Chapter 3 Children's speech in comparison with the speech of adults

Psycholinguists appeal to children's speech is necessary not only to clarify the patterns of formation of the linguistic personality of a person in ontogenesis. Speech constructs of a child often make it possible to understand many important features of the correlation of thinking and speech. Among them, for example, is the question of the relationship of cognitive and speech capabilities in speech activity.

If a person, thinking, operates with some structures of the Criminal Procedure Code, that is, “internal code”, then what are the structural units of this code - specific images of reality (this flower, this person, etc.), generalized “traces of images” (“flower in general, "every face", etc.) or verbal designations (i.e. words) of images stored in our "memory of the language"? Of course, it would be easy to answer these questions right away if we could “look into the brain” and find out: in which cases the series of images-pictures is activated, and in which cases the words of the language are activated. But we are still far from such opportunities. And therefore it is necessary to limit oneself to some indirect data - through observations, reasoning, experiments. The results of self-observation can be, as is well known, quite reliable, questionable and absolutely erroneous. The latter include, for example, the most ancient errors: "The Earth is flat," "The sun revolves around the Earth."

In the plan we are interested in, it can be checked for certainty that the so-called “figurative phrases” of a language always evoke corresponding “pictures” (images) in our mind. English linguist Wallace L. Chafe wrote: “If I, for example, say Sat kicked the bucket, then my listener, and I may have the impression that he kicked a bucket, although I meant that he died, and The listener knows me perfectly well what I wanted to say. If I use the red trace “false trace”, my mind is not completely free from the idea of ​​a red fish. ”

So, from the side of consciousness, it is as if remains “attached” to the figurative component of a phraseological unit, on the other hand, the speaker and

The listener "knows very well" the semantics of the idiom, in no way (in the context of communication) that is not connected with this very image. It turns out a strange contradiction: whether the speaker (and the listener) specifically analyze the idiom in isolation from the context in which it is used, or the connection with the image is not broken in the speech (context) stream. In the first case, a situation arises, as in a well-known cartoon: a little boy hears the speech of adults, the essence of which is not clear to him, and therefore the phrase “They drove where Makar did not chase calves”, “Tied hand and foot” causes terrible pictures in him. And the phrase "Sidorov and Molchanov was given a hat" - a picture of giving presents. In the second case, it will be necessary to assume that an adult person, perceiving phraseological units in the speech flow, must first be frightened or rejoiced (as a boy), and then figure out what the matter is (as an adult). And then the understanding and use of idioms becomes slow, like a two-step. Is it so? The answer is in the experience described below. Study Material:

a) lists of individual idioms with figurative components (OK), similar to the above;

b) lists of proposals with inclusions a);

c) related short texts with b);

d) sets of drawings with other illustrations, which are presented to the subjects simultaneously with a), b) and c).

The illustrations are presented, firstly, those who unequivocally semantically (find out) the direct meaning of verbal OK. For example, the idiom “traces of past beauty” can correspond to a photograph of real human traces in the snow, and in the idiom “goose bumps on the skin” - a drawing of ants running. Secondly, such illustrations are given that correspond to the figurative meanings of OK-words and OK-idioms. For example, the sentence “An elderly woman with traces of past beauty entered the hall” corresponds to a photo of a beautiful old woman, and “In the evening I read such an eerie horror story, and then I had goose bumps on my skin” - a picture of a frightened young man with reared hair.

According to the instructions, each subject had to choose for each unit of tasks from sets a), b) and c) one of the illustrations from set d).

Subjects were grouped by age (and educational) grounds:

1st group - 20 preschool children 4-6 years old;

2nd group - 20 schoolchildren of 7-8 grades;

3rd group - 20 students of 1-5 courses (philologists).

Naturally, in the 1st group the linguistic (abbreviated) material was presented by ear, was simplified and did not include texts.

The result of the 1st group.

The task completed about 1/3 of the subjects. Illustrations to the units a) and b) from the set d) were selected (if they were selected at all in a non-random order) only according to the principle of correspondence to the direct meaning of the OK-word.

The result of the 2nd group.

The task correctly completed 3/4 of the subjects. In the remaining third, the most frequent selection of illustrations to the direct meanings of OK-words in phraseological units: “For bezrybe and cancer - fish” (cancer drawing), “One swallow of spring does not” (photo of a swallow) and “It seems like a nail to a requiem” ( nail drawing).

The result of the 3rd group - one hundred percent correct execution with minimal time. For unexplained reasons, the selection of illustrations interpreting the direct meaning of OK-words in the composition and lists of isolated words, and in sentences, was also observed in the older groups: three times (2nd group) and one case (3rd group). It is about the proverb “There is no smoke without fire” (drawing of smoke rising above the fire).

General conclusion: a fairly experienced native speaker correctly and accurately understands the meaning of OK-words in a context where this word loses its original direct objective meaning, which a preschooler cannot demonstrate, and partly a schoolchild with insufficient speech development (precisely in the sphere of phraseological units). The opinion of W. Chafe seems erroneous.

This does not mean at all, as it may seem that the adult intelligence that has been formed serves itself exclusively by means of language without relying on specific or generalized images stored in memory. Well, for example, without such specific images we could not recognize each other (and ourselves in mirror), as they say, "in the face." The same must be said about the objective (material) world as a whole and its innumerable elements.

Correctly just the opposite is true: we understand language (its units and their combinations in all their diversity and diversity) only if we learn to associate language signs with their subject representations in the figurative memory of our brain. Such a skill allows us to understand at least the superficial level of such, say, verse stanzas:

Silvered raspberry sheets,

Tilted upside down.

The sun is sad today, like you, -

The sun today, as you, northerner. (B. Pasternak)

Thundered dishes at the barman. A valet yawned, finding sudoku. In the river, at the height of a candlestick, Kishmya was infested with fireflies. (B. Pasternak)

A person is not accustomed to the perception of the “cipher” of poetry, these lines not only do not attract, but also can annoy: where is the connection between raspberry leaves and some sad northerner? Why are the fireflies “in the river” and not “above the river”? Why is this “above” measured in “candlesticks” and not in centimeters ?!

This is not the place to interpret the figurative structure of poems and to clarify methods of poetic expression We only note that the “candlestick” appeared, of course, not as a random standard for the measure of length, but as a result of the association of single-root words (“Svetlyak - Candlestick”) and the rhymes “Buffetchik - Candlestick”. It is important for us to note that a person, and not accustomed to poetry, is able to be surprised at noticing unusual words of use: the ability to understand a text begins with the meaning of direct meanings of words. The rest is ahead.

Our examples are given, first of all, in order to show that the complex fabric of a poetic text cannot do without concrete images. We note that it was just about perception in the direction “from text (word) to image”, when the reader perceives the text. Naturally, the author of the text was repelled, on the contrary, from his figurative picture (presentation), when he went to his result - the text of the verse.

Let us consider an experiment whose task is to find out whether the language in which we speak plays any role in the processes of understanding, distinguishing and memorizing objects of figurative

of art. Two groups of subjects took part in the experiment: A) 20 students of both sexes (age 18-22) and B) 20 professional artists (age 25-31).

Subjects were presented with material in the form of reproductions from art canvases, selected specifically in such a way as to exclude the possibility of verbal “retelling” as supports for distinguishing, memorizing and reporting the description of what they saw. To this end, reproductions were presented to the subjects in several series:

1. male half-length portraits of the same type in terms of writing and image style (realism);

2. female half-length portraits similar to 1 in character;

3. still lifes depicting ceramic and metal utensils.

Each series consisted of 10 reproductions and was presented to the subjects for the same time - 15 seconds, after which they had to follow an oral verbal report on the questions:

a) Who (what) is depicted?

b) Did different images appear in this series or

met the same?

c) Try to explain how one (optional) image was different from another?

The reports of the subjects of group A (non-professionals) boiled down to the following typical answers: “Female portraits”, “Portraits of men”, “Different pottery and metal ware”, “Flowers are the same everywhere - lilac”, “Indicate who is who ( what) and what is the difference, I find it difficult. " After such (primary) reports, changes were made in the ranks of the presented series of reproductions: 2 (out of 10) reproductions were replaced by others, and the rest were changed only by places. Secondary reports in the same group did not significantly add new moments, except for two cases of finding substitutions with an explanation: “I didn’t have this portrait before,” “There were more bottles here ... Previously, everyone was standing, and here two are lying.”

The reports of the subjects of group B showed significantly better visual memory: all replacements and about a third of the permutations of reproductions were found. The verbal reports were qualitatively different: “Gainsborough was removed, and Briullov was laid down”, “There was a man with two big stars, and he was removed”,

"Konchalovsky lilac rearranged to third place", "Here is this new still life completely - almost solid copper."

And yet, the bulk of the replacements and permutations found did not produce clear verbal formulations from which it would be possible to understand, outside of the situation of joint observation, whether there is (and what exactly) the difference between the reproductions within each series. The artists answered the questions as follows: “It's obvious - here (gesture) is so written (gesture of imitation of brush movement), and here (gesture) is like this (gesture of imitation)”, “Look how glare is put here (gesture), but - otherwise ("gesture") "," Here and here (gestures), etc. In other words, the subjects give nominal nominations (designations) of details that they did not notice ”(or cannot be named) by non-professionals. But those and others are not able to give a clear list of all the distinguishing features of different objects. We take into account the fact that the phenomenon of eideism (retention in memory of the image of an object after its presentation) is observed in professional artists much more often and lasts significantly longer than in others. But the verbal commentary to the lasting representation in the memory and for the artists is not very informative: to name the portrait painter Gainsborough does not mean to convey his writing style verbally. At the same time, a professional is sure to recognize any portrait of Gainsborough precisely for his style (style). Subjects of group A turned out to be, basically, only capable of verbal generalized designation of images of the type “female portrait” or “dishes”. Such images cannot in any way serve as the “verbal” support for the distinction of typical objects.

In other words, if in my mind a certain analogue of the word “bottle” functions, then with its help I am not able to distinguish different bottles from each other. At the same time, of course, I perceive the cash difference as such - in a figurative reflection of reality. A similar situation is observed, for example, when interrogating eyewitnesses about the appearance of a wanted criminal. Eyewitnesses "remember the face and figure," but cannot express in words their specific characteristics. In such cases, as is well known, a specific person can be fixed with the help of identikit variants, that is, non-verbally (non-verbally).

Now it is necessary to find out how they are oriented in the world, how small children comprehend the reality, who have not yet mastered the language to the extent that adults have it. Of course, children

It is necessary to offer a solution to problems that are much simpler than adults.

Material for presentation to the subjects (20 preschool children of the younger, middle and senior groups) - metal flat parts in several versions: a) the original form with four taps; b) the same with a curved one tap; c) the same - with bent two branches; d) the same with curved three taps; d) the same with all the branches bent. Total - 5 modifications of items.

All children alternately show 5 flat boxes, each of which contains one (out of 5) sample details. After reviewing the samples and feeling them, the instruction is given: “Choose from the pile on the table (shown) for any little thing, examine it and put it in the box where the similar thing lies”.

We coped with the task:

1 youngest child, who found in a handful (50 parts) all 5 different, corresponding to the samples and 1 child, who correctly selected 3 details to the samples. After that, both children stopped targeted actions. The rest found 1 detail true, after which the targeted actions were stopped. Successful action lasted on average up to 4 minutes.

In the middle group, they coped with the task partially (3-4 successful accomplishments) for all children for an average time of 2 minutes each.

In the older group, all children completed tasks on average in 1.5 minutes each, making 5 choices of details each.

After each task, each child was asked:

“Tell me, why did you put this little thing in this box, but not this one?” At the same time, the experimenter demonstrated both “things” that were discussed. Both children from group 1 (who performed the task correctly in a reduced volume) did not give an explanation.

The children from the 2nd and 3rd groups gave (some with difficulty, others rather briskly) with the same type of explanation: “This is such a thing, and this other (also this)”, “This is this, this is how, and this like "," This is not at all like this, "etc. Each verbal explanation in the moments of “like”, “such”, “here”, “other” was performed against the background of the pointing gesture with a finger or in a raised hand

on the palm. Not all words exactly coincided with the place indicated by the finger, which can be explained by the fine coordination of fine motor motility in children.

Important for us in the experience of the main:

a) he showed the ability of children to analyze (distinguish)

items;

b) to the synthesis of the properties found in the whole (adaptation to

sample);

c) to understand the causes of actions in connection with the task (why

chose this little thing, not the one);

d) to find a way to explain the reasons for the choice (situational and visual demonstration with the help of a subject and a gesture).

All this - with an acute shortage of language resources. Because the objects in their modifications were called the same “things”), and the meanings of the words “here,” “this,” were semanticized non-verbally, objectively. Only in two cases did two children use the words “bent,” long, and “pen” in combinations: here it is bent "and" there are no pens here. " Consequently, this level of thinking (analysis, synthesis, ability to group, simple generalization) is achieved by children of a given age without relying on language resources.

The experiments described above speak in favor of the inalienability of the figurative component in thinking and communicative activity at different stages of ontogenesis and at different levels of formation of language ability - almost from zero to the most complicated process of poetic creativity.

We have already said that the understanding of texts depends not only on knowledge of the language, but also on the level of knowledge and on the degree of development of logic in the individual’s thinking system. Summarizing, one can say, recalling the thoughts of G. Kleist and the judgment of N. I. Zhinkin, that intelligence itself, like the system of the CPC (universal subject code), does not operate “within itself” in the national language, but in moments of speech activity expresses its “product” (thought) with the help of language means. Kleist, as you remember, spoke about thinking and speech as “two wheels on one axis” - about two, not about the same!

A child, developing mentally and verbally, as a rule, masters the language system more quickly than it accumulates and processes knowledge: there is no synchronicity in these two processes; on the contrary, it is advisable to emphasize the asymmetry in

child’s achievements at the cognitive (thinking) and speech levels.

In the mid-1950s, an experiment was conducted with a 72-year-old peasant woman from a deaf village and her 5-year-old grandson from a family of townspeople with a special secondary education. The dictionary of an elderly woman was previously recorded. Он составил 860 единиц, не считая еще 250 единиц, накопленных ею из области шорного дела и в ходе знахарства-травничества. В повседневной коммуникации ею использовалось регулярно не более 500 слов.

Ей и ее внуку поочередно и один раз вместе был зачитан текст из учебника для младших классов («Орел и раковина»), объем -136 слов. Обоим испытуемым были разъяснены значения слов «орел», <<раковина», «створки» с помощью иллюстраций. Из 136 слов рассказа женщина не вполне понимала еще 8 слов, которые были объяснены. Затем были зафиксированы оба пересказа -женщины и мальчика.

Пересказ пожилой женщины

Дело, значит, так было. Не помню где, у воды, у самой, значит, была эта самая, как ее...(Подсказка.) Раковина. Yes.Tut was and kite, chi how is it? Okay. Well, how does he live? Eating means fish and animals, what else. There was no fish at that time, but this one was ... How is it? (Hint.) Well, yes, she is. I saw her, then a hawk and - to her. Yeah ... She had such a thing (a gesture with folding palms) - she wants it to open up, she wants it - no. Mogit and conceit (Ukrainian - close). Kite, then, there, and she is his - (gesture with palms together). Neither there nor here to that kite. He could not, therefore, osloboni himself. And here the water rose. Kite in the water is not a tenant, he exhaled in the water. And she herself lives! (Total 111 words)

Retelling a child

Большая ракушка сидела на песочке. Большая ракушка раскрыла свои эти...(Подсказка.) Да, створки. Она сидела и смотрит на море... А какие глазки у ракушки? Нет глазков? А как оке она то-гда смотрела? Просто лежала? Ладно, пусть лежит. Лежит она и лежит... А на большой горе было гнездо. В гнезде жил орел с детками. Орел - царь птицов. Он самый сильный и храбрый. Он всех птицов может победить... А царя зверей - тоже? Not? Ну, ладно... Орел захотел съесть большую ракушку. А ее едят разве? Она вкусная? А вы ели? Ладно буду дальше рассказывать. А я дальше забыл...(Подсказка.) Орел увидел большую ракушку и говорит: «Сейчас я тебя съем!» А большая ракушка говорит; «Нет, не съешь, я тебя за лапы схвачу!» А орел говорит: «Я тебя не боюсь, я - царь всех птицов!» Как бросился он на ракушку, как схватил.

как съел ее всю!.. Нет. он не поел... Она ему лапы прищемила Тогда он вырвался и улетел...(Всего 152 слова)

Из общего количества слов не относится к собственно пересказу 102 слова (включая лексику сочиненной версии). Словарь ребенка богаче словаря его бабушки, грамматические конструкции правильнее и разнообразнее. Вполне можно констатировать более развитую языковую компетенцию младшего. Но в пересказе нет доказательств понимания сюжета; можно только предположить, что ребенок догадался о нежелательной для него «неблагополучной концовке» относительно «царя птицов». «Диалог» между орлом и ракушкой не просто придуман, но и соответствует антропоморфным представлениям о животных (умеют говорить, как люди), столь характерном для всех нормальных детей. Не обратил внимания ребенок и на изображение раковины (без всяких «глазок», разумеется). При всей бедности словаря и нарушениях норм языка, старая женщина не допустила ни одной логической ошибки; напротив, полностью и правильно поняла сюжет и причину смерти орла. Когнитивные возможности старой безграмотной женщины - в рамках сюжета — оказались на высоте, чего нельзя сказать о ребенке.

In 1993-95, the formation of the issue in the ontogenesis of Russian and German-speaking preschoolers was specially investigated. We show the level of cognitive development of children 3-5 years old on the Russian-language material. The latter point to gaps in children's knowledge about the world around them. German-language material is similar to the Russian-speaking in all relations of interest to us.

Information about the body Information about the apartment

- Do you have a tongue too? - Do you have a table too?

- I have the back of the head. And you have? - Do you always have doors in the house?

“We have no wool, eh?” “Why is there glass in the windows?”

- Show your fingers. So - And - Did the sofa lie like on

Is there a little finger too? Show me the beds?

Animal Information Food Information

“Where can I see a lion?” “Mom makes the patties herself, but

Or even a little lion? In the store about cucumbers - how?

not?

- Timka tongue stick out, but silent! - Why is tea so colorful?

“Does Uncle Borry have a trunk?” - Milk is white - why is that?

- How was his elephant called? - Pears also grow, or what?

Weather Details Street Information

- The sun itself is hot, huh? - Who made the streets?

- Why does the rain have so many puddles? - Is the tram itself going?

- In the spring as it happens? How is summer? - Domina what will grow, right?

Information about the time Information about the war

- What is more - a week or a mi- - War - is it for real? ?

nutka?

- How does the alarm clock know when the star- - The machine gun throws bullets?

a thread?

- Who came up with the month and year? -Tanki why rumble?

Information about the space Information about life and death

- Where is the top? - Grandma always lives?

- Do we have a country too? - Daisy can suddenly not live?

- City, perhaps, smaller than the country? - Everyone is sick and die?

Легко себе представить, сколько еще предстоит ребенку узнать «нового»! Вместе с тем, языковая компетенция уже вполне солидна. В нашей практике известен случай, когда - но инициативе родителей, конечно, - девочка пяти лет выучила довольно легко наизусть всю поэму «Руслан и Людмила». Выучила, естественно, совершенно механически, так как даже вступление к ней («У Лукоморья дуб зеленый») ребенок правильно понять еще не может. Доказательство - в самих вопросах той самой девочки: -Златая цепь - это какая? Почему на дубе? Как это кот ходит по цепи - она на земле? Почему кот ученый? Он разве ходит в школу? Русалка - это кто? И т. д. и т. п.

Существует множество тестов, проверяющих уровень когнитивного развития. Один из них — это сборка из фрагментов целостного изображения/Задача упрощается, если сборку можно сверить с образцом целого. Труднее всего произвести сборку без образца. Поэтому обычно обе эти сходные задачи предлагают разновозрастным детям. Нам пришлось наблюдать, как такие задачи решали дети с недостаточными речевыми способностями и дети с хорошо развитой речью.

Получается, что недоразвитость речи отнюдь не всегда свидетельствует о недоразвитых умственных способностях, а развитая речь - о хороших когнитивных возможностях: «параллельные колеса на одной оси» могут вращаться с разной скоростью. Далекая аналогия: секундная стрелка бегает быстрее, чем минутная и часовая. Названная выше детская асимметрия (неравномерность, несинхронность развития речи и мышления) осложнена тем, что дети, как правило, плохо вербализуют и то, что они прекрасно

понимают; в частности, детям чрезвычайно трудно бывает рассказать точно о своих собственных действиях.

In order not to underestimate children too much and not to overestimate adults too much, it is suggested that adult students, without resorting to shows or drawings, explain in words how a knot is made on a rope. Try it! Experience can be put like this. Two students go to the table in front of the audience. One makes a screen of a bag or an open book, behind which he performs alternate operations with a piece of rope. The second observes and tells how and what to do, without naming the final goal - in operational terms. And listeners, guided by what they have heard, should do the same with their pieces of rope. If the node is not too simple, then according to the words you may not be able to complete the task.

In general, did you, as a part of people, notice, explaining the locations of an object, prefer the words to a drawing? Why? If you answer this question correctly, you will understand why it is difficult for children to talk consistently about their (already committed) actions. Apparently, some "asymmetric phenomena" remain in adulthood. Moreover, even the most advanced language cannot “describe everything” as concretely and precisely as a drawing.