Early literacy research has certainly not ignoredquestions about young children's dialogues with oth-ers around written language, or even the impact ofthese dialogues on literacy development (e.g.,Dyson, 1989; Eldredge, Reutzel, & Hollingsworth,1996; Ninio & Bruner, 1978; Whitehurst et al.,1999). But, there are many questions not yet an-swered or that merit further research, and relevant

focus on symbols as used to communicate withothers. This point comes through not only in themore socially oriented chapters but also in thosewith a more classic cognitive thrust (Gentner &Loewenstein; Goldin-Meadow). Common in the ac-quisition of different symbolic systems are the inter-actions with others, around and within that system.

symbolic dia-logues in spurring development of symbolic commu-nication and its attendant cognitive consequences.Despite the substantially different contexts

semiotic

In the concluding chapter, editors Amsel andByrnes do a laudable job

Goldin-Meadow characterizes as imagistic and analogrepresentation. Further, Goldin-Meadow reviewsevidence associating gesture with learning, problemsolving, and memory. Gesture is not language, but itaffects thought.

Goldin-Meadow then turns to gesture when itdoes accompany conventional oral language amonghearing children. Her evidence suggests that such ges-tures are idiosyncratic and are not typically even in-tentional.

These children havenot been exposed to conventional language. Herpremise is that these unique cases allow us to examinewhat happens when thought is unaffected by expo-sure to oral language

effect of language onthought, but, on the other hand, she also reminds us,with a compelling data set

hat does this chapter have to do with earlyliteracy? Broadly speaking, as with the book as awhole, discussions ofsymbolic communication de-velopment of any kind are relevant to early literacybecause literacy is about symbolic communication. Itseems likely that there are lessons about development

imply a conse-quence of cognitive development, but actually spurscognitive development. Inscription and mathematiz-ing cause new ways to

for the develop-ment of model-based reasoning: inscription andmathematizing. Inscription refers to symbolic toolssuch as graphs, diagrams, and maps that are used torepresent the world. Mathematizing

hich Lehrer and Schaubleview as a form ofsymbolic communication and onethat is especially important to development in math-ematics and science

The program of research addressed in thischapter focuses on how children become literate inmodel-based reasoning

ocially Shared Symbolic System(SSSS

explain the acquisition of symbolic sys-tems. The case under greatest consideration in thechapter involves developing shared meanings forindividual words

We are reminded in these chap-ters about how much commonality exists among is-sues and concerns in research on the acquisition oforal and written language,

hese three chapters are focused most distinct-ly, though not exclusively, on oral language

The chapter is, perhaps, less respon-sive than the others to those questions.

he uses differentmethodological tools and includes children from adifferent age group. We believe their work should beviewed as complementary, not competitive.

Amsel and Byrnes argue compellingly, achild must coordinate multiple representational sys-tems. Multiple systems structure and are structuredby thought. Ferreiro and Teberosky s (1982) workillustrated clearly the complexity of sorting out sym-bolic systems, as children work to understand writ-ten language as distinct from and complementary tooral language, number systems, and related concepts.In the introduction, Scholnick suggests a part-nership metaphor for conceptual, linguistic, andnotational systems:

search onother symbol systems, even those associated withlearning in mathematics and science, as in Lehrerand Schauble's work, merits inclusion as well. We donot want to miss the forest of symbolic systems forthe tree of written language.

nly Daiute's chapter in this volume focusesalmost exclusively on written language

Lehrer and Schaubleare grappling with similar questions when consider-ing both the costs and benefits of inscription in thedevelopment of model-based reasoning

That interest is centered in determining whatcosts and benefits accrue from these different sourcesfor learning, when one is better suited than the otherfor a particular learning goal

ndeed, we found ourselves making many con-nections to early literacy when reading the Lehrer andSchauble chapter on mathematics and science

nscriptions such as diagramsand maps is quite relevant

inscriptional and mathematical literacy.

o use Ellin Scholnick's example (from theIntroduction), "Calling roses and daisies 'flowers' in-duces children to search for their similarities" (p. 14).The kinds of similarities recognized, however, varyover time and across domain. For example, whenasked to interpret the statement "A tape recorder islike a camera," 6-years-olds tended to identify similarsurface attributes (e.g., noting that they are the samecolor), whereas 9-year-old children and adults tendedto identify similarities in Ranction, that is, that theyboth can record something for later use (Centner,1988, as cited in the chapter, pp. 96-97).

Centner and Loewenstein's chapter focuses onthe development of analogical processing. Makingcomparisons and seeking similarities are posited asimportant vehicles in cognitive and language devel-opment.

Budwig's emphasis on conjoiningtwo bodies of work: in this case research on theory ofmind and research on language acquisition. Suchconjoining of theoretical perspectives can also befruitful, we believe, in connecting different bodies ofwork informing early literacy research

like want occurs within these functional contexts.When considering this chapter, we drew paral-lels with Halliday's (e.g., 1976) systemic functionallinguistics and other work that has brought to theforeground the importance of language function inunderstanding written language acquisition.

Budwig discusses the needsand situations that give rise to "desire talk"

he case givengreatest attention regards acquisition of mental stateterms such as want.

Budwig's chapter presents what she calls adevelopmental-functionalist approach

that the SSSS model is intended to apply sim-ilarly to other symbolic systems

he clearly is dissatisfied withtraditional explanations from cultural theory and re-search about how enculturation or how appropria-tion of cultural resources including written languageoccurs. She writes, "Children are not transparent re-flectors of culture, and we need to know more abouthow they transform cultural knowledge and prac-tices" (p. 197). Attention to social relational influ-ences is posited as one mechanism for improvingthis situation:

Daiute argues strongly that the application ofa social relational lens has much to offer as a strate-gy for writing and as a tool for understanding writ-ing development.

Daiute reports that children's written narra-tives were more sophisticated when they followedcollaboration with other students

Her data entail the social rela-tions among children during collaborative writingsessions, children's interactions with their teacher inconferences, and the children's writing itself. Heranalyses of these data include notable fmdings

heavily informed by the literature on narrative psy-chology and social development,

While Daiute's focus is writing development, herlens is what she terms "social relational." This lens is

ter also illustrates the valueof reading widely across scholarly communities.

ustration of the new concepts, newknowledge, and new consciousness to wh

symbols literally early intheir development,

symbolic communication

of print literacy to be learned from the developmentof other forms of symbolic communication

SSSS model

during collaborative writingsessions

In only 13 pages, Olson draws on re-search in child language (e.g., Karmiloff-Smith,1992), emergent literacy (e.g., Ferriero, 1985, 1994;Ferriero &Teherosky, 1982), history and anthropol-ogy (e.g., Boone & Mignolo, 1994), and several oth-er perspectives and disciplines.

citing Ferreiro (1986), he describes a cbild'suse of a borizontal scribble to represent one cat, andtbe use of rwo borizontal scribbles to represent twocats. But, wben asked to write no cats tbe cbild re-sponded, "Tbere's no cats so I didn't writing any-tbing" (p. 159).

consciousness, and tbat tbeprocess of learning to read and write involves learn-ing tbese systems. In learning tbese systems, cbildrenmake a transition from tbinking of written symbolsas tokens for objects to tbinking of tbem as represen-tations for words and concepts. As evidence

only letter systems

notational artifacts

Tbe cbapter by Olson, tbe contributor mostlikely to be familiar to readers of RRQ,

The contribution issue. How does symbolic communicationin all its forms (speaking, gesturing, reading, and writing)contribute to cognitive development? Does the act of com-municating with symbols transform thinking beyond mere-ly communicating an intended message?The special status issue. Is there a uniformity of explanationsof the nature and consequences of symbolic communica-tion across different communicative systems? Is it necessaryor useful to distinguish particular forms of symbolic com-munication (e.g., spoken language, notational systems) forpurposes of explaining its nature or its consequences for cog-nition and development?The origin issue. Is it necessary or useful to evoke innate con-straints of one form or another or processes to explain the ac-quisition of a particular form of symbolic communication(e.g., the whole-object constraint in spoken language)? Aresome forms of symbolic communication completely free ofspecific constraints? What if any aspects of symbolic com-munication are universal? (p. ix)

model, as does his past work (e.g., 1994), of drawingfrom multiple research communities to develop en-compassing ideas ahout the nature and developmentof cognition.

semiotic

Viewing written language as just one of manysymbol systems

, and not all that isthought is expressed or interpreted through language.

idiosyncratic

ana-logical

Socially Shared Symbolic System

interdisciplinary

methodological

Children, of course, in their attempts to com-municate, cannot focus on only one symbolic sys-tem.

It is important to remember the range of sym-bol systems considered in deriving these conclusions.They include gesture; oral language; written lan-guage; number systems; mathematical notation; sys-tems for inscription (e.g., graphs, maps); and, to alesser degree, other systems. The multiplicity of sym-bol systems considered in the volume certainly givesgreater weight and credibility to the editors' conclu-sions. This multiplicity is also powerful for us as ear-ly literacy researchers, a point to which we now turn

Calling roses and daisies 'flowers' in-duces children to search for their similarities"

Centner and Loewenstein's chapter focuses onthe development of analogical processing

SSSS model is intended to apply sim-ilarly to other symbolic systems. It would beinteresting to see early literacy researchers apply thisframework to their own data

comparisons and seeking similarities are posited asimportant vehicles in cognitive and language devel-opment. To use Ellin Scholnick's example (from theIntroduction), "Calling roses and daisies 'flowers' in-duces children to search for their similarities" (p. 14).The kinds of similarities recognized, however, varyover time and across domain. For example, whenasked to interpret the statement "A tape recorder islike a camera," 6-years-olds tended to identify similarsurface attributes (e.g., noting that they are the samecolor), whereas 9-year-old children and adults tendedto identify similarities in Ranction, that is, that theyboth can record something for later use (Centner,1988, as cited in the chapter, pp. 96-97

Theories that account for interactions among culturalrepresentatives—teachers/students, parents/children, peers—can be broadened by paying attention to such interactionsamong specific people who connect, compete, control, dis-sent, and feel happy or sad as a result of their interactions inreal time and space, (pp. 217-218)

While Daiute's focus is writing development, herlens is what she terms "social relational."

Mikhail Bakbtin, Urie Brofenbrenner, and JeromeBruner. Tbus, tbere is tbeoretical diversity amongtbe contributors, witb botb cognitive and culturalperspectives well represented.

leading to tbis book does not mean tbat tbe volumeor its contributors can be simply characterized asPiagetian or Neo-Piagetian. In fact, more referencesin tbe book are to Lev Vygotsky tban to Piaget,

Development andLearning: Conflict or Congruence? {Xlhtn, 1987), TheNature and Ontogenesis of Meaning (Overton &Palermo, 1994), and Culture, Thought andDevelopment (Nuccl, Saxe, &Turiel, 2000).

symposia

Language,Literacy and Cognitive Development: The Development and Consequences of SymbolicCommunication

unprecedented

"information age"

s a drastic increase in the amount of in-formation available on nearly any topic imaginable. In literacy research we are notsheltered from this change.

?^Q read-ers,

As we point out subse-quendy here, this book did not arise from the mainstream of early literacy research.

early literacy researchers must think careful-ly about their own attention to the mass of material available.

Jean Piaget Society