Abstract

The classic mapping metaphor posits that children learn a word by mapping it onto a concept of an object or event. However, we believe that a mapping metaphor cannot account for word learning, because even though children focus attention on objects, they do not necessarily remember the connection between the word and the referent unless it is framed pragmatically, that is, within a task. Our theoretical paper proposes an alternative mechanism for word learning. Our main premise is that word learning occurs as children accomplish a goal in cooperation with a partner. We follow Bruner’s (1983) idea and further specify pragmatic frames as the learning units that drive language acquisition and cognitive development. These units consist of a sequence of actions and verbal behaviors that are co-constructed with a partner to achieve a joint goal. We elaborate on this alternative, offer some initial parametrizations of the concept, and embed it in current language learning approaches.

Highlights

  • The direct mapping of words onto concepts has often been considered to be at the core of the language acquisition mechanism

  • We propose that pragmatic frames serve as a communicative foundation or a learning “matrix” (Bruner, 1983, p. 38) that emerges between interactants, and that they are the key to understanding ecological learning processes

  • We think that the concept of “pragmatic frame” helps us to understand the co-development of cognitive and communicative dispositions in children

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

The direct mapping of words onto concepts has often been considered to be at the core of the language acquisition mechanism. For example, a guessing game in which a child is asked where the lamp is, and she or he points to it When performing this speech act, a competent speaker knows that the goal has to be framed by a sequence of actions on the surface layer (1) such as looking at the listener and asking a question with a specific prosody and syntax that contains a slot for the requested object. In in the Talking Head experiment (Steels and Kaplan, 2002), language games allowed robotic agents to successfully negotiate new semantic representations in which words were used as cues to draw the attention of social peers to a shared referent In such models, language acquisition goes far beyond the mapping mechanism and fits within the pragmatic frame approach we propose here. We specify the key characteristics of pragmatic frames

Pragmatic Frames Require a History of an Interaction
Pragmatic Frames Consist of a Meaning and a Syntax
Surface Deep
Hierarchy of Pragmatic Frames
Pragmatic Frames Evoke an Interpretation of a Situation
Individual Differences
HOW CURRENT APPROACHES INTERFACE WITH PRAGMATIC FRAMES
Social Cues
Dynamic Coupling
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.