Skip to main content
Log in

The Emergence of Symbolic Principles: The Distribution of Mind in Early Sign Making

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biosemiotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper considers the extent to which the earliest stages of learning about systems of inscription requires not just individual mental effort, but effort that is distributed across a wide physical and intellectual environment. It is particularly concerned with how children under the age of three learn about notational systems, including writing, and examines parallels with the evolution of written systems. It considers the position that children gain knowledge incrementally over the early months and years of life, supported by a commonly accepted view that learning is a mental activity in which knowledge accumulates hierarchically in the minds of individual children, starting with smallest parts of the system. The paper presents evidence to the contrary, suggesting that the early learning of inscriptional systems is associated not just with individual minds, but with social and cultural cognition that is dispersed across minds, bodies, tools, and material environments. It presents data and evidence from a small study of the sign-making of children under the age of three that indicates that children of this age already use notations purposefully in the construction of signs that are intentional, multimodal, and unbounded, and that already have features associated with conventional systems of inscription. In their early sign-making they use certain underlying principles of symbolic reference associated with conventional systems, including the use of ‘generic’ structures derived from social, bodily, and material experience. Central to this process are networks of interactions between co-participants, tools, materials, and the physical environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Economic and Social Research Council RES-000-22-0599 Grammaticisation in Early Mark Making: a Multimodal Investigation.

  2. Arnheim (1969, 1974), and Kress and Van Leeuwen (1996) discuss and exemplify the variety and complexity of drawing and other modes of visual representation.

References

  • Anning, A. (2003). Pathways to the graphicacy club: the crossroad of home and pre-school. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 3(1), 5–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aporta, C. (2004). Routes, trails and tracks: trail breaking among the Inuit of Igloolik. Inuit Studies, 28(2), 9–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aporta, C. (2009). The trail as home: Inuit and their pan-arctic network. Human Ecology, 37, 131–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual thinking. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

  • Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and visual perception: a psychology of the creative eye. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

  • Athey, C. (1990). Extending thought in young children. London: Paul Chapman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bissex, G. L. (1980). Gnys at Wrk: A child learns to read and write. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butterworth, G. (2003). Pointing is the royal road to language for babies. In S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: where language, culture, and cognition meet. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, M. M. (1976). Young fluent readers. London: Heinemann Educational Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, S. (2005). Intention and meaning in young children’s drawing. JADE, 24(2), 115–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damasio, A. (2000). The feeling of what happens. London: Vintage.

  • Deacon, T. W. (1997). The symbolic species. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2007). Practical guidance for the early years foundation stage: setting the standards for learning, development, and care for children from birth to five. London: DfES Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enfield, N. J., & Levinson, S. C. (2006). Roots of human sociality. Oxford: Berg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erikson, F. (2004). Talk and social theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Favareau, D. (2007). The evolutionary history of biosemiotics, in Introduction to Biosmiotics, Barbieri, M. (Ed) (1-67) Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Ferreiro, E., & Teberosky, A. (1982). Literacy before schooling. Exeter NH: Heinemann Educational Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, S. R. (2001). A history of writing. London: Reaktion Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flewitt, R., Hampel, R., Hauck, M., & Lancaster, L. (2009). What are multimodal data and transcription? In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, S. (2005). How the body shapes the mind. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskins, S. (2006). Cultural perspectives on infant-caregiver interaction. In N. J. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of human sociality. Oxford: Berg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaur, A. (2000). Literacy and the politics of writing. Bristol: Intellect Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gogate, L. J., Bahrick, L. E., & Watson, J. D. (2000). A study of multimodal motherese: the role of temporal synchrony between verbal labels and gestures. Child Development, 71(4), 878–894.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Golomb, C. (1992). The child's creation of a pictorial world. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J. (2004). Consciousness: creeping up on the hard problem. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, R. (1986). The origin of writing. London: Duckworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, R. (2000). Rethinking writing. London: The Athlone Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Havelock, E. A. (1976). Origins of Western literacy. Toronto: OISE Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hereford, W. H. (1904). The student’s Froebel. London: Isbister and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houser, N., & Kloesel, C. (Eds) (1992). The essential peirce. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

  • Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, E. (2004). Distributed cognition. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2068–2072.

  • Ingold, T. (2007). Lines: a brief history. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jewitt, C. (2009). The routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. London: Routledge.

  • Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: a developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge Mass.: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessen, W., Mussen, P. H., & Carmichael, L. (1983). Handbook of child psychology: Vol.1, History, theory and methods. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G. (1997). Before writing: rethinking the paths to literacy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G. (2000). Early spelling: between convention and creativity. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality. London: Routledge.

  • Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: the grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.

  • Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse. London: Arnold.

  • Lancaster, L. (2001). Staring at the page: the functions of gaze in a young child’s interpretation of symbolic forms. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 1, 2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, L. (2003). Moving into literacy: how it all begins. In N. Hall, J. Larson, & J. Marsh (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood literacy. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, L. (2007). Representing the ways of the world: how children under three start to use syntax in graphic signs. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 7(2), 123–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, L., & Roberts, M. (2006). Grammaticisation in early mark making: a multimodal investigation. End of Award Report: RES-000-22-0599.

  • Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. 1). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1986). Visualization and cognition: thinking with eyes and hands. Knowledge and Society, 6, 1–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luria, A. (1983). The development of writing in the child. In M. Martlew (Ed.), The psychology of written language: developmental and educational perspectives. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshack, A. (1972). Cognitive aspects of upper Neolithic engraving. Current Anthropology, 13(3/4), 445–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, J. (1994). Helping children to draw and paint in early childhood: children and visual representation. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, D. (1994). The world on paper. Cambridge: Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. D. (1993). Distributed intelligence and designs for learning. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individual’s cognition: a dynamic interactional view. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schamndt-Besserat. (2002). Signs of life. Odyssey January/February 6–7, 63.

  • Stern, D. N. (1985). The interpersonal world of the child. London: Karnac.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stillwagon Swan, L., & Goldberg, L. J. (2009). Biosymbols: symbols in life and mind. December: Biosemiotics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrey, J. W. (1973). Learning to read without a teacher: a case study. In F. Smith (Ed.), Psycholinguistics and reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trevarthen, C. (1995). The child’s need to learn a culture. Children and Society, 9(1), 5–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trevarthen, C. (2004). Learning about ourselves from children: why a growing human brain needs interesting companions. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, M. K., & Tronick, E. Z. (1994). Beyond the face: an empirical study of infant affective configurations of facial, vocal, gestural, and regulatory behaviors. Child Development, 65, 1503–1515.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lesley Lancaster.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lancaster, L. The Emergence of Symbolic Principles: The Distribution of Mind in Early Sign Making. Biosemiotics 7, 29–47 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-013-9195-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-013-9195-3

Keywords

Navigation