This research report was commissioned before the new UK Government took office on 11 .. environment that contribute to children's language development at two years of age? Despite the strong influence of social class, children's early language made It found that there was a strong relationship between a child's. Download Citation on ResearchGate | The Role of Social Class in Language However, adolescents with better family functioning showed slower growth rate on cognitive RESEARCH IN CHILD PSYCHOPATHOLOGY: THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF . parent-child exchanges in their relationship to cognitive development. The relationship between language and social class has been a major concern It would be impossible to do justice to this range of research within a single article . follows one particular narrative in the development of class analysis within.
Still in the theme language and family and school environments, three studies addressed the importance of language skills for school readiness 1823 Only one study showed correlation between the school environment and language development Three publications were selected in the theme language, family and school environments, and social behavior 2124 The survey conducted with children and their families 21 showed statistically significant correlation between sustained attention, receptive vocabulary, and environmental aspects.
In this study, the authors observed that sustained attention to a particular activity was associated with better performance in receptive vocabulary for both low socioeconomic groups low income and very low income.
In the low-income group, inadequacy of tasks involving sustained attention and increased impulsivity, related to the fact that children were unable to sit still during the test, were associated with poor performance on receptive vocabulary and increased externalization behavior.
It is worth noting that in two studies 2428 no statistically significant correlation was found between social behavior and language development.
One of these articles 18 shows that the stability of language development was maintained between evaluations, regardless of socioeconomic factors, medical history, maternal intelligence, and gender.
The other study 28 used the Portage Inventory to assess child development in the cognitive, motor, self-care, language and socialization areas. However, no correlation was observed between language and social behavior, but between language, cognitive aspects, and nutritional status.
The two surveys 1927 found in the thematic axis language development, family environment, and social behavior reported no association between family environment, social behavior, and language development. It is worth highlighting that the researches did not address all the subsystems of language and involved different populations.
Still in this theme, one study 19 was conducted with participants divided into two groups: The research shows that delay in expressive vocabulary, up to 2 years of age, is not a risk factor for subsequent behavioral and emotional disorders.
It is worth stressing that, in this study, behavior was assessed by the Child Behavior Checklist at the following ages: A research 27 conducted with school children aged years focused only on the phonological and lexical semantic subsystem.
In this study, the behavioral aspect referred to psychological disorders presented by the parents. Association was found between the presence of emotional problems of parents and mild phonological disorders of children.
Nevertheless, other works 32 - 34 reported that family environment factors such as the presence of speech and language disorders in family, socioeconomic status, and educational level of parents are associated with the presence of phonological disorders. Two systematic literature reviews were found in our search: In the narrative review, most publications refer to the thematic area of language, with predominance of three sub-themes: The studies placed greater emphasis on pathology compared with investigation of processes of language constitution The narrative review presented studies that show the importance of parental education and stimulation in the family environment for the development of language in children Figure 2 shows the word cloud generated based on the abstracts and conclusions of the review articles.
It shows that the most frequently used words were children, language development, parents, vocabulary, family, and school. These findings allow us to infer that the search strategies used for the selection of articles were appropriate and consistent with the results obtained.
Part of the surveys revealed an association between language development and family and school environments. With regard to family environment, the following aspects presented a relationship with language development: It can also be noted that the qualification of teachers to guide the parents regarding interaction with the children proved to be effective in promoting language development. Association between social behavior and language development was addressed in only one study, but showed no statistical significance.
This literature review shows that there is a lack of studies addressing the relationship between language development, family and school environments, and social behavior. This study indicates the need for further research in this area, which could help future interventions not only with respect to the promotion and prevention aspects related to language, but also to the development of public policies focused on child health and education.
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. We observe the way that people use language differently and try to explain why this is. This explaining is not always easy. Social context asks a what variations are there in a language and b why do they come about?
Social context is, interesting, exciting and fraught with difficulties. There are very few definite neat answers to things.
What we need to do is try to become aware of the way language varies according to who people are, what they are doing, and the attitudes they have to their language. We need to remember that there has been very little research into the Social context of BSL. This course may well raise more questions than it can answer, but at least we can become aware of the issues involved, even if we cannot come up with a simple answer.
Social context will think about variety within a language.
Everybody who speaks a language has a very wide linguistic repertoire unless they have very severe learning difficulties, or are learning the language as a foreign language. This means, they can use language in many different ways, depending on the situation they are in. The sort of language that they use also depends on their social background and social identity. We have said that Social context looks at the way relationship between society and people and language.
What is the relationship between language and people? There are 4 possibilities: For each of these 4 possibilities, try to think of some examples that show the different influences. When you have done so, look at some of the ideas I suggest below. When you have seen my ideas, maybe you can add some more of your own.
We can probably discount number 4: Neither interact with each other or influence each other. Some linguists would like to see language as something pure, abstract and untouched by the real world, like a mathematical formula, but that's just a convenient way of thinking about the structure of language.
As soon as we look at people using language we can see that the practical version of this abstraction is much more complex. In the end we will probably need to say that number three: Society and language influence each other Is the correct way to look at the relationship.
Speech and social behaviour are constantly interacting. All the time language is changing because of social contexts and social contexts cause the language to be changed. However, this does not mean that we should not explore the two other possibilities in some depth, because they can enlighten us about the relationship of language and society. There are two views here - one is more extreme than the other.
The first idea is that language is so powerful that it actually affects how you see the world; the second is that is influences the way we think and behave. A linguist called Whorf claimed language actually affects the way you see the world so language is like a pair of glasses through which we see everything. Whorf said that Hopi and European had different ways of talking about the world, so it influenced the way they saw the world.
European languages treat time as something that can be divided up into separate seconds, minutes and days. Trees and plates can be counted, but water and hope cannot and the language makes distinctions here.
The Hopi language treats time as indivisible so that Hopi will not talk about minutes and weeks. Trees and water are simply treated linguistically as non-discrete items.
The result of this claimed Whorf was that the Hopi genuinely see the world differently from Europeans. Their language structure makes them see the world differently. Unfortunately, for this theory, nobody asked the Hopi if they really saw the world differently.
It would seem that they see it just as we do. Would their world view shift depending on the language they were speaking? Another example of this theory is the often-cited fact that Eskimos have lots of different words for snow, so it means they actually see different kinds of snow, whereas we only see "snow". But this isn't really true because we can use words to describe the snow if we need to, e.
We aren't tuned to thinking about it that way, but if it becomes important, we can easily do so. We might not know the names of different makes of car, but still be able to tell the difference between a Fiat and a Rolls Royce, for all that. So could an Eskimo, even if the Inuit language didn't have the exact words. Besides which, Eskimos don't really have all those words for snow - it's just one of those pieces of information that everyone repeats and no-one has checked if it's true.
If you check, you find it isn't true! There is an important lesson here that linguists can learn: Any Hopi or Inuit could have told us immediately that this was a load of nonsense, but no-one ever thought to ask them. Many people, including linguists have done the same when describing sign languages, too. Often they have said things that people have come to believe when deaf signers have known it wasn't true. The point about the story is that this sort of control does not really work, and cannot work because if we do not have words for our thoughts, we just create them anyway.
Still, some politicians and businesses do like to believe that the language we use will affect the way we think about something. So, language doesn't affect what we can see in the world, but it is still possible that language affects people and society because maybe language still affects the way we can think.
Snell: Social class and language
Some people say that sign languages don't have abstract signs because all signs are iconic and so deaf people can't think about abstract things like love, bravery, inflation, investment for the future etc. IF this was true, then we could say this was an example of language affecting people. BSL can express anything that English can. A linguist called Basil Bernstein found that middle class children used an "elaborated" code of English in school.
This meant they used more abstract words, less context dependent words and more complicated sentences. Working class children seemed to use a more "restricted" code. This meant using more concrete words, more context-dependent and less complicated sentences. So some people but NOT Bernstein said this means working class children can't think in abstract ways because their language doesn't allow them to.
This, of course, is nonsense. Just as with deaf people. All it means is that the children used different ways of expressing the same thing. One example of the way that language is said to affect society is in sexist language.
The theory is that language affects the way we view men and women because it treats men and women differently. If you use words like chairman or fireman it implies only men can do the jobs, so women feel left out.
It is worth noting, though, that the form of the words can influence our view of things.