Below is a figure which I would like to call Hall's mini model of the world, as a young child sees it. Basically, there is a myriad of different patterns in the environment which the child must learn to recognize.
In the next figure, we see that some of the patterns of the world have been given names. This, we have learned from Vygotsky, his helpful to the child in that a named pattern is easier to recognize and is more resistant to masking.
But now the plot thickens because, someone is referring to a different set of patterns by the same name below).
Once children have abstracted the common bonds and found the similarity connection, they have the bases for a category. Then they discover many other things that fit into that category. Can you find all the "PRANS?" in Hall's world (below).
The generalization process has simplified the child's world immensely. Instead of having to learn a name for each pattern (20 in our little model world) the categories (inner language, if you will) have reduced the need to learn only four.
One might think that the generalization process was just a straight forward matter of classifying objects on the basis of common bonds.
This may be true except that there are a number of different strategies that children (and adults at times) use, which vary in their effectiveness. Vygotsky described four the first three of which are common among pre-schoolers: Syncretistic, Complexes, Pseudo Cencepts and Full Concepts.
Syncretistic: This is, for all intents and purposes, synonymous with random selection. If you ask me to divide up the class into two groups, I may randomly place people into each group and then name the groups "males" and "females."
This is a step forward in that I am recognizing the concept of a group, but it is not of great practical value and could actually create some problems if the group members happen to be teenagers.
The syncretistic part relates to the underlying, if not sub conscious, factors governing each selection. They are fleeting and not necessarily expressible in words. So if you ask a young child, who was sorting blocks, why he included certain blocks in a group, he might not be able to tell you. It could have been that he noticed a chip onk the first block, the second was easy to reach, the third was his favorite color and the fourth had a figure of a dog on it, etc.
Complexes: A little more defendable are categories formed through complexes. Here, a category is developed on the bases of a real bond. The problem is, that the bonds keep changing for each pair of objects. There are two kinds of Complexes: Chain and Associative.
Chain Complexes: The classic model for a Chain Complex is Dominos--the game, not Pizzas. There are blocks with two number on them (eg.,1 & 3). You may match another block to that because it has a the same number (1 & 4). To the second block you match a third because it has a 4 and 2; then a 2 and a 3; and a 3 and 1.
Another example using chain complexes is the logic behind the concept of "Why Fire Engines are red."
Fire Engines are red because they originally had four wheels and eight men on them. Four plus eight is twelve. Twelve inches is a ruler, and a ruler was Queen Elizabeth.
Queen Elizabeth was an ocean liner, which sailed the seven seas. Seas have fish and fish have fins; and the Finns were fighting the Russians (known at the beginning of the Century as the Reds), and Fire Engines are always "rush'en" here and there to fires, so they are red! You may detect some inadequacies in this logic, but remember, this is only a class II University..
But, enough of history, which is complex enough. Below is an example a complex concept, which was actually developed by a young person.
A bottle was associated with a lake, which was linked to ducks or a single bird, which eventually became linked to an emblem of a bird and finally a button.
This category was called "Qua," by the child. So "qua" could refer to any of these objects. Obviously, this is an improvement over the Syncretistic strategy, but still not particularly useful as a bases for understanding the world or for communicating ideas.
Associative Complex: The main difference between the Chain and an Associative Complex is that for the latter, an object serves as an anchor for all of the other related objects. Everything is matched to the anchor, but still the bonds keep changing between each pair.
For example, a bird (the anchor) might be associated with a worm, which they love to eat. It is also connected with an egg, which they are prone to lay; with Aunt Sally because they have two legs; with a bat because they can fly; and with a pillow, because they have feathers etc.
Little Edward may form this concept and call it "eggs." For him, the bird is called an egg, the bat is called egg, Aunt Sally is an egg, etc. Mother may wonder why, when she says, "Bring Daddy an egg" little Edward, brings in a squirmy little worm.
Actually, my son was a teenager when he did that, so he may have had some sub agenda there.
Pseudo Concept: This is very commonly encountered among young children. In Pseudo Concepts there is a central theme, like in the Associative Complex, but the bond(s) between its members is consistent.
There are, however, typically just a single or a few rather obvious (palpable) bonds. This makes for a situation where the child may appear to have a valid concept, but in reality is still confused.
For me, personally, as a six year old, I recognized a policeman by the visor he wore. And when my Dad pointed to one and asked, "What is that Edward," I appeared to respond knowledgeably. But unfortunately, the milk man, taxi drivers, doormen, soldiers, and half the populous in Hawaii whho had sensitive eyes, wore some kind of visor. I was convinced, unknown to my Dad, that we lived in a police state.
Another precious misconception of my youth, was that men were men because they had short hair and women were women because they had long hair. In the early l940's that was pretty much the rule so that to children then, it appeared to be the distinguishing bond for the sexes.
That, and the fact that only men wore pants and women skirts. (It was World War II that changed all that when the women took men's places in the factories and got their hair and skirts caught up in the machinery.)
At that time I was really loath to put on a skirt because I though it might actually change me (we didn't have Mr. Rogers in those day). Now, as an adult, of course, I do it with impunity.
And then, when I saw a rough looking bearded Scotsman in kilts and with long hair, it was a traumatic experience to think that there, for the grace of god, might be my or anybody's mother.
We all still retain some pseudo concepts, even as adults. This is partly because we often don't have enough information at our disposal or enough need or motivation to give it more thought.
It can be, unfortunately, the bases for unreasonable generalizations. I was fired once by a highly critical and overpowering boss who had a certain robust physical appearance.
For years after whenever I met someone who looked similar to him, I had unjust feelings of antagonism toward that person. On two occasions, when I ignored the feelings, it became happily apparent how misplaced those generalized intuitions were. On the other hand in the third case, when I married her, I was reminded that pseudo concepts can sometimes have some validity, if only by chance.
Full Concepts: The full concept is like pseudo concept except that there are typically many bonds linking its members. Some of these bonds may be actually concepts themselves.
Hence, a policemen wears a visor, carries a pistol and a night stick, rides in a police car or motorcycle, wears a uniform, shows a badge, gives tickets, and has a responsibility to protect our lives, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (within the law). We'll be a long time in waiting to get these services from our milkman.
Language itself, of course, will facilitate the development of adult concepts by drawing the childās attention to the many bonds that identify members of the group.
This is the greater burden of education. But, for the pre school child, it takes someone (a parent) with dedication and a willingness to spend a lot of time to provide the experiences and the conversation it takes build concepts.
As always, it boils down to the importance of Adult-child interactions as the super tool in the development of thought and language (to borrow Vygotsky's phrase). That interaction, I might add, doesn't include, unfortunately, watching the multitude of mindless sitcoms and cartoons on Television.
Come to think of it, my wife always uses the pet phrase "sitcom" when she calls me.
I always thought is was because I used to sit calmly (actually, she used the term comatose) in front of the TV for hours before our child was born, but I may have another pseudo concept to deal with here.
In the meantime, I would like to discuss how these concepts develop as the child explores his/her environment from birth to senescence. That is the topic of the next lesson.
