What is the difference between a symbol and a sign? If you are driving outside and see the following what do you do?
Probably stop. The sign is a call to action -- to stop! It is also a communication that is necessary for your survival. Disregard it and the results can be fatal!
But if you see this instead:
What do you do?
Probably nothing. That is because it was NOT a call-to-action. And it is certainly NOT necessary to your survival. And incidentally, it is not a sign (in the Pavlovian sense).
Signs are a call to action and Symbols are a call for information
It is simply a communication that brings to mind an idea--about a man who is faster than a speeding bullet; more powerful than a locomotive; and who loves to leap tall buildings in a single bound.
He often wears a blue leotard with a pink cape and boots; and he loves to change his clothes in telephone booths.
He is employed by a newspaper company, and he has a girl friend of questionable intelligence (she never recognizes him in his leotard without his glasses.)
All these threads of interrelated information, which we will call a concept, were brought into your consciousness by the the signal (the word) "Superman." That is what symbols in language do.
They bring into our minds information (concepts) that we can modify, enjoy, discard or use to plan our day. But typically, they are not calls to action.
Humans are genetically programmed to symbolize.
Unlike signs that are typically linked to things (referents) by a relationship that is iconic or cause-and -effect, or based on a simple Pavlovian...conditioning paradigm, symbols have a purely arbitrary relationship to their referents.
The word "Superman," for example, does not sound, look or feel like the man.
One might think that this would be a disadvantage for symbols in comparison to signs as a media for communication. Signs should be easier to learn.
But this is where nature has stepped in to provide humans with an awesome edge--the prodigious ability to create and recall great numbers of arbitrary Concept/Symbol (Word) associations. This is the "guts" of language.
Just as it is no problem for a giraffe to reach nutritious leaves high up in a tree, it is no problem for humans to learn words.
In fact many persons after having attended college have acquired over 100,000 words in their lexicon!
Symbols substitute for images in the thought process.
The arbitrary concept/symbol association, has one major advantage for communication--boundless POWER!
There is no limit on the concepts that can be represented by symbols. Hence, there is nothing that cannot be communicated via language!
One final difference between signs and symbols is that the signs relate to things, but symbols are substitutes for them in our thought processes.
Dark clouds for example mean that rain may be eminent but we don*t substitute the image of dark clouds in our mind for rain.
The word "rain," however, is a substitute in our thought processes for the real thing or image. In fact most of us as adults chose to think verbally (in words) rather than in images.
Other symbolic forms (which probably preceded language in the course of human development) include rituals, music, dancing and art.
Symbols include Art, Dance, Music, Ritual and Language
What, then, distinguishes the symbols of language from those of art, music, dance and rituals?
Four features in particular make language symbols different (although, not necessarily better). These include:
1. Language has a lexicon (vocabulary) in which there is a one-to-one relationship between a symbol (word) and its referent (a thing in the world). The word "table" can be identified with an object.
2. The Symbol/Referent bond in language is arbitrary.
3. It is possible in language to have many symbols for the same object. Table (in English), Mesa (in Spanish), Stol (in Russian {pardon the English script}) all mean the same thing.
4. The symbols of language can be used to discuss language. This is referred to as meta-language.
Symbols (as well as signs) can be classified into two qualitatively different types: Discursive and Presentational.
There are two kinds of Symbols: Presentational and Discursive
Presentational Symbols are perceived as complete units. Pictures and maps are some excellent examples.
Examine some of the presentational patterns in the notes below and consider which are signs and which are symbols.
Discursive Symbols occur over a period of time. Hence, it is not possible to perceive the whole unit except through the cognitive process of short term memory.
The notes below provide an example of a discursive communication.
There are six different theories of what language is. They are not necessarily exclusive but each underscores different aspects.
1. Behavioral Theories were among the earlier approaches attempting to define the mechanisms of language development. Language was classified as a skill to be learned.
Hence, Learning Theory was the focus, and classical conditioning was the central mechanism, featuring a stimulus-response paradigm.
Perhaps the most well known behavioral theory was an off-shoot of this, Operant Conditioning developed by B. F. Skinner.
He emphasized the reinforcement of verbal behaviors to shape random vocalizations into speech. Explanations were couched only in observable and measurable terms.
These included verbal actions (responses) co-occurring with rewards (stimuli). The basic unit of language was considered to be the "functional unit," and not words or sentences.
The roles of mentalistic constructs, such as the notion of an implicit (innate) knowledge of grammatical rules or an inborn intention to communicate were minimized as non measurable and probably non-existent.
Language explained in terms of Biological Theories
2. Biological Maturational Theories comprised the other (natavistic) end of the nature /nurture continuum.
While the role of experience (nurture) was acknowledged as an essential element in the development of language, its importance was minimized.
Special brain structures were given major credit for language ability. This included a consideration at both the macro and micro levels of organization.
At the macro level, a special role (in humans) for language was recognized to exist typically in the left cerebral hemisphere.
Also involved were parts of the frontal and temporal lobes, the arcuate fasciculus, and some subcortical structures.
At the micro level, special attention was focused on brain cell organization, branching and spines on dendrites, myelinization of axons, and axodendritic synapses.
Because of its origin in structure, language was considered to unfold according to a biological timetable--given just "scraps" of language experiences.
For some educators, however, the milestones of this timetable are considered to be windows of opportunity to stimulate the child with rich and appropriate models of language.
Because of its exclusiveness in humans, lanlguage has been dubbed by E. Lenneberg to be a "Species Specific" phenomenon.
Lenneberg spent considerable time gathering evidence world wide to support the Species Specific concept.
Language explained in terms of Linguistic Induction
3. Linguistic Induction Theories of language development in many ways carry the Species Specific perspective to the maximum.
The best known proponent of Linguistic Induction is Chomsky who postulated a Language Acquisition Device (LAD).
This was a hypothesized neurological structure which is genetically inherited by humans and which possesses a general knowledge about language grammar--Universal Grammar.
LAD enables the child to develop language with inordinate speed, even in instances of minimal language stimulation.
From the LAD develops a formal grammar with a finite set of rules shared by all speakers of the language. Most of these rules were acquired by 5 years of age.
From the formal grammar an infinite number of sentences can be generated.
Proponents of the Linguistic Induction theory support this view by noting the lack of an observable direct link between language input and out put, or a relationship between teaching (corrections) and performance.
In addition, the similarity of patterns of grammatical development between cultures suggests to them a major role for genetic factor.
Children simply understand more about language than can be accounted for by the sum of their limited language experiences.
4. Cognitive Theories of language development do not subscribe to the notion that any knowledge of language is transmitted genetically in humans.
They do, however, hypothesize that important cognitive nonlinguistic precursors to language are inherited.
These include the ability to develop many sophisticated concepts about the world.
Language emerges as a result of cognitive construction in which speech, one of many developing cognitive skills, and concepts are combined.
Language is, however, only one of several symbolizing skills, to represent and/or manipulate mental concepts about the world.
The best known Cognitive Theorist is Piaget, who describes how the cognitive capacities of children are qualitatively and quantitatively different from adults. These include the ability to develop many sophisticated concepts about the world.
His intensive observations of children lead him to describe their intellectual growth through a series of set cognitive stages by a process of maturation called adaption.
In adaption, environmental influences cause disruptions in body equilibrium, and there is a natural inclination to reestablish it. Two processes are involved:
1. How children perceive the environment (process input) is a function of their existing schemas (concepts). This is called assimilation.
2. When these perceptions do not fit reality or solve problems, schemas are changed and/or combined (accommodation) to correct the situation. The child then perceives the world differently through the new neural organization (assimilation).
The concept of adaption is analogous to climbing a ladder. There is a different view from each rung (assimilation), and a process of change as we climb to the next rung (accommodation).
Implicit in the cognitive theories are the importance of experience and problem solving on the cognitive and language development of the child.
Language explained in terms of Social Interaction Theories
5. Social Interaction is the new theory on the block. Unimportant in this perspective are the abstract processes of linguistic rules or cognitive structures.
Equally minimized is the role of concrete verbal behaviors and strict reinforcement principles.
What is stressed is an innate motivation to interact socially and to develop a concept of self and others.
What is important (as Dore noted in 1986) are pragmatic considertions:
1. intentional and symbolic acts of speech,
2. their conversational functions,
3. their consequences for participants and,
4. their context dependent properties.
Language develops in the process of dyadic, dynamic interactions involving the child, and facilitated by an innate motivation to develop self concept and to socially interact.
Important here obviously is the need for quality time for children with their parents (caretakers).
Parents contribute greatly to language development by modifying their speech output to be more compatible with the child's developing linguistic and cognitive abilities (motherese).
They also take steps to provide a scaffold to facilitate communication.
A scaffold is a consistent pattern of environmental cues, (such as a bedtime routine) in which familiar phrases are used.
This helps children, who have limited communication skills to decode and encode messages.
Language explained in terms of Information Processing Theories
6. Information Processing Theories in many respects reflect the technological thinking of the times.
Before the industrial revolution, the mind was described in terms of body vapors. After the revolution it was envisioned to be constructed like a well oiled machine.
Today, we use computer concepts to explain the brain and language acquisition.
While there are enough similarities to make this useful, it is still far too simplistic a description.
Like a computer, the brain encodes stimuli from the environment, operates on the information, stores and retrieves the data.
In the brain, unlike computers which are serial processors, information processing occurs along parallel tracks.
Language develops empirically through experience. Initially, all neural tracks are potentially equal. But through use, or lack of it, some are strengthened and others are weakened or or totally lost.
Which is the correct theory?
Language forms are learned as a result of practical usage, such as occur in social interactions such as requesting, stating, or locating things, etc.
Forms that are used more frequently and consistently develop first in a child*s language. So what does it all mean?
What it all boils down to is that there is validity to all these theories. They all provide bits and pieces to the complicated puzzle of language. They all provide hints as to what variables could be manipulated to facilitate language development, and when and how they should be manipulated.
Hence we shall examine the processes that form this communication bridge, and consider each process in the light of what we know of the theories of language development.
