Investigation of Oral Language: EML302 Assignment at Charles Sturt Uni

This report presents an analysis of a four-year-old child's oral language development within an early childhood education setting. The report, submitted as part of the EML302 Investigation: Literacy course at Charles Sturt University, examines the child's communication skills, drawing upon language samples from conversational settings. It explores the development of oral language, referencing key components like cooing, babbling, and sentence construction. The analysis incorporates theoretical frameworks such as Saussure's Signifier/Signified concept and Chomsky's Poverty of Stimulus, as well as Halliday's functions of language to interpret the child's linguistic behavior. Furthermore, the report critiques adult participation in the child's language development, emphasizing the roles of parents and educators, and referencing the Early Years Learning Framework and the work of Bruner and Vygotsky. The conclusion highlights the importance of partnerships between educators and parents in fostering holistic language development.

Bianca Sylvester 11684800 Investigation: Literacy
Student details
Name Bianca Sylvester Student Number 11684800
Course Bachelor of Education (Birth to Five)
Subject details
Subject Code EML302
Subject Name Investigation: Literacy
Subject Tutor Lisa Bayne and Cherly Peris
Assignment details
Assessment number Assessment 2 – oral Language
Due Date 30/08/2019 Word Count 1700
Declaration
I certify that the attached material is my original work. No other person’s work or ideas have been used
without acknowledgement. Except where I have clearly stated that I have used some of this material
elsewhere, I have not presented this for assessment in another course or unit at this or any other
institution. I have retained a copy of this assignment. I have read and understand the Charles Sturt
University Document ‘Academic Integrity at CSU: Academic Integrity Policy.’
https://policy.csu.edu.au/view.current.php?id=00387
Name Bianca Sylvester Date 30/08/2019

Bianca Sylvester 11684800 Investigation: Literacy
Name: Bianca Sylvester
Student Number: 11684800
Subject Code & Title: EML302 – Investigation: Literacy
Assignment Title: Oral Language
Value: 40%
Date Submitted: 30/08/2019
Actual Word Count (excluding references and appendices): 1770 words

Bianca Sylvester 11684800 Investigation: Literacy
Contextual Information.
This report is based on my focus child who goes by the name Clint (pseudonym), is
currently at the Wombats room in the centre and I am his Early Years Educator. Clint is four
years and five months old as of the date of this report. Most of his communication skills are
appropriate for his age and he displays strong connections with his peers at the centre. In all
other areas of development, Clint shows decent progress. Both of Clint’s parents have lived
in Australia their entire lives, are full time professionals and they speak English at home.
Clint has an eight-year-old elder brother back home.
Clint shows strong correlations with most of the learning outcomes highlighted in the
Early Years Learning Framework (Australian Government Department of Education
Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), 2009). He is active and enthusiastic about
his days at the centre. He likes to learn new things, although he would go back to old puzzles
and try to solve them. He is also quite inquisitive and curious about new things. he shows
strong communication skills, both verbal and nonverbal, can construct coherent sentences for
conveyance of meaning.
The language samples being used here are two different conversations that Clint is a
part of. The first sample (Appendix 1) is a conversational setting where Clint, his peer Lacey
and his educator are engaged in a conversation, while the second is a conversation between
Clint and his educator.
Development of Oral Language.
Given that the first three to four years of the life is identified as crucial for oral
language development, Clint can be looked at as an ideal child for understanding child oral
language development. The primary components of early childhood speech like the use of
cooing and babbling (Stark, 1978) sets the base for the development of more advanced

Bianca Sylvester 11684800 Investigation: Literacy
attributes like forming words from sounds, followed by construction of coherent sentences
(ibid). It also helps in developing fluency in future learning (Fernald & Weisleder, 2011;
Lonigan, Schatschneider & Westberg, 2008). At age 4, Clint is showing signs of proper and
well directed oral language skills. One more thing that can be evidenced from the transcript is
the difference in language use between Clint and Lacey. While both are almost the same age,
Lacey is of Asian origin and her English speaking skills are developed weaker than that of
Clint’s (Hoff et al., 2012).
As seen in appendix 1, Clint in his play session with Lacey, is expected to build
something out of Lego. In the segment he asks if he could have the red Lego. This query is
not preceded by an immediate intimation about colours, indicating that Clint has well
developed understanding of different colours in his schema (Silven, Niemi & Voeten, 2002).
He can articulate as well as connect his articulations well with the context, that is Lego
bricks.
The Early Years Learning Framework highlights in its Outcome 5 that children are
effective communicators (DEEWR, 2009). The primary function of communication is to
ensure that there is a correct and directed flow of message from one end to the other. Clint’s
statement that he wants the red Lego not only indicates that he is effectively communication
what he wants, but he correctly uses the adjective ‘red’ further indicating that he knows how
to be specific (Waxman & Leddon, 2011).
Furthermore, if we look at Clint’s conversation in both the contexts (Appendices 1
and 2), we can correlate Clint’s actions with the elements that are highlighted in Outcome 5.
The first element states that children are able to engage in both verbal and nonverbal
interaction for a multitude of purposes. In the speech segment, Clint points at the bucket and
asks me to give him the bucket and he will pick up the red and blue bricks himself. He is

Bianca Sylvester 11684800 Investigation: Literacy
unable to articulate the word ‘bucket’, so he stops, points at it and refers to it as ‘that’. It is
interesting to note this behaviour because from my prior interaction with Clint, I know that he
knows the word basket. In this case, he is pointing towards the bucket, but he knows that it is
not a basket and therefore he does not use the word, even wrongly, despite knowing that Lego
bricks are also kept in baskets. Not only does this indicate a strong correlation with element
5.1 of outcome 5, but also with element 5.4 (DEEWR, 2009) which states that children begin
to understand how symbols and patterns work. Thus, in his schema, Clint has associated the
word basket with a symbolic representation of an actual basket but hasn’t been able to do so
because of lack of proper input, or under-utilised memory functions.
Language Functions.
Drawing connection with the previous section, two theoretical approaches can be
correlated with Clint’s use of language. Firstly, the concept of Signifier and Signified as
introduced by linguist Saussure. The concept states that there is an explicit correlation
between the actual object (Signifier) and the sound we associate with that object to denote it
(Signified). What is signified is therefore the mental concept of the actual object. Clint’s
limited vocabulary is evidence of the fact that the Signifiers in his environment has not
established an explicit connection with the mental image in his brain.
In relation to that, the second theory that can be consulted here is Chomsky’s Poverty
of Stimulus. It states that in Child Language Acquisition, the child is not exposed to linguistic
data that is rich enough for them to acquire every feature of their language. In the second
transcript (Appendix 2), we can see another instance where Clint has replaced the word with
his interpretation (hula hoops with colour circles). This facet is important to explore because
it not only reinforces his adherence to outcome 5.4 (DEEWR, 2009), but also establishes the
fact that, even with his limited linguistic knowledge, Clint can tweak the syntactic

Bianca Sylvester 11684800 Investigation: Literacy
construction of his sentence to meet the semantic demands (Fernald & Weisleder, 2011).
Language development in children is a steady process and children as young as Clint are
often unable to utilise the comparatively ostentatious words from their lexicon to support
their message. Therefore, they often replace those words with interpretations of their own in
order to make the other person understand what they are saying.
Clint uses his language for the same functions. Looking at Clint’s use of language
under Halliday’s functions of language (Halliday, 1975), we can see that Clint’s interaction
with Lacey and me in the transcripts, connects to the following functions:
Instrumental: Clint asks if he could have the red Lego (Appendix 1, line 1).
Regulatory: Clint points at the bucket and tells me to give it to him (Appendix 1, line
3).
Interactional: Clint mentions that he does not like building bridge, instead he wants
to make tower (Appendix 1, line 11).
Personal: Clint mentions that he finds building bridge, boring (Appendix 1, line 11).
Heuristic: When unsure about the pronunciation of Hula Hoops, Clint asks to clarify
(Appendix 2, line 5).
Representational: Clint uses his own construction (colour circle) to refer to hula
hoops, because he doesn’t know what they are called (Appendix 2, line 3).
Joan Tough also establishes a similar understanding, stating that children attach their
own linguistic inputs to concepts and experiences. This is the way children use languages
prior to being able to draw correlations and references from existing and more accepted
linguistic constructions.

Bianca Sylvester 11684800 Investigation: Literacy
Critique of adult participation.
While talking about adult participation in the linguistic development of the child, it is
important to consider both adults as parents and adults as early education teachers. While the
child’s active developmental support is usually provided at the centre, most of the child’s
passive linguistic development occurs at the home setting. Talking to parents and other elders
back home plays crucial roles in helping children develop their oral language skills
(Huttenlocher et al., 2010). In fact, developmental researchers have consistently been
interested in researching and documenting intra group and inter group interactions and their
roles in child language acquisition. The most important scholars to consider in this case are
Bruner and Vygotsky. Both posited that learning in children happens in a socio–cultural
context where adult scaffolding is identified as important catalysts to strengthen children’s
higher levels of cognition and action. Clint, being four years old lies in the iconic stage as
presented by Bruner, where his mental schema is being structurally strengthened (Bornstein
& Bruner, 2014). It is understandable that the child will not be able to internalise all
environmental inputs at once, meaning that active adult supervision is required. According to
Vygotsky, children as learners can learn effectively if their Zone of Proximal Development
(the phase between scaffolded action and independent action) is put to good use by the adults
(Shabani, Khatib & Ebadi, 2010). Adult participation is therefore an important requirement in
child language development.
There are quite a few things that adults can do with respect to helping children
develop their oral language skills (Topping, Dekhinet & Zeedyk, 2013). Starting from
reading them books and stories during bedtime to constantly talking to them throughout the
day, adults can ensure that children actively continue using language in a conversational
setting. Furthermore, eliciting responses from the children are also important (ibid). Adults
can help children develop their oral language skills further by introducing them to new

Bianca Sylvester 11684800 Investigation: Literacy
concepts and objects every day, naming them and helping them remember the name by
repetition and use in conversational settings (Silven, Niemi & Voeten, 2002).
Conclusion.
Partnership in the Early Years Learning Framework is identified as an important
principle which reinforces the idea that children alone cannot learn and are in constant need
of adult support not only for knowing what to learn, but also to learn appropriately,
interactively and in a manner that helps build their cognitive, emotional as well as cultural
competencies. Yet, not all parents are equally competent in their own ways of understanding
as well as making children understand and internalise the required literacy, numeracy and
cultural inclusion attributes. Therefore, a deliberate and systematic relationship between the
educators and the parents are important. The educators are trained professionals in the
childcare domain and understand what is appropriate for children in terms of age, cultural
accuracy and developmental milestones. They are also aware of national policies and
standards and possess the understanding of learning outcomes as well as have access to
resources and materials that would help the children reach those developmental milestones.
Partnering with early childhood educators can be fruitful for the parents as they will be able
to concentrate more on their profession while also providing a sound opportunity for a
holistic oral language development of their children.

Bianca Sylvester 11684800 Investigation: Literacy
References.
Australian Government Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations for
the Council of Australian Governments (2009). Belonging, being and becoming: The
early years learning framework for Australia. Retrieved from
https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/belonging_being_and_bec
oming_the_early_years_learning_framework_for_australia.pdf
Bornstein, M. H., & Bruner, J. S. (2014). Interaction in human development. Psychology
Press.
Fernald, A., & Weisleder, A. (2011). Early language experience is vital to developing fluency
in understanding. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early
literacy research (Vol. 3), 3–19. New York: Guilford Press.
Halliday, M.A.K (1975). Learning how to mean: Exploration in the development of
language. London: Edward Arnold
Hoff, E., Core, C., Place, S., Rumiche, R., Señor, M., & Parra, M. (2012). Dual language
exposure and early bilingual development. Journal of Child Language, 39(01), 1-27.
Huttenlocher, J., Waterfall, H., Vasilyeva, M., Vevea, J., & Hedges, L. V. (2010). Sources of
variability in children’s language growth. Cognitive psychology, 61(4), 343–365.
Lonigan, C. J., Schatschneider, C., & Westberg, L. (2008). Identification of children’s skills
and abilities linked to later outcomes in reading, writing, and spelling. In The National
Early Literacy Panel, Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early
Literacy Panel (pp. 55–106). Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
Shabani, K., Khatib, M., & Ebadi, S. (2010). Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development:
Instructional Implications and Teachers' Professional Development. English language
teaching, 3(4), 237-248.

Bianca Sylvester 11684800 Investigation: Literacy
Silven, M., Niemi, P., & Voeten, M. J. (2002). Do maternal interaction and early language
predict phonological awareness in 3-to 4-year-olds? Cognitive development, 17(1),
1133–1155.
Stark, R. E. (1978). Features of infant sounds: The emergence of cooing. Journal of Child
Language, 5(3), 379-390.
Topping, K., Dekhinet, R., & Zeedyk, S. (2013). Parent–infant interaction and children’s
language development. Educational Psychology, 33(4), 391-426.
Waxman, S. R., & Leddon, E. M. (2011). Early word-learning and conceptual development:
Everything had a name, and each name gave birth to a new thought. In U. Goswami
(Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (p. 180–
208). Wiley-Blackwell.

Bianca Sylvester 11684800 Investigation: Literacy
Appendix 1
Lego Construction– Clint and Lacey
Field Tenor Mode
Focus child: Clint
Key Educator:
Bianca Sylvester
Wombats room, floor, on a mattress,
playing with Lacey using Lego bricks.
There is a picture of a bridge made of
Lego, on the mattress. There are a few
pieces of Lego bricks on the mattress.
Each child is holding one or two in their
hands. There is a bucket full of Lego
bricks near the educator.
Clint and Lacey are talking
about how to use the Lego
bricks to make a tower. But
Lacey reminds that they
already built tower last
week. Educator tells them
they must build bridge.
Mode of communication is
primarily oral and
supported by gestures.
Transcription
Line 1: Clint “Can I have red… red Lego”
Line 2: Bianca “Of course you can”
Line 3: Clint “No. Give me the… give me that. I will take red Lego, and blue Lego”
(points at bucket with index finger)
Line 4: Lacey “I wants blue Lego also”
Line 5: Clint “OK”
Line 6: Bianca “Do you know how to connect Lego bricks?”
Line 7: Clint “Yes, like this. We will make tower. Taaaaaaaaall tower” (length emphasis
on tall)
Line 8: Lacey “We make tower last week. I don’t wanna make tower. ”
Line 9: Clint “We will make tower again then”
Line 10: Bianca “you have to make a bridge Clint. That bridge” (I point at the picture of the
bridge on the floor)
Line 11: Clint “But bridge is so boring. I don’t wanna make bridge.”
Line 12: Lacey “I wa… I wanna make bridge.”
Line 13: Bianca “But its something new. Why do you think it’s boring?”
Line 14: Lacey “I wannna make bridge. I WANNA MAKE BRIDGE” (Almost screaming)
Line 15: Clint “Because…. Because….. Bridge… I… I don’t wanna make bridge”
Line 16: Bianca “Okay, then let’s make a deal”
Line 17: Lacey “What?”
Line 18: Bianca “Lacey will build a bridge and Clint will build two towers. Then we will
join the towers with the bridge”
Line 19: Clint “Okay. That is nice.”
Line 20: Lacey “Yes. I do that Clint make tower.”

Bianca Sylvester 11684800 Investigation: Literacy
Appendix 2
Clint plays with Hula Hoop – Clint and educator
Field Tenor Mode
Peers: Clint, Jeremy, Lucy,
Randall, Shane (Pseudonyms)
Key Educator: Bianca
Sylvester
In the playground with hula
hoops. Spontaneous play
Conversations in the
playground ‘free play’
interactive with Clint and his
peers. About initiating a
game.
Transcription
Line 1: Clint “Here. Look at me spin.”
Line 2: Bianca “What are we doing”
Line 3: Clint “We are… we are spinning colour circles”
Line 4: Bianca “They are called Hula Hoops. What are they called”
Line 5: Clint “Oola… oola what?”
Line 6: Bianca “Hoola hoops. Say Haaaa”
Line 7: Clint “Haaa”
Line 8: Bianca “good, now say hooooo”
Line 9: Clint “Hoooo”
Line 10: Bianca “laaaa”
Line 11: Clint “laaaa” (laughing at this point)
Line 12: Bianca “good. Now say Hoop”
Line 13: Clint “Hoop”
Line 14: Bianca “Hooo-laaa-hoop”
Line 15: Clint “Hooo-laaa-hoop”
Line 16: Bianca “good. So what are we spinning?”
Line 17: Clint “Hula hoop”
Line 18: Bianca “Right. And how are we spinning?”
Line 19: Clint “Like this” (puts hoop around waist and tries to move in circles)
Line 20: Clint “oh no. it fall again”
Line 21: Bianca “oh no, never mind we will try again shall we?”
Line 22: Clint “yes” (picks up hula hoop). “Its too big”
Line 23: Bianca “Do you want a small one?”
Line 24: Clint “No. I want this” (tries again with the same result. )