MENTAL GRAMMAR

Title

MENTAL GRAMMAR

Author

Ahmad Jazuly

Biography:

Ahmad Jazuly has been a English teacher in Junior High School of Muhammadiyah 1 Jember, a Lecturer Information Technology, Technic Faculty in Muhammadiyah University of Jember. Indonesia

TRANSFORMATIONAL GRAMMAR

Linguistics

Theoretical linguistics Generative linguistics Phonology Morphology Syntax Lexis

Semantics Lexical semantics Statistical semantics Structural semantics Prototype semantics Pragmatics

Systemic functional linguistics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In linguistics, a transformational grammar, or transformational-generative grammar (TGG), is a generative grammar, especially of a natural language, that has been developed in a Chomskyan tradition. Additionally, transformational grammar is the Chomskyan tradition that gives rise to specific transformational grammars. Much current research in transformational grammar is inspired

by Chomsky’s Minimalist Program.[1]

Contents

1 Deep structure and surface structure 2 Development of basic concepts 3 Innate linguistic knowledge 4 Grammatical theories 5 “I-Language” and “E-Language” 6 Grammaticality 7 Minimalism 8 Mathematical representation 9 Transformations 10 References 11 See also 12 External links

Deep structure and surface structure

In 1957, Noam Chomsky published Syntactic Structures, in which he developed the idea that each sentence in a language has two levels of representation — a deep structure and a surface

structure.[2] [3] The deep structure represented the core semantic relations of a sentence, and was mapped on to the surface structure (which followed the phonological form of the sentence very closely) via transformations. Chomsky believed that there would be considerable similarities between languages’ deep structures, and that these structures would reveal properties, common to all languages, which were concealed by their surface structures. However, this was perhaps not the central motivation for introducing deep structure. Transformations had been proposed prior to the development of deep structure as a means of

increasing the mathematical and descriptive power of Context-free grammars. Similarly, deep structure was devised largely for technical reasons relating to early semantic theory.

Descriptive linguistics Phonetics Historical linguistics Comparative linguistics Etymology Sociolinguistics Corpus linguistics Applied linguistics Language acquisition Language development Language education

Psycholinguistics Neurolinguistics Linguistic anthropology Cognitive linguistics Computational linguistics Stylistics Prescription History of linguistics List of linguists Unsolved problems

Chomsky emphasizes the importance of modern formalmathematical devices in the development of grammatical theory:But the fundamental reason for [the] inadequacy of

traditional grammars is a more technical one. Although itwas well understood that linguistic processes are in somesense “creative”, the technical devices for expressing asystem of recursive processes were simply not availableuntil much more recently. In fact, a real understanding ofhow a language can (in Humboldt’s words) “make infiniteuse of finite means” has developed only within the lastthirty years, in the course of studies in the foundations ofmathematics.(Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, p. 8 [2])

Development of basic concepts

Though transformations continue to be important in Chomsky’scurrent theories, he has now abandoned the original notion ofDeep Structure and Surface Structure. Initially, two additionallevels of representation were introduced (LF — Logical Form,and PF — Phonetic Form), and then in the 1990s Chomskysketched out a new program of research known as Minimalism, inwhich Deep Structure and Surface Structure no longer featuredand PF and LF remained as the only levels of representation.To complicate the understanding of the development of Noam Chomsky’s theories, the precisemeanings of Deep Structure and Surface Structure have changed over time — by the 1970s, the twowere normally referred to simply as D-Structure and S-Structure by Chomskyan linguists. Inparticular, the idea that the meaning of a sentence was determined by its Deep Structure (taken to itslogical conclusions by the generative semanticists during the same period) was dropped for good byChomskyan linguists when LF took over this role (previously, Chomsky and Ray Jackendoff had begun to argue that meaning was determined by both Deep and Surface Structure).[4][5]

Innate linguistic knowledge

Terms such as “transformation” can give the impression that theories of transformational generative grammar are intended as a model for the processes through which the human mind constructs and understands sentences. Chomsky is clear that this is not in fact the case: a generative grammar models only the knowledge that underlies the human ability to speak and understand. One of the most important of Chomsky’s ideas is that most of this knowledge is innate, with the result that a baby can have a large body of prior knowledge about the structure of language in general, and need only actually learn the idiosyncratic features of the language(s) it is exposed to. Chomsky was not the first person to suggest that all languages had certain fundamental things in common (he quotes philosophers writing several centuries ago who had the same basic idea), but he helped to make the innateness theory respectable after a period dominated by more behaviorist attitudes towardslanguage. Perhaps more significantly, he made concrete and technically sophisticated proposals aboutthe structure of language, and made important proposals regarding how the success of grammatical theories should be evaluated. Chomsky goes so far as to suggest that a baby need not learn any actual rules specific to a particular language at all. Rather, all languages are presumed to follow the same set of rules, but the effects of these rules and the interactions between them can vary greatly depending on the values of certain universal linguistic parameters. This is a very strong assumption, and is one of the most subtle ways in which Chomsky’s current theory of language differs from most others.

Grammatical theories

In the 1960s, Chomsky introduced two central ideas relevant to the construction and evaluation of grammatical theories. The first was the distinction between competence and performance. Chomsky noted the obvious fact that people, when speaking in the real world, often make linguistic errors (e.g. starting a sentence and then abandoning it midway through). He argued that these errors in linguistic performance were irrelevant to the study of linguistic competence (the knowledge that allows people to construct and understand grammatical sentences). Consequently, the linguist can study an idealised version of language, greatly simplifying linguistic analysis (see the “Grammaticalness” section below). The second idea related directly to the evaluation of theories of grammar. Chomsky made a distinction between grammars which achieved descriptive adequacy and those which went further and achieved explanatory adequacy. A descriptively adequate grammar for a particular language defines the (infinite) set of grammatical sentences in that language; that is, it describes the language in its entirety. A grammar which achieves explanatory adequacy has the additional property that it gives an insight into the underlying linguistic structures in the human mind; that is, it does not merely describe the grammar of a language, but makes predictions about how linguistic knowledge is mentally represented. For Chomsky, the nature of such mental representations is largely innate, so if a grammatical theory has explanatory adequacy it must be able to explain the various grammatical nuances of the languages of the world as relatively minor variations in the universal pattern of human language. Chomsky argued that, even though linguists were still a long way from constructing descriptively adequate grammars, progress in terms of descriptive adequacy would only come if linguists held explanatory adequacy as their goal. In other words, real insight into the structure of individual languages could only be gained through the comparative study of a wide range of languages, on the assumption that they are all cut from the same cloth.

“I-Language” and “E-Language”

In 1986, Chomsky proposed a distinction between I-Language and E-Language, similar but not identical to the competence/performance distinction.[6] (I-language) refers to Internal language and is contrasted with External Language (or E-language). I-Language is taken to be the object of study in linguistic theory; it is the mentally represented linguistic knowledge that a native speaker of a language has, and is therefore a mental object — from this perspective, most of theoretical linguistics is a branch of psychology. E-Language encompasses all other notions of what a language is, for example that it is a body of knowledge or behavioural habits shared by a community. Thus, E-Language is not itself a coherent concept[7], and Chomsky argues that such notions of language are not useful in the study of innate linguistic knowledge, i.e. competence, even though they may seem sensible and intuitive, and useful in other areas of study. Competence, he argues, can only be studied if languages are treated as mental objects.

Grammaticality

Further information: Grammaticality

Chomsky argued that the notions “grammatical” and “ungrammatical” could be defined in a

meaningful and useful way. In contrast an extreme behaviorist linguist would argue that language can only be studied through recordings or transcriptions of actual speech, the role of the linguist being to look for patterns in such observed speech, but not to hypothesize about why such patterns might occur, nor to label particular utterances as either “grammatical” or “ungrammatical”. Although few linguists in the 1950s actually took such an extreme position, Chomsky was at an opposite extreme, defining grammaticality in an unusually (for the time) mentalistic way.[8] He argued that the intuition of a native speaker is enough to define the grammaticalness of a sentence; that is, if a particular string of English words elicits a double take, or feeling of wrongness in a native English speaker, it can be said that the string of words is ungrammatical (when various extraneous factors affecting intuitions are controlled for). This (according to Chomsky) is entirely distinct from the question of whether a sentence is meaningful, or can be understood. It is possible for a sentence to be both grammatical and meaningless, as in Chomsky’s famous example “colorless green ideas sleep furiously”. But such sentences manifest a linguistic problem distinct from that posed by meaningful but ungrammatical (non)-sentences such as “man the bit sandwich the”, the meaning of which is fairly clear, but which no native speaker would accept as being well formed.

The use of such intuitive judgments permitted generative syntacticians to base their research on a methodology in which studying language through a corpus of observed speech became downplayed, since the grammatical properties of constructed sentences were considered to be appropriate data on which to build a grammatical model. Without this change in philosophy, the construction of generative grammars, when conceived of as a some kind of representation of mental grammars, would have been almost impossible at the time, since gathering the necessary data to assess a speakers mental grammar would have been prohibitively difficult.

Minimalism

In the mid-1990s to mid-2000s, much research in transformational grammar was inspired by

Chomsky’s Minimalist Program.[9] The “Minimalist Program” aims at the further development of ideas involving economy of derivation and economy of representation, which had started to become significant in the early 1990s, but were still rather peripheral aspects of Transformational-generative grammar theory.

Economy of derivation is a principle stating that movements (i.e. transformations) only occur

in order to match interpretable features with uninterpretable features. An example of an interpretable feature is the plural inflection on regular English nouns, e.g. dogs. The word dogs can only be used to refer to several dogs, not a single dog, and so this inflection contributes to meaning, making it interpretable. English verbs are inflected according to the grammatical number of their subject (e.g. “Dogs bite” vs “A dog bites“), but in most sentences this inflection just duplicates the information about number that the subject noun already has, and it is therefore uninterpretable.

Economy of representation is the principle that grammatical structures must exist for a purpose, i.e. the structure of a sentence should be no larger or more complex than required to

satisfy constraints on grammaticality. Both notions, as described here, are somewhat vague, and indeed the precise formulation of these principles is controversial.[10][11] An additional aspect of minimalist thought is the idea that the derivation of syntactic structures should be uniform; that is, rules should not be stipulated as applying at arbitrary points in a derivation, but instead apply throughout derivations. Minimalist approaches to phrase structure have resulted in “Bare Phrase Structure”, an attempt to eliminate X-bar theory. In 1998, Chomsky suggested that derivations proceed in “phases”. The distinction of Deep Structure vs. Surface Structure is not present in Minimalist theories of syntax, and the most recent phase-based theories also eliminate LF and PF as unitary levels of representation.

Mathematical representation

Returning to the more general mathematical notion of a grammar, an important feature of all

transformational grammars is that they are more powerful than context free grammars.[12] This idea was formalized by Chomsky in the Chomsky hierarchy. Chomsky argued that it is impossible to describe the structure of natural languages using context free grammars.[13] His general position egarding the non-context-freeness of natural language has held up since then, although his specific examples regarding the inadequacy of CFGs in terms of their weak generative capacity were later disproven. [14] [15]

Transformations

The usual usage of the term ‘transformation’ in linguistics refers to a rule that takes an input typically

called the Deep Structure (in the Standard Theory) or D-structure (in the extended standard theory or government and binding theory) and changes it in some restricted way to result in a Surface Structure (or S-structure). In TGG, Deep structures were generated by a set of phrase structure rules.

For example a typical transformation in TG is the operation of subject-auxiliary inversion (SAI). This rule takes as its input a declarative sentence with an auxiliary: “John has eaten all the heirloom tomatoes.” and transforms it into “Has John eaten all the heirloom tomatoes?”. In their original formulation (Chomsky 1957), these rules were stated as rules that held over strings of either terminals or constituent symbols or both.

X NP AUX Y X AUX NP Y

(where NP = Noun Phrase and AUX = Auxiliary)

In the 1970s, by the time of the Extended Standard Theory, following the work of Joseph Emonds on structure preservation, transformations came to be viewed as holding over trees. By the end of government and binding theory in the late 1980s, transformations are no longer structure changing operations at all, instead they add information to already existing trees by copying constituents. The earliest conceptions of transformations were that they were construction-specific devices. For example, there was a transformation that turned active sentences into passive ones. A different transformation raised embedded subjects into main clause subject position in sentences such as “John seems to have gone”; and yet a third reordered arguments in the dative alternation. With the shift from rules to principles and constraints that was found in the 1970s, these construction specific transformations morphed into general rules (all the examples just mentioned being instances of NP movement), which eventually changed into the single general rule of move alpha or Move.

Transformations actually come of two types: (i) the post-Deep structure kind mentioned above,which are string or structure changing, and (ii) Generalized Transformations (GTs). Generalized transformations were originally proposed in the earliest forms of generative grammar (e.g. Chomsky1957). They take small structures which are either atomic or generated by other rules, and combine them. For example, the generalized transformation of embedding would take the kernel “Dave said X” and the kernel “Dan likes smoking” and combine them into “Dave said Dan likes smoking”. GTs are thus structure building rather than structure changing. In the Extended Standard Theory and government and binding theory, GTs were abandoned in favor of recursive phrase structure rules.

However, they are still present in tree-adjoining grammar as the Substitution and Adjunction

operations and they have recently re-emerged in mainstream generative grammar in Minimalism as the operations Merge and Move

References

1. Apple, R. and Muyskens, P.  1987. Language Contact and Bilingualism. New York: Edward Arnold

2. Celce-Murcia, M., Dornyei, Z., and Thurrell, S. 1995. Communicative Competence: A Pedagogically Motivated model with Content Specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, Vol. 6 No. 2 pp.5-35.

3. Chomsky, Noam (1995). The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.

4. Cummings, L. 2005. Pragmatic: A multidisciplinary Approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Press.

5. Culicover, P.W. 1976. Syntax. New York: Academic Press

6. Halliday, M.A.K and Hasan, R. 1989. Language, Context and Text : Aspect of Language in a social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

7. Kadarisman, A.E. 2009. Mengurai Bahasa Menyibak Budaya. Malang: Penerbit Universitas Negeri Malang.

8. Kearns, K. 2000. Semantics. London: Macmillan Press Ltd. Arnold

9. Steinberg, D.D. 1993. An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. London: Longman.

COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE

Communicative Competence

Introduction

The notion of social acceptability and the correct use of language depends  on what we understand of the norms of behavior in the target language, if the goals of the language teaching are to enable the learner to communicate with both native and non-native speakers in English, then t is important that the norms of language behavior if interlocutom from a range of different cultures are also thought in the English language classroom. This means that the learners must not only be linguistically competent but also communicately competent, having “the knowledge of linguistic and related communicative convention that speaker must have to create and sustain conversational cooperation “(Gumpers 1982, p 209). The differences in accepted norms of behavior are generally reflected in speech acts.

The analysis of speech acts by Searle (1969) is of great interest in this connection because explicit criteria for the functions of speech acts by Searle (1969) is of  great interest in this connection  because ecsplisit criteria for the functions of the speech  acts are proposed.  In a speech acts in the relationship between grammatical form and communicative functions is accounted for by saying that each utterance is associated with a certain illocutionary force indicating device or illucotionary act potential (Searly, 1969). However, speech acts are not comparable across cultures (Schdmit and  Pichards, 1980). Culture-specific speech acts necessitate a familiarly with value systems. Only then can the illoticuniory force behind the speech act be understood.

Grammars of English must be made consciously aware of the differences in certain speech acts when used by native speaker of English and by second language learner of the language because the values and cultural norms underlying the English language which a non-native speaker uses are not necessarily the same as those of a native speaker. Kachru (1996,p. 97) states that the new cultures in which English has been or is in the process of being nativised have their own necessities politeness, apology, persuasive strategies, and soon. Consequently, there are many norms of speaking. Reading teachers must not only be aware of cultural and socio-linguistic differences underlying the communicative behaviors of native and non-native user of English, but also transmit such awareness to their learners. This paper argues that a higher proficiency reader can be made aware of the values and cultural norms of a specific community though studying illustration of speech acts in literary texts. It is further argued that the learner English can make use of such text to become aware of the way people of speak in different culture, even when the language used is the same, I.e English. The reading teacher’s role can and should include making language learners aware of such pragmatic differences in speech and realizations. To demonstrate how this can be done, examples of the speech act of giving and responding to compliments are given using excerpts from a literary text. A text about the experience of an American traveling in Japan provides example of differences in the way Japanese and Americans responses to compliments. These examples of are analyzed to highlight the cultural differences that underline them and suggestions are given for raising student’s awareness of these cultural differences to improve their communications competence.

Compliments

Compliment are primarily aimed at “maintaining, enhancing, or supporting the addessee’s face” (Goffman, 1967). Compliment-giving and responding behavior are used to negotiate social identities and relations. Consequently, in appropriate choice of responses can lead to a loss of face. Manes and Wolfson (1981) research the infinite number of direct realizations of a compliment and Chick (1991) investigate the many realize of the responses to compliment. Chic’s 91996) study show significant differences in the frequency and use of response strategic by different ethnic group in the University of natal, Durban Campus. For instance, the Indian sample tended to give priority to the principle “avoid self-praise” over the principle of agreeing with the Speaker “in another study, Olshtain and Weinbach (1988) looked at 330 Israell and 330 American responses to compliment and concluded that israell accepted a compliment with greater difficulty than Americas. The Americans subject were likely to say “thank you” while the israells tended to apologise or to be surprised. Thus it can be seen that in some cultures an acceptance of the compliment is the norm, while in other cultures an acceptance would signify some derogatory connotation about the interlocutor who accept the compliment.

Specifically regarding the Japanese there is prototypical agreement among researchers that common responses to compliment are denial and avoidance. Saito and Beecan’s (1977) study shows Japanese normative response to compliment is a mixture of mainly negative ways manifested by denial and avoidance, may also at times use positive responses manifested by gratitude.

There has been much interesting of pragmatic transfer of speech acts across culture, Olshtain and Cohen’s (1991) article on the teaching of speech behavior to non-native speakers of English defines a compliment as a speech act to express solidarity between speaker and hearer and to maintain social harmony. This goal will not be achieved if speakers are not aware or made aware of the variations in response patterns across cultures. For example, Saito and Beecan’s (1977) study showed that when responding to compliment, American learners of Japanese did not use avoidance as much as native speakers Japanese. This minimal use of the avoidance strategy as compared to the common use it by native speakers of  Japanese could lead to understanding, undermining the intended goal of maintaining social harmony. Findings like these demonstrate the need for teaching target language learners to recognize culturally-based differences in complimenting behaviour.

Materials and Methods

Dunham (1992) describes a series of technique for teaching complimenting behaviour, comparing how it is done in different cultures. The techniques include phrase lists and role play. However, one unmentioned technique is using selected target-language reading texts which contains extensive dialogue between member of different speech communities as a source for consciousness-raising o the many manifestations of the response patterns to compliments. Teachers can compile extracts of such dialogues comparison and discussion.

This discussion shows how excerpts from a literary text, Bicycle Days by John Bumham Schwartz, were used in the classroom with the aim of showing different speech realizations for responses to compliments by English and Japanese speakers. Of course, different books cab be used according to content and teaching goals. Regardless of which book is used, the role of the teacher is to alert and sensitize students to the differences in the communication styles and expectations of interlocutors from different cultures. As shown below, the selections the text can be used as a spring broad for further discussion and analysis. Links between such realizations and cultural norms can be made explicit by the teacher or through awareness-raising activities by students. Analysis can help learners learn to adapt their responses to a compliment in such a way that it aligns with the value systems on the interlocutor.

Analysis of Text

Examples (presented below) from Bicycle Days a record of a young American’s sojourn in the social and business worlds of Japan, show many responses to compliments both by Japanese and American interlocutors which demonstrate cultural differences in responding to compliments.

References

1. Apple, R. and Muyskens, P.  1987. Language Contact and Bilingualism. New York: Edward Arnold

2. Celce-Murcia, M., Dornyei, Z., and Thurrell, S. 1995. Communicative Competence: A Pedagogically Motivated model with Content Specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, Vol. 6 No. 2 pp.5-35.

3. Cummings, L. 2005. Pragmatic: A multidisciplinary Approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Press.

4. Culicover, P.W. 1976. Syntax. New York: Academic Press

5. Halliday, M.A.K and Hasan, R. 1989. Language, Context and Text : Aspect of Language in a social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

6. Kadarisman, A.E. 2009. Mengurai Bahasa Menyibak Budaya. Malang: Penerbit Universitas Negeri Malang.

7. Kearns, K. 2000. Semantics. London: Macmillan Press Ltd. Arnold

8. Steinberg, D.D. 1993. An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. London: Longman.

HOW CHILDREN LEARN LANGUAGE

HOW CHILDREN LEARN LANGUAGE

We have minds in our minds we have language. But how did language get there ? how did we learn to produce and understand speech ? at birth we cannot speak, nor can we understand speech. Yet, by the age of 4 years we will have learnt the basic vocabulary, syntax (grammatical rules and structures) and pronunciation of our language. This is true of children the world over, whatever their language of the people may be. And while they still have passive and other elaborate syntactic structure to learn (along with a never-ending stock of vocabulary items), nevertheless, by that age they will have overcome the most difficult obstacles in language learning. Indeed the language profidency of the 4 or 5 year old often the envy of the adult second language learner who has been struggling for years to master the language. It is one of the fundamental tasks of the field of psycholinguistic to explain how all of this has occurred.

            Recent theories point to social interaction as the primary condition tat allows children to learn language. We don’t need to be a linguistic professor or development psychologist to understand how children language. Just being a parent is enough to pick up on a lot of lessons. Here some milestones to help us understand how children learn language, namely :

1. Teaching children to communicate by practicing them the movable alphabet activity, such as giving and introducing them the boxes of letters, practicing them how to pronounce them well, how to spell, how to pronounce words. So, the moveable alphabet activity is the activity that teaches children how to sound world and spell.
2. How to teach a child English ?

Fortunately, children’s brains are hard-wired to learn languages, especially before the age of 6. Beside standard BABY TALK vocabulary (‘standard’ in the sense that the item has already been coined and adapted by others), it is uncommon for a family to create and use its own words, words which are not used outside of the family. In English baby talk, it might be mentioned in passing, it is common to add the “iy” sound to word ending in a consonant, for example, ‘birdy’. For ‘bird’, ‘horsie’ for ‘horse’. Kitty’ for ‘ kitten’. This provide the vowel for the completion of the paraligmatic Consonant +Vowel syllable. Since the ‘iy’ suffix also serves a diminutive and affectionate function in English, this may also serve to promote its usage.

3. How to teach Child to speak with confidence ?

While some children are nonstop talkers, this is not the case for all children. Many children become more confident in their parent to teach them more knowledge or introduce them some other people. Although they ask us many things they wanted to know, we try to be patient to response them well by giving the correct answer, so that they become more confident to face their surrounding.

4. How to teach language with kid’s games ?

Games are effective in teaching foreign language to children, as they often based on repetition and imitation or by giving the some models of kid’s games. Such as, the colorful ballons-to know the color. The scrabble games-to know the words, boxes of numbers-to know the numbers, pictured cards-to know some other word around them. All are known their mother language and other foreign language.

5. Mirror speaking Theater Genre for kids ?

Learn how mirror speaking can enhance creativity in children from a professional acting teacher or they can practice themselves how to communicate to other people by facing themselves in the mirror, so it can make them more creative to act such like on the stage, while this way can make their brain to create the story as if they were the story-teller.

6. How to teach A child to Speak ?

In fact, children prefer imitating and repeating what they heard or listened. There is noting more sublime than hearing you child say “mama’, ”papa”, or “dada”. We can invite them to practice the words more and more up to become fluent to speak.

7. How to understand how children Learn Language ?

Recent theories point to social interaction as the primary condition that allows children to learn language, so let the children produce some words such they wanted; as they make mistakes we try to correct them patiently. When parents do attempt to correct their children’s speech, the result are often fruitless and frustrating. Let them to social by interacting to their people around. However, we still make them polite and know the role to communicate correctly although they are still childhood.

8. How To Teach Sequencing to Young Children ?

Sequencing is an important concept for young children to master as they develop their language skills. When parent do attempt to correct their children speech, the result are often fruitless and frustrating. In actual fact, parent pay a little attention to the grammatical correctness of their children’s speech. For example :

Son : Nobody don’t like me

Mom : Nobody likes me

The above sequence is repeated by mother and son seven more times, so children naturally correct their own mistake over them, without the intervention of others.

9. How to Teach English Grammar to Children ?

Teaching children English grammar can be daunting task for two main reasons. First, the parent have to speak their children grammatically in order that they can speak and hear the words or sentences naturally correct.

Second, undoubtedly, they would learn language anyway, but given the obvious facilitating nature of their parent speech and the way it naturally arises. It may well be that children who receive such language input learn to understand speech faster than children who do not.

10. How to Enhance Language Development in Two to three Years Old ?

A child’s language goes through a development boom from two to three.

All of those ways and theories can be realize by using the patience and the following. Steps, such us :

a.       Children learn from their parent and social interaction. Everything they see and hear is absorbed on some level.

b.      Children learn language though practice, trial and error, and most of all though interpersonal communication. Speaking and interacting with children will further their language development immensely.

c.       Once a child is one years old, parent should begin speaking to him/her in plain.

d.      English instead of Baby Talk. Parent should begin simply, with the child’s name, parent names and a few words which convey their needs.

e.       Most children begin speaking simple word by age one and have a vocabulary of about ten words once they reach sixteen months.

f.       A child that is eighteen months old typically learns one or two new word per day. Pre-scholars will learn approximately ten words per day.

g.      Children learn “no” very early on, usually no later than two years.

h.      Most children can name body parts and have a thousand –word- vocabulary by their third or fourth birthday.

i.        Children start asking “why” around age four or five, be sure to speak to them in adult language (but you don’t have reply to them with adult answers).

j.        Kids should have a thousand word vocabulary by their third or fourth birthday.

Tips and Warning

-          Interact with your children to improve their language learning skills. Speak clearly and convey exactly what you mean.

-          Talk to your children, even the youngest ones. They pick up more than you think.

-          Read to your kids. This cannot be overemphasized, they will learn simple and complex sentence structure more quickly.

-          Take the time to listen to your child. This will build confidence and trust.

-          Do not swear around your children. They will absorb those words like sponge.

-          If a children is having difficulty with language, have them examined by a teacher, linguist or doctor. There may be a physical or social reason for their lack of language

RAISING BILINGUAL CHILDREN

            The idea raiding bilingual children is both appealing and possible for more and more families these days, and growing up with more than one language certainly has its advantages in today’s global village. Yet bilingualism really isn’t something that simple happens. Raising kids to be successful in more than one language requires some careful planning and learning about bilingual language development.

            The reasons for choosing to raise kids with two or more languages are as varied as the families themselves. Even the word “bilingualism” different meanings for different families. For some families, having the ability to listen in two language but speak in just one may constitute bilingualism, while other parent expect their kids not only to be bilingualism but also literate in both languages. Whatever the goals for developing bilingualism in each family may be, success appears to depend on whether a “language plan” has been worked out in advance. Families who take the time to consider how their kids will develop two languages, and who make the necessary commitment to bilingual language development, tend to  be more successful in raising bilingual children.

            The term balanced bilingualism is used to describe individuals who possess about the same fluency in two language, while semilingualism refers to  those who have deficiencies in both language compared with monolinguals. These deficiencies could be in a reduce vocabulary, incorrect grammatical patterns, difficulty thinking or expressing emotions is one of the languages, etc. few people are truly balanced bilinguals in both languages in all situations. One language is usually dominant. This dominance may be different for listening and speaking or for reading and writing and usually change over time.

                        Most of us able to learn a second language at any time in our lives, and, thought no critical age for bilingual language development has been  found, kids do tend to develop more native-like pronunciation when bilingualism begins before addescence. Two types of childhood bilingualism have been define. The first is simultaneous learning of two language, which tends to be affect by four key factors “

-          The parents ability in one or more languages. Some parent speak only one language, the language of the home and are unable to speak the language of the school and possibly of the community.

-          The parent actual use of language with the child. The parent may have language they speak with the child.

-          The language or languages others family members speak with the child, such as the language spoken between siblings or between children and grandparents.

-          The last factor is the language the child uses in the community.

Expert stress separating the languages to make language acquisition easier for kids. When kids are learning two language at the same time parent need to work out language strategies that emphasize boundaries between the languages. For example :

-          One parent, one language. Each parent consistently speaks one language while the other parent speak another language (usually each on speaking his or her native language to the child and possibly the common language to each other)

-          Both parents speak one language in the home and a second language used at school.

-          One language is used in the home and at school and the second language is used in the community

-          Both parents speak both  language to the child but separate the languages according to speaking situations or alternate days.

Consistency is key in early language learning. If you mix language s in the same conversations, young kids experience difficulty separating vocabulary and grammar into appropriate language. The child may learn the “mixed” languages as one hybrid language.

Parents also need to consider how to strike a balance between he languages. If a child attends school in one language all day and has only a short time to hear the other language at home, it’s likely the school language will develop more easily than the home language. Parents have to plan for additional time spent using the home language in a variety of situations and with a variety of speakers. Rich language experiences in both languages are essential for good bilingual development.

-          Stability and mobility a family that remains in the second language community. For a linger period of time will increase the chances of the child retaining the second language.

-          Relationship within the family affect bilingual language development. For example, if the father speak a different language than the mothers, but frequence trip take him away from home, the child will not learn his language as easily as the mother.

-          Attitude toward each language expressed by the parent, other family members, the school, the community and especially the child, will affect the development or one or both of languages. Both languages must given importance and a sense of worth in all aspect of the child’s life. All kids have a desire to communicate when language experience are positive and meaningful. 

References

1. Apple, R. and Muyskens, P.  1987. Language Contact and Bilingualism. New York: Edward Arnold

2. Celce-Murcia, M., Dornyei, Z., and Thurrell, S. 1995. Communicative Competence: A Pedagogically Motivated model with Content Specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, Vol. 6 No. 2 pp.5-35.

3. Cummings, L. 2005. Pragmatic: A multidisciplinary Approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Press.

4. Culicover, P.W. 1976. Syntax. New York: Academic Press

5. Halliday, M.A.K and Hasan, R. 1989. Language, Context and Text : Aspect of Language in a social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

6. Kadarisman, A.E. 2009. Mengurai Bahasa Menyibak Budaya. Malang: Penerbit Universitas Negeri Malang.

7. Kearns, K. 2000. Semantics. London: Macmillan Press Ltd. Arnold

8. Steinberg, D.D. 1993. An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. London: Longman.