Deixis, Buhler and the Problem of Ambiguity (2)

[Salinas17 at aol.com]

Tom wrote:
--The CHILDES transcript of communication in the first year of life shows 
that the prerequisite to reference is the care-giver's intense exercise in 
establishing JOINT ATTENTION. The reason why this will become first deictic 
reference is obvious--in early childhood, all communication is about 
here-and-now, you-and-I, this-and-that accessible to both of us in the shared speech 
situation.   There is nothing confusing to the infant in these learning 
sessions.--

Tom - Very appreciative of your wisdom on all this.   And I would not 
contest with you on any of these points, except one -- because it is important to 
my premise at this point -- though of course I always stand to be 
corrected.

How could it be that: "There is nothing confusing to the infant in these 
learning sessions"?

If that is the case, is it the only instance where experiencing a new 
environment isn't confusing to a human (or an animal)?   Doesn't some confusion 
come before every learning situation?

Perhaps it's too early to speak of ambiguity (my point) when we are only 
talking about joint attention rather than using language, but certainly if 
it's learned it should be a matter of hit or miss from early on.   Is mom 
pointing to the toy bear or the ribbon on the bear or the chair the bear is on -- 
or is she pointing out that the bear is sitting on a chair -- or am I being 
asked if I want the bear? Whether or not that confusion is disturbing or 
not, it is fairly easy for mom to be unclear at this early stage in our 
communications. 

(After all, pointing or gesturing or saying "look at this" doesn't always 
solve the problem of what someone is asking me to attend to, much less a 
child.   Is it the lamp?   Is there something wrong with the lamp?   Is it the 
lampshade?   Is it the bulb?   Oh, it's the fact that the light was left on, 
wasting electricity.   Never would have guessed.)

In any case, if I'd guess what might motivate a child to seek joint 
attention, one thing would be that it to some degree alleviates confusion.   
Attention is after all as much a matter of exclusion as anything else.   We need 
to see the forest and not the trees, or vice versa.   Joint attention gives a 
child something specific to attend to, rather than attending to everything 
that's shiny or colored or in motion -- and even in a poor environment, that 
can be many many things.

A bigger question.   Let's imagine a child who is never invited at all to 
join in joint attention with a care giver.   Would such a child be incapable 
of learning language?

We have a simple technical, mechanical reason to avoid gross ambiguity in 
the language we speak with one another.   Otherwise we can't share the same 
words or even the same syntax.   I suspect that the inability to share 
attention is an even deeper mechanical problem and one that would undermine 
language use.   And to that extent I don't think I am disagreeing with you.

Regards and thanks,
steve long




























**************
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See Yours in Just 2 Easy 
Steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322941x1201367178/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&
bcd=Mayfooter51809NO115)