-[Poetry]-
Complex Speech

In this essay, we take it as read that to read/speak using
complex structures "somehow" translates back and forth
to speaking/writing using complex structures.

Referennce:

   Healy, Jane M. (1990). Endangered Minds - Why our Children
          don't think. Touchstone: New York.


BEGIN BLOCK QUOTE ==============================

[P. 116]

"Restricted Codes and the Loss of the Analytic 
 Attitude"

Linguists argue over whether calling a lanaguage
"primitive" is either fair or accurate, but most
agree that languages differ in complexity. Consider
this sentence which most adult English speakers
can easily understand:

[P. 117]

  "The woman who lives next door bought the flowers
   that are on the table."

Some languages, however, can't get all [of] these 
thoughts into one into one sentence[,] because
they lack devices to sub-ordinate information.
Spekers of such a language are limite to simpler
propositions:

    A soman brought the flowers.
    They are on the table.
    She lives next door.

[Also, consider social context OF the flower: Are
they a present for a wedding or a funeral, does she
do this once or quite often. CONTEXT is king.]

As another exmaple, compare this description of a 
cause-effect relationship:

  "The meeting was not productive. The chairman [sic]
   was frustrated. The chairman appointed a new 
   committee."

with this one:

   "Because the meeting had been unproductive,
    the frustrated chairman appointed a new
    committee."

In the first example, the absence of complex syntax
forces to infer why the chairman changed the committe
and also obscures the time sequence of events. Forms
of langauge that contain these more complex grammatical
devices are called ELABORATED CODES. Those conveying
ideas without such comlex grammatical structures are
called RESTRICTED CODES and are the ones viewed as
more "primitive."

They are more useful when one speaker can see another's
gestures and already knows the details of the message.
"The expressions used by many peoples standing at a
primitive level can be understood only if the concrete
situation is known and if their gestures are observed,"
says Luria. (Luria ????) The simple, visual content of
many television programs lends itself particularly 
well to this type of talk.

Accoridng to Dr. Paul Kay of the Depatartment of Anthro-
pology at UCLA, elaborated codes can be distinguished by 
their longer sentences and more varied and explicit 
vocabulary. They have more expressions for logical 
connexions (eg, thus, therefore, moreover, because,
if, since, never-the-less). Restricted codes, on the
other hand, are much more immediate, requiring the 
listener to fill in the gaps that the spaker has not
made explicit (eg, placing one's own interpretation
on devices such as "You know"). 

[P. 118]

Both types of speech obviously have their uses in 
everyday life. I you had to deliver a lecture at a 
neighboring university, you would be well advised
to stick to elaborated codes, but if you used them
when making love to your spouse [sic], they might
not be too appropriate. The trick is to be able to
"code-switch' and use the best kind of syntax for
the situation at hand. 

Elaborated and restricted codes also differ in the 
use of two types of words:  CONTENT words and FUNCTION
words. Content words are our descriptive palette of
verbs, nouns, and adjectives referring to specific
things, actions, or attributes, (eg, house, beautiful,
running). They are also called OPEN CLASS because we
keep adding and subtracting new words to these categories
all [of] the time. Our new gastronomic lexicon (eg, 
quiche, sushi, pesto) or some discarded relices (eg,
buggy whip) are examples of open-class words. Such
words are used by both types of codes are are primarily
handled by the RIGHT hemisphere. [emphasis mine]

On the otherhand, FUNCTION WORDS are used in more
elaborated codes. They are harder to understand because
they don't stand for real things. These "little" words,
word endings, and prefixes, conjunctions, prepositions,
auxiliary verbs, etc. (eg, if, but, so, did, might, un-,
-ment) develop much later in a child's speech. Also 
called CLOSED CLASS, their usage changes only slowly 
over times. Function words require mor use of the
analytic LEFT hemisphere.

Use of these different types of words enables different
degrees of complexity in language. Sentences containing
mainly content words:

    Children like to run.
    Children like prizes.

are the type termed "restricted" or "primitive". Adding some
function words enables expression of more complexity.

   Some of the children in this group might like
   to run if we offered a prize.

Brain circuits for getting beyond restrcited codes using
language analytically 

   If you have already spent your allowance 
   on a videotape, you may not be able to go 
   to the movies tomorrow.

do not develop automatically. One linguist who recorded
mothers' conversations with their pre-schoolers then 
measured the children's language development found that
unless mothers used function words themselves, their 
children did not pick them up. [Local Ref 19]

[P. 119]

Languages are always in the process of change. Traditionally,
open class nouns and verbs have been the ones that have 
changed most rapidly. Among the young, however, it appears 
that the closed-class and syntactic markers are fast 
becoming obsolete. These differences may represent the 
source of many of the declines observed, not only in
academic achievement, but also in tradtional, formal
reasoning.

Who is "Pirmitive"?

The words PRIMITIVE LANGUAGE are loaded ones because they imply
some sort of cultural judgement. Researchers who tried several
years ago to apply this concept to groups of children got into
trouble because they unfairly concluded that lower-class children
are socialised to use only primitive, un-elaborated speech and
irrevocably doomed to school failure. Subsequent research has
drastically modified this over-generalisation. It is true that
families with less educational background are more likely to use
language that is not "school-like" and that children from homes
of "lower socio-economic status" [SES] (which is predicated on
both educational and occupational levels) may have less experience
than others with the types of langauge found in books (although
this situation may be changing, as we will see in a later chpapter).
Few would argue with the reality that the ability to use 
"elaborated codes" confers a real advantae in our culutre both
in school and in many occupations, but assuming that all 
members of the "lower classes" lack this tool and that all 
"upper classes" have it is clearly ridiculous.

Dr. Paul Kay








END BLOCK QUOTE  ===============================

References
(this section only)

[Local Ref 19] 
   Gleitman, L. (1986?) Biologoical pre-programming for 
             language learning? (in Friedmn, et al).

   Friedman, S, Klivingdon, K. and Peterson, R. (eds)
             (1986). The Brain, Cognition, and Education.
             New York: Academic Press. 

   Healy, Jane M. (1990). Endangered Minds - Why our Children
          don't think. New York: Touchstone.
          ISBN 0.671.74920.X,  LCCN BF 318.H3'1990.
          [Chapter 5: Sagging Syntax, Sloppy Semantics, and
                      Fuzzy Thinking; Pp. 105-124.]

   btw, she dedicates her book thusly:
      "Dedicated to Mother Nature and the gift 
       -- and responsibility -- of neural plasticity" 
       (tips towel 3 times to the good doctor)

   Luria, ??ref??
      Only gives "D. Vocate", P.19 

   Vocate, D. (1987). The Thoery of A.R. Luria.
           Hillsdale, NJ: Lawreence Erlbaum Associates,
           P.29...
           
and then 

   Luria, A. (1982). Language and Cognition.
          New York: Wiley.