mtl3p

Pidgin to Creole - the nativization of ICT technologies

I’ve been thinking a bunch about what I said about the $100 dollar laptop project, hugh’s continuation of that discussion, and alison’s response – which I took to mean either that she was arguing that the use of information and communication technologies can’t have a large impact on the ontological and cognitive processes of users or that different ontological or cognitive processes don’t contain factors which would favor certain values over others (Alison – maybe/probably that’s a misrepresentation or simplification of your point. Apologies - I’m just using it to show my train of thought).

Now – if you take someone from a society that hasn’t gone through the scientific revolution / age of reason / the enlightenment and you find some way to get her to spend 20+ hours a week between the age of 6-14 yrs old interacting with a computer that is designed for her age group and that encourages and rewards exploration and intellectual curiosity – and I’m fairly sure that you’re going to have a large effect on that child’s capacity for abstract / rational / systematic thought. Also that child will be more likely to use that way of thought than s/he would have. They’ll have a predisposition towards it.

(I want to be clear on this – I am in no way saying that that’s a good thing. From my minor exposure to feminism alone I’m not going to come out defending “rational thought”. There are good and bad results of encouraging this way of thought – but if people are looking short term at least (<50 years) I can see how they could argue that these countries will be better off with a large number of youth that have this mindset.)

I’m pretty comfortable with this idea that use of technologies affects us (cognitively and ontologically - if used early and lots). Even if I’m not backing it up with footnotes, I think it holds some water.

What got me thinking tonight was a bit of this presentation that I was listening to about teaching hacker values in elementary and high-school. The following idea caught my attention:

“We’re going to have a shift. Because a lot of the people that are teaching computers, running schools, etc – they don’t have nearly the type of understanding of computer systems that people that are growing up with computers right now will have. So I’m optimistic for the future that when the people that are growing up and that have been growing up with computers as part of their everyday lives are school principals and running places, law enforcement, etc

We’re going to have a little more, hopefully a lot more of a valuing of really effective use and understanding of computer systems not just following some list of how you can accomplish some skill, etc.”

The idea of a shift from a society run by (some) people that have learned about computers to a society run by people that have grown up with them made me think of Steven Pinker’s The Language Instinct.

In it he talks about first versus second language acquisition. Roughly -first language acquisition is kids learning language(s) and second is adults’s language development.

Nativist linguistic theories hold that children learn through their natural ability to organize the laws of language. Chomsky says that they have a “Language Acquisition Device (LAD)” – an instinct or innate ability to acquire language. And “linguist Eric Lenneberg states that the crucial period of language acquisition ends around the age of 12 years. He claims that if no language is learned before then, it can never be learned in a normal and fully functional sense. This is known as the ‘Critical period Hypothesis.’”
(from wikipedia)

It’s not an unfamiliar idea to suspecte that kids are going to be better at all this computer stuff because they’ll have grown up with it – but I never connected it with the difference between primary and secondary language acquisition, or alternatively, pidgin and Creole.

“Pidgins are rudimentary languages improvised by non-native speakers; when pidgins creolize, however, they develop fully-formed and stable grammar structures, usually as a result of the pidgin being natively learned by children (see Nicaraguan Sign Language).”wikipedia link That process is also called “nativization”.

I think the idea is interesting that they will have a different ability to use computers and networks not only because they have been using it longer - but because they learned about it in a different way than us. No matter how good or comfortabl we are as keyboard jockeys - we will always be 2nd language speakers when it comes to this kind of technology. That’s not true for the kiddies.

I wonder what it would be like to be a native speaker of this stuff. I guess some of you know - those of you who were programming the age of 10 and who had logged lots of hours on bbs’s before age 12.

caveat 1) I am so far from an expert on linguistics or on the cognitive / developmental impact of new technologies – it’s not even funny. I probably have 30 hours of reading about linguistics under my belt. So what I’m saying about language should be viewed as an attempt to go in an interesting direction rather than a solid argument. However- I have spent 7 years teaching youth, seniors, people from non-western cultures (West Africa), and others how to use computers/the internet – so I do have ideas and experience because of that. However- this kind of question could be answered through some research.

caveat 2) and if that wasn’t enough – a few of the wikipedia pages I was on were identified as in need of “expert assistance”.

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 1st, 2005 at 2:57 am and is filed under Whatever. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

10 Responses to “Pidgin to Creole - the nativization of ICT technologies”

hugh Says:
December 1st, 2005 at 11:21 am
a nice chef’s knife, sitting in a kitchen with lots of food needing slicing and many people sitting around talking about, making, and eating really great food — and sharing it with everyone — is likely to be used by a kid who grows up in that environment for cooking - rather than assassinating.

Though it may be used for both.

For sure you understand computers — your language — differently if you grow up with them.

But you can’t use North American experience as a proxy for what will happen elsewhere, where the base societal structures will be so different.

we’ll see what happens.
mike Says:
December 1st, 2005 at 12:07 pm
1) i’m not saying that it will necessarily result in the same cognitive changes. I’m saying that it will result in cognitive changes - period.

2) re: can’t use NA experience. I’m not. First, at least give me the fact that it applies to Europe (so not just NA). There are geeks/engineering-types all over the world that have similarities in outlook, modes of perception. India, China, Japan.

3)thirdly - you’re definitely right that I didn’t present that strong an argument for what will happen in different cultures. this was more of an “interesting idea” post than a bullet-proof argument.
hugh Says:
December 1st, 2005 at 12:22 pm
i agree, I meant to say: “great post.”

I’m just struggling with what I think of this project - but for sure people who grow up, for instance, getting thier info from wikipedia are going to see the wrld so differently than others.
Steph Says:
December 1st, 2005 at 3:58 pm
Stimulating discussion. I’ll try to answer with my learning ninja skills :-).

About cognitive impact of computer. Well, i tend to agree with Micheal that that computer have a deeper cognitive impact than, let say, a spoon. Also, it is important to remind that cognitive impact doesn’t necessaryly implies positive ethical impact. Hackers values are not necessarly “good” as we can see in the writings of some well known hackers.

I attend to a presentation done by MIT media lab. The arguments they were giving for their laptop was very similar to the one Micheal is giving. They were talking about “computational expresiveness” as a way for the children to develop consciously.

Few problemes i see with this project of Laptop 100$.

1. First, the name. Why focussing so much on the price, as to put it the name? Couldn’t we talk about a “green computer”, or “computer for child”?

2. This project is, at my eyes, very ideological, as many things that goes out of Negroponte mouth. It postulate in some sense that the use of computer is the sole and sufficient means for the cognitive development of the children. But it some case, the first thing to give to the children for their cognitive development, is actually vitamins.

3. It is base on a specific cultural context where the use of computer is mainly individuals. Some country, especially african ones, or latin ones, do not have this individualistic culture, and ICT projects in these countries tend to me more collective, CyberCafé beeings the main thing. From what i understand of this project, the MIT media lab people didn’t investigate too much about the possible social and cultural impact in societies still mostly beeing collective.

But what do you mean by computers “ontologically” affect us?

For more discussion about this project, you can read this interesting thread on MISTICA:
http://funredes.org/mistica/castellano/emec/produccion/memoria13/subject.html#727
(the thread CMSI: 100$ OLPC)
mike Says:
December 1st, 2005 at 5:09 pm
hey steph.

“About cognitive impact of computer. Well, i tend to agree with Micheal that that computer have a deeper cognitive impact than, let say, a spoon.”

thanks. thanks a bunch, buddy. you’re real helpful. Between Alison cutting me up ninja style and your lame-ass support I think I’m just going to stay home.

;-)

about ontologically affecting us - i admit that i may be using the term wrong - but I was talking about how using the tools would affect what they think of the world - how they think it works, and how they conceive of cause/effect, individuals, communities, goals, etc.
mike Says:
December 1st, 2005 at 5:38 pm
steph - thank you so much for exposing me to the idea of lego! (in the first link he posted). that’s exactly what it’s like. Imagine finding some way to have 80% of the kids in a village play with a much richer set of lego toys for 20hours a week. If that wouldn’t change a large percentage of their outlooks - then you have a lot of families here spending money on educational toys that aren’t doing anything.

It’s not *better* to spend time playing with lego than playing make-believe, or telling each other stories. But it is different - and it will have different impacts on their development.
mike Says:
December 2nd, 2005 at 12:38 pm
ah - finally - what i meant to say about that knife comment. it’s the same thing as hammers. if you only have a hammer - everything starts to look like a nail.

switch to knives and ontology: if you are raised with a knife - everything looks like something to be cut (whether the person turns out to be a chef or an assasin is another question).

(this has to do with the discussion on hugh’s blog)
alison Says:
December 2nd, 2005 at 2:56 pm
I can’t tell now whether a computer is a knife, a spoon, or a set of lego blocks. In this context it’s definitely a way for all of us to spend lots of time talking to each other asynchronously. I cordially invite all of you to dinner sometime soon — I have a set of lovely chef’s knives that my background has encouraged me to see as a means of creating lovely food and nurturing my relationships with friends and colleagues.

Oddly, I consider the computer in much the same way. It lets me discuss all of this, feed my curiousity, play, learn, and work. What do you suppose this has to do with my upbringing? With the importance my family placed on creative thinking, experimentation, and exploration of non-traditional roles for girls? (yes, I had chef’s knives and computers — and lego too).

Listen, all I am saying here and elsewhere (see hugh’s blog) is that the tool is not the whole solution. The tool comes from and is shaped by its context. Children become who they are because of a range of things, but primary among them for me is what they gain from their peers, family, and society. To make a better world we need to make something more sustainable than merely a set of sharper knives.

come to dinner soon.
mike Says:
December 2nd, 2005 at 7:50 pm
i’m scared. i think you might be an assasin!

:-|
hugh Says:
December 4th, 2005 at 5:43 pm
i think the point is that internet-connected computers actually provide “peers, family, and society” from their screens, in ways that knives do not (if they had screens).

so a computer is not just a tool like any other, because it *also* can be taken to be a “place” and an “environment” and where society and culture happen, with interaction from its user.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Pidgin to Creole - the nativization of ICT technologies

10 Responses to “Pidgin to Creole - the nativization of ICT technologies”

Leave a Reply