygotsky (1962) points out, thought and language are interdependent and both deal with the abstract world. Through role-playing, children have the chance to play with the elements of language and achieve ‘meta-linguistic awareness’ (Cazden & Lobdell, 1993). This special kind of language performance requires special cognitive demands and is more difficult for children to acquire.

Piaget (1962), Vygotsky (1966) and Bruner (1983) were the pioneers of researching the relationship between pretend play and cognition development, which also impacts on the higher level of language ability, that of literacy. Both Piaget and Vygotsky regarded symbolic play as an activity of the interpretation of experience. According to Piaget’s observations, the peak time for symbolic play is when children are around 3-6 years old. To his point of view, symbolic play is a form of representational assimilation that can empower young children by enabling them to consolidate past experiences without the constraints of the real world (Göncü and Gaskins, 2011). Thus, it is a way for chil- dren to decontextualize reality and produce their own thoughts. Vygotsky also offered insights into pretend play, which should be seen as crucial for pre-school children’s mental or cognitive development. Pretend play creates imaginary situations and is rule restrained. Children have to be aware of the rules they create in order to maintain the imaginary situation. Meanwhile, Vygotsky claims that thought in pretend play is sepa- rated from objects; actions arise from ideas rather than from actual things, therefore a child’s own construction of meaning of word and thing determines their behaviour in play. Importantly, he argues pretend play is not for pleasure but for future wish fulfil- ment, which sometimes even children themselves are unaware of. This future orienta- tion links to his famous theory of the ZPD: ‘ the zone of proximal development of the child, where the child is always above his average age, above his daily behaviour’ (p.552, in Bruner, 1966).

However, Göncü and Gaskins (2011) argue that neither Piaget or Vygotsky take into account the social function of symbolic play or pretend play. Piaget viewed symbolic play as ‘merely egocentric though in its pure state’ ( Piaget, p.568, in Bruner, 1966), while Vygotsky ignored both the support and co-structuring received from others, such

as teachers or parents, who build up a ZPD with children together. Göncü and Gaskins point out that children’s past experiences come from emotionally meaningful experi- ences co-constructed with others, and the meaningful objects that children choose de- pend on these experience. Thus, symbolic play may be best conceptualized as being both an individually and socially motivated activity, formed in significant part by the sociocultural structure of children’s relationships, as well as their community values and support (Gaskins, Haight & Lancy, 2007; Gaskins & Miller, 2009; Göncü & Pe- rone, 2009).

From this point of view, the dramatic activity of role-playing for young children can be seen as preparation for a higher level of language development and also as the ground for their cognitive development. Bolton (1998, p.69) emphasises three main benefits of role-taking in drama for language development: 1) by taking on roles which are differ- ent from those they normally enact in their everyday lives, children can expand their language register and vocabulary; 2) drama offers a frame work or context to encourage children to attempt different modes of communication, causing the student in role to argue, inquire, inform, explain, discuss and reflect; 3) drama alters the relationship be- tween teacher and student. This shift can create an effective dialogue between teacher and children to discuss, explore together, ask questions, develop hypotheses about prob- lematic issues, test these hypotheses through possible problem-solving activities and reflect upon the shared experience during the process (Freire, 1970). In this way, the kind of dialogue that is hard to find in traditional classrooms can be instigated, sustained and lead to the generation of new knowledge (Bruner, 1987).