Legocentric Legocentric Speech: Speech:

A Study of L. S. Vygotsky’s A Study of L. S. Vygotsky’s concept of inner speechconcept of inner speech

Dimitri Carranza & Sylvia Whiteacre

Child Growth and DevelopmentSpring 2009

Lev Semenovich Vygotsky• Born 1896 in Western

Russia – Belorussia• Law degree at Moscow

University• No actual formal

training in psychology• Collaborated with

Alexander Luria and Alexei Leontiev

• Died of tuberculosis 1934

Child v. Chimp• Chimpanzee Age– ‘technical thinking’ or practical

intelligence– Studies by Buhler, Shapiro and Gerkes,

Guillaime and Meyerson

• Guillaime and Meyerson– study of people with aphasia

Speech Makes the Difference!

1. Freedom- mediative methods (indirect)

2. Decreases impulsive and spontaneous operations– Ape- series on incontrollable attempts– Child• Plans through speech• Carries out prepared solution through overt

activity

Speech Makes the Difference!

3. Controls child’s behavior– Able to become subject and object of

their own behavior

Masters situation with the help of speech, after mastering his behavior (Valsiner & Veer, p.109)

Zone of Proximal Development

• Three stages: Situation definition, intersubjectivity, semiotic mediation

• Semiotic Mediation

– Refers to the use of psychological sign (Psych tools---self) systems developed by the culture to foster communication and thinking (Dixon-Krauss, p.117).

Internalization• The progressive transfer from external

social activity mediated by signs to internal control (Dixon-Krauss, p.10)

• Object-related, other-regulated, self-regulated

• Example: Child learning the hand raising gesture as a sign for acquisition of information (Powell, 1993. p.10)

• “First it appears between two people as an interpsychological category, and then within the child as an intrapsychological category” (Vygotsky 1981, p.163).

Egocentric and Inner Speech

• Egocentric speech

– The link between external social speech and internal thought (Dixon-Krauss, p.11)

• Inner speech

– Soundless speech

– Thought connected with words and thinking in pure meanings (Vygotsky, Thought and Language, p.149).

Piaget v. VygotskyVygotsky

1. Social environment helps child’s cognitive development

2. Human activity is a result of social learning

3. Highly variable development – Depends on cultural

experience with the environment

Piaget

1. Most important source of cognitive development is the child

2. Child acts independently and discovers what the world has to offer

3. Universal cognitive change

The Problem• At what age will egocentric speech

show dominant representation and when will it become internalized into Vygotsky’s notion of inner speech?

• Will the results reflect Vygotsky’s theoretical age range when egocentric speech rises and declines?

HypothesisIn comparing the use of egocentric

speech among the children evaluated, we hypothesized that the closer the child is to ages 5-6, the greater the

likelihood that egocentric speech will be evident and increase in accordance

to Vygotsky’s theory.

Setting of Evaluation• Children were interviewed in their homes

• One child was interviewed at Sylvia’s house

Research Method• Homeschooled children ages 5-8 years old

• Distributed a Lego kit with modified instructions to the child being tested.

• Repeated the following: “Here is a set of Lego building blocks and a set of instructions to build a house. Carefully follow the instructions one page at a time. Completely finish one page before moving on to the next page. Try the best you can and good luck.”

Research Method• If the child requested help from

the instructor, the reply was “Try the best you can to follow the instructions to make the house.”

• The instructor helped the child finish the task (if necessary), and thanked the child.

Lego Task• 16 Steps

• A picture which adds on at each step

• Step 6 appeared to be the critical point– Arrows

Scoring of Data• Steps for Scoring:

– Score the first fifteen minutes of each child.

– Oral Speech relevant to task; oral speech not relevant to task; amount of speech in relation to task; speech direction

– Add the first two boxes for the overall amount of speech during the task

Scoring of DataOral speech relevant to task:

• What they say that is relevant to the task. 5 (High), 1 (Low).

Oral speech not relevant to task:

• Speech not at all relevant to the Legos task. 5 (High), 1 (Low).

Scoring of DataAmount of speech in relation to task:

• The number of the section (1-3) which included the most speech.

 Speech Direction:

• A higher number means that a child is speaking more to themselves, a lower number means that the child is speaking more to me.

Age 5• Jake

– Used much relevant oral speech

• Ellie

– Used little relevant oral speech

Age 6• Kyle

– Continuous narration

– Pretended the Lego Man was the builder

• Veronica

– Had to start over on step 6

• Joy

– Irrelevant stories

Age 7• Mary Joy

– Pointed out threat to validity

• Noah

– No sign of audible speech

Age 8• Addie

– Signs of sibling rivalry

• Isaac

– Very confident

ResultsJake (5)

Ellie (5)

Veronica (6)

Kyle

(6)

Joy (6)

Mary Joy (7)

Noah (7)

Addie (8)

Isaac (8)

Oral speech

relevant to task

5 3 5 5 1 5 1 3 1Oral

speech not

relevant 1 3 1 1 5 1 1 2 1

Amount of speech in relation to task

1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1Speech

direction 5 3 2 5 1 1 5 4 5

Results• Younger children talked more• The first five minutes included the

greatest amount of speech• Relevancy of speech to task did not

seem to affect speech direction

Threats to Validity• Problems with coloration on the

instructions

• Outside interference

• Irregularities in administration

• Subjective analysis of data

• Maturation

Conclusions• Our findings agreed with Vygotsky in

that the younger children used more audible speech

• Curvilinear trend• In general, the speech was more

relevant than irrelevant• As the task advanced, less audible

speech was used–Mastery of instructions

QuestionsQuestions??