Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Critical Journal Review
Critical Journal Review
Critical Journal Review
Praise and gratitude we thank God Almighty for blessing and grace so that we are
still given the opportunity to complete this review with a critical journal titled
“WHAT YOUNG CHILDREN THINK ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN LANGUAGE VARIATION AND SOCIAL DIFFERENCE”. Critical
review journals we created to meet the completion of tasks in the course of
development of the syllabus, hopefully this critical review journal can add insight
and knowledge for the readers.
In the critical writing of this review journal, I certainly cannot solve it myself
without the help of others. Therefore, I would like to thank the lecturer, Sir
Mandra Saragih S.Pd. M. Hum.
We realize that critical review journals are still far from perfect word because
there are still many shortcomings. Therefore, we are humbly apologizing and
expecting constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement and refinement
in the future.
Last but not least, I wish to read and hope that the material in critical review
journal in the form of this paper can be useful as it should for the readers.
All children encounter tremendous: variation in the language spoken around them.
These differences include: (1) individual variation in language (e.g., each person
has a distinct, recognizable voice); (2) a rich array of differences in register
associated with the speaker's social group (e.g., gender or occupation), social role
(e.g., subordinate), or social context (e.g., school vs. playground); (3) dialect
differences reflecting regional origin or social class of the speaker; and ( 4)
differences in language itself (e.g., English vs. Spanish). Clearly, knowing how an
individual speaks is informative of the sort of person that individual is.
Conversely, knowing the sort of person an individual is provides reliable evidence
about the way that individual is likely to speak.
In this article we examine the associations that young children draw between
differences in language and social kind status. It it plausible that children learn to
map differences in speech and language onto differences in social status through
direct observation; they encounter different kinds of people and different social
statuses among those kinds and note that these differences correlate reliably with
differences in the way people speak.
CHAPTER II
SUMMARY
A. IDENTYTY OF JOURNAL
TITLE
What Young Children Think About the Relationship Between Language
Variation and Social Difference
RESEARCHER
Lawrence A. Hirschfeld & Susan A. Gelman
AUTHOR INSTITUTION
University of Michigan
B. SUMMARY OF JOURNAL
METHOD
Participants
Materials.
Prior to the main task each participant was presented with a pair of color
drawings depicting a cow and a little boy. In the main task, each participant saw
14 picture sets, each consisting of a pair of color drawings that contrasted on one
of four dimensions.
Discussion
For all three contrasts, participants in all age groups reliably mapped language
differences onto the social contrasts tested (race, clothing, and dwelling). The
results of the control task suggest that 4- and 5-year-olds and adults were not
using a simple strategy of matching nonEnglish to a noncanonical picture (e.g.,
unfamiliar speech [Portuguese] goes with unfamiliar picture [tepee]), because they
were as likely to attribute English as Portuguese to the backward facing pictures
(which are anomalous poses for a portrait). Children in the youngest age group, in
contrast, were more likely to attribute Portuguese to the backward facing person,
and thus we cannot rule out the possibility that they were relying on a simple
strategy for mapping noncanonical items with a foreign language. On the other
hand, one possible n~ason that the 3-year-olds consistently linked language to
front/back on the control task is that they may have some initial understanding
that someone turned away from the listener is less likely to produce intelligible
speech than someone facing the listener. We also do not know if children
distinguish between sorts of social kinds when mapping differences in language to
differences in social kind. Studies 2A and 2B further explore the basis for
children's judgments.
CHAPTER III
DISCUSSION
The topic of this journal with the author's expertise is very interrelated.
Because, as teachers, we must be able to understand student thinking about
language variations.
Previous work suggests that preschoolers understand that members of
some social groups (e.g .. based on occupation or gender) speak in distinct
ways. But do not understand that members of other social groups (e.g ..
based on race, culture, or nationality) speak different languages. In these
four studies we explored preschool children's inferences about language
and social group membership. In Smdy 1 we found that preschoolers
believed that minority race individuals, people wearing unfamiliar
clothing, or people living in unfamiliar dwellings were more likely to
speak an unfamiliar foreign language than to speak English.
The introduction in this journal is very clearly. The writer explain about all
of the difference in the language, and examine the associations that young
children draw between differences in language and social kind status. How
children match up language and social variation has implication for the
kinds of inferences they make about the diversity in language that they
confront daily.
In this article the writer examine the associations that young children draw
between differences in language and social kind status. It it plausible that
children learn to map differences in speech and language onto differences
in social status through direct observation; they encounter different kinds
of people and different social statuses among those kinds and note that
these differences correlate reliably with differences in the way people
speak. It is also possible that this process is facilitated, particularly for
contrasts that are rarely encountered, by other, possibly domain-specific
principles.
Scope from this journal just focus about the language variation and social
difference and how children think about these mappings is informative
both of their understanding of the scope and nature of variation in
language but also the scope and nature of different social kinds.
Several studies have found that young children understand that different
speech styles are related to variation in context and the social status or
social group membership of speakers and listeners In addition to this
knowledge about within-language variation, children understand that
people speak different languages. It is unclear, however, when this
knowledge emerges. We know that even quite young children are sensitive
to a variety of language differences.
In their work, preschool children understood that not all people speak the
same way that animals, plants, and vehicles neither talk like nor speak the
same language as the child; and even that people who speak the same
language may talk differently from one another. However, it was not until
age six that children consistently inferred that people from a different
culture would speak a different language.
d. Method
e. Framework of thinking
In summary, there is ample evidence that during the late preschool years
there are important developments in the several areas of knowledge
reviewed above.
First, children become increasingly aware that language variation can predict
variation in a range of social statuses, and vice versa. Second, toward the end of
the preschool years children begin to show a reliable awareness that multiple
languages exist. Third, during this same period children's naive understanding of
society emerges and undergoes substantial development. Fourth, there is anecdotal
support for the claim that by age 5 children can closely articulate their
understanding of language difference with their understanding of social kinds like
nationality and race.
CHAPTER IV
CONCLUSION
A. CONCLUSION
Children's responses were scored for whether they reasoned in accord with
the "nature" or "nurture" hypotheses. Participants received a 1 each time
they chose the language that matched the language of the birhth parents,
and 0 each time they chose the other language. If children's inductions are
not governed by an expectation that the language a child will speak is
fixed at birth, they should reason that the child will speak the language of
her adoptive parents. Conversely, if they expect that language spoken is a
natural property fixed at birth, they should infer that the child will come to
speak the language of her birth parents. By 5 years of age, children clearly
favor the ''nature" hypothesis, with over 2/3rds of these older preschoolers
choosing the language of the birth parents (M = .69, t(3 l) = 2.25, p < .05).
Three-year-olds, in contrast, chose at random (M = .41).
These results provide a potential explanation for the early willingness to
map language onto race and cultural groups (as marked by climbing and
dwelling). Young children may treat all of these as "natural" groupings. As
already observed, a hallmark feature of a naturalized kind is the
expectation that the essential character= of the kind is fixed at birth and
largely impervious to environmental conditions. Older preschoolers'
expectation that children will speak the language of their biological
parents despite being raised from birth by another couple that speaks
another language, accord with the claim that children believe that language
is also natural (i.e., fixed at birth and impervious to many environmental
influences).