7>pragmatic development Flashcards
What is acquired grammar/words/phonology used for?> (5)
- requesting/persuading (speech acts)
- sharing info/gossiping
- telling stories
- telling jokes
- conversations
How can conversations go wrong (pragmatically)>
- over informative
(e.g. “felix is my friend. Yesterday felix …”> use of full name as unusual, should replace with pronoun 2nd time) - under-informative
(e.g. “we went to the zoo with him”> when havent introduced an entity; “can you give me the shoe”> havent discussed prior)
Referring expressions: adult’s ‘preferred argument structure’>
1> new referents= lexical NP (“a frog”)
2> given referents= pronoun or null form (“it”/0)
Use of referring expressions in children’s spontanteous speech>
found children use different referring expressions for new & given early on from age 2;4 (e.g. “ a frog” vs “he”)
what is children’s referring expressions determined by?>
- whats new/given
- what the interlocuter can/cannot see (“he” when interlocuter CAN see; “the frog when CANNOT see)
Referring expressions experiment: new/given & could/couldnt see>
- children aged 2, 3 & 4
- video played with clown in
- 1 condition where asked about referent as new (“what happened?”); other where asked about referent as given (“was that the clown? what happened?”)
- added another condition to each where the interlocuter could see/couldnt see the videeo
Referring expressions experiment: new/given & could/couldn’t see> results>
- 2 years olds sensitive to new/given distinction & more likely to produce “the clown” than “he” when the referent is new
- 2 year olds not sensitive to can/cannot see distinction
- 3 & 4 year olds sensitive to both new/given & can/cannot see distinction & likely to produce “the clown” rather than “he” when the referent is not visible
two levels of perspective taking>
1> knowing what others can & cannot see (2, 2;0)
2> understanding that others may see things in a different way (4;0-5;0)
perspective taking- level 1 study> 2 cars
- 2 cars shown to child: 1 adult can see (yellow) & 1 cant (red)
- asked child qn “can you help her find it?”
perspective taking- level 1 study> 2 cars> results
- most chose red car (as it is one adult cannot see)
- thus show some understanding of perspective of adult (^but dont necessarily integrate this into lang theyre using)
perspective taking- level 2 study> car & tree>
- child on one side of the house where see house & tree side by side; adult on other side of house where see tree as BEHIND house
- adult asks child “does it look to me like the tree is behind the house?”
perspective taking- level 2 study> car & tree> results>
- 4& 5 children would say “yes” to qn (“does it look to me like the tree is behind the house?”) even though the tree is infront from their perspective
perspective taking- level 2 study> screens & rabbits>
- white and yellow screen between adult & child, with 1 blue bunny behind each screen
- adult asks child “can you give me the green rabbit?”
perspective taking- level 2 study> screens & rabbits> results>
- children pick the rabbit behind the yellow screen, even though both look blue (not green) to them
Referential communication tasks> study on B&W background & objects>
- children aged 4-12
- grid with black and white background presented to children
- black background as ONLY child can see
- white background as BOTH can see
- asked “can you give me the smallest car?” from other person
Referential communication tasks> study on B&W background & objects> results>
- children wrongly pick the car that’s smallest from THEIR perspective, even though it can’t be seen from the interlocuter’s perspective
- thus takes time for children to coordinate their non-ling perspective taking skills with linguistic skills
Referential communication tasks> study on B&W background & objects> alternative condition>
- children aged 6
- same grid with b& w background
- again black only child can see
- again white both can see
- only 2 cars on grid
- adult asked “can you give me THE car?”
Referential communication tasks> study on B&W background & objects> alternative condition> results>
- children rightly pick the car that is visible for the speaker as well
Ambiguous referring expressions study> sticker book>
- kid had to fill sticker book
- had to get adult to get the sticker (&knew which needed)
- needed frog with hat as opposed to frog without (2 were available)
- tested which children asked for “frog with hat” vs “frog”
Ambiguous referring expressions study> sticker book> results>
-children below 5 would often produce under-informative & ambiguous expressions (e.g. “the frog”)
- only at 5 were able to do
How can kids be trained to use unambiguous referring expressions?>
- feedback from interlocuter (“which frog?”)
- interlocuters use ambiguous referring expressions
- interlocuters use unambiguous referring expressions
What do results from referring expressions/ perspective taking/ referential communication & ambiguous referring expression tests tell us?>
- overall demonstrates once children have acquired a lang system, they still have problems using it appropriately & adapting to different commmunicative contexts
Relevance before quantity study>relevance> sticker finding game>
- children aged 3 & 4
- given sticker finding game (hidden under 1 of 3 cups)
- 2 cartoon characters tell info (1 as relevant; other as non-relevant info)> “these are pretty cups” vs “sticker is under blue cup”
- child is asked which character they trust more
Relevance before quantity study>relevance> sticker finding game> results>
- 3+ already answered they would trust character who provides more relevant info
Relevance before quantity study> both> sticker finding game>
- children aged 3, 4, 5
- had a sticker finding game (hidden under 1 of 3 cups)
- two cartoon characters tell info (1st as ‘under-informative’ thus violating quantity; “sticker is under one of the cups”; 2nd as more informative “sticker is under blue cup”)
- asked which would trust more
Relevance before quantity study> both> sticker finding game> results>
- for 3 only sensitive to maxim of RELEVANCE (thus indecisive on who is more trustworthy)
- for 4/5 sensitive to maxim of quantity and relevance (thus chose one who provide right amount of info)
scalar implicatures=
violation of the maxim of quantity
(e.g. “i’ve eaten some of the cookie” when eaten all)
conversational implicatures=
violation of the maxim of relation; context dependent
(e.g. A:”do you want some coffee”, B:”ive got an exam tommorrow”> not relevant on surface>either=need for caffeine (yes), no free time (no))
Earlier understanding of conversational implicatures can be found when?>
content & relations are more RELEVANT to children’s everyday lives (i.e. stories/scenarios they can relate to/experience)
earlier understanding of conversational implicatures study> (breakfast foods)
- 3-4 year olds
- about breakfast foods
- 2 characters presented: 1st asks “would you like cereals or a roll?”; 2nd replies “i ran out of milk yesterday”
- need to interpret meaning of 2nd utterance (will go for roll as have no milk)
earlier understanding of conversational implicatures study> (breakfast foods)> results>
- 3/4 year olds can understand implicature (“ive run out of milk”>will go for roll as have no milk)
what are jokes based on>
linguistic ambiguity
(e.g. “how do you make a turtle fast?” “take away his food”> plays on double meaning of ‘fast’)
linguistic devices for telling a coherent story>
- tense
- ‘if’ clauses
- coherence-
linguistic devices for telling a coherent story> tense>
- stories are usually not about here and now, thus children need to master tense (“yesterday we went to the zoo”)
linguistic devices for telling a coherent story> ‘if’-clauses>
i.e. “if he had gone home earlier, he would have missed the party”
linguistic devices for telling a coherent story> coherence
- includes sub clauses, pronouns & complex grammar & conjunction
(“after he found the frog in the forest, the boy went back home”)
Features of narratives before 3> (3)
- parents produce most of it & dialogue-like
- involves parents scaffolding
- autobiographic
(“what kind iss it? um ba, “shark?” yeah”)
features of narratives at 3>
- still a dialogue but most utterances & topics are initiated by child (leading story)
- still need adult, to tell story
(“you know what i was doing” “what?” “i was doing work”)
features of narratives at 4>
- can produce on their own, not using dialogue form
- use of subordination & complex language
(“i have two sisters, one with blond hair like me and the other with long balck hair….”)
are girls better lang users?> (2)
- idea of girls learning lang faster
- girls tend to talk more than boys
- girls vs boys speech>
- girls tend to use more affiliative speech (politeness, compromise)> as a social bonding function
-boys tend to use more assertive speech (e.g. insults, directions)> to influence other’s behaviour, not socially bond
problems with idea of ‘gender differences’?
- these are small
- only occur at certain ages
- probably not biological but cultural
>caused by how/ how much parents talk to children
>caused by activities each enjoy
