Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

LING228- Child language acquisition > 7>pragmatic development > Flashcards

7>pragmatic development Flashcards

1
Q

What is acquired grammar/words/phonology used for?> (5)

A
  • requesting/persuading (speech acts)
  • sharing info/gossiping
  • telling stories
  • telling jokes
  • conversations
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

How can conversations go wrong (pragmatically)>

A
  • 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)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Referring expressions: adult’s ‘preferred argument structure’>

A

1> new referents= lexical NP (“a frog”)
2> given referents= pronoun or null form (“it”/0)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Use of referring expressions in children’s spontanteous speech>

A

found children use different referring expressions for new & given early on from age 2;4 (e.g. “ a frog” vs “he”)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

what is children’s referring expressions determined by?>

A
  • whats new/given
  • what the interlocuter can/cannot see (“he” when interlocuter CAN see; “the frog when CANNOT see)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Referring expressions experiment: new/given & could/couldnt see>

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Referring expressions experiment: new/given & could/couldn’t see> results>

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

two levels of perspective taking>

A

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)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

perspective taking- level 1 study> 2 cars

A
  • 2 cars shown to child: 1 adult can see (yellow) & 1 cant (red)
  • asked child qn “can you help her find it?”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

perspective taking- level 1 study> 2 cars> results

A
  • 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)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

perspective taking- level 2 study> car & tree>

A
  • 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?”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

perspective taking- level 2 study> car & tree> results>

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

perspective taking- level 2 study> screens & rabbits>

A
  • white and yellow screen between adult & child, with 1 blue bunny behind each screen
  • adult asks child “can you give me the green rabbit?”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

perspective taking- level 2 study> screens & rabbits> results>

A
  • children pick the rabbit behind the yellow screen, even though both look blue (not green) to them
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Referential communication tasks> study on B&W background & objects>

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Referential communication tasks> study on B&W background & objects> results>

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Referential communication tasks> study on B&W background & objects> alternative condition>

A
  • 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?”
18
Q

Referential communication tasks> study on B&W background & objects> alternative condition> results>

A
  • children rightly pick the car that is visible for the speaker as well
19
Q

Ambiguous referring expressions study> sticker book>

A
  • 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”
20
Q

Ambiguous referring expressions study> sticker book> results>

A

-children below 5 would often produce under-informative & ambiguous expressions (e.g. “the frog”)
- only at 5 were able to do

21
Q

How can kids be trained to use unambiguous referring expressions?>

A
  • feedback from interlocuter (“which frog?”)
  • interlocuters use ambiguous referring expressions
  • interlocuters use unambiguous referring expressions
22
Q

What do results from referring expressions/ perspective taking/ referential communication & ambiguous referring expression tests tell us?>

A
  • overall demonstrates once children have acquired a lang system, they still have problems using it appropriately & adapting to different commmunicative contexts
23
Q

Relevance before quantity study>relevance> sticker finding game>

A
  • 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
24
Q

Relevance before quantity study>relevance> sticker finding game> results>

A
  • 3+ already answered they would trust character who provides more relevant info
25
Q

Relevance before quantity study> both> sticker finding game>

A
  • 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
26
Q

Relevance before quantity study> both> sticker finding game> results>

A
  • 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)
27
Q

scalar implicatures=

A

violation of the maxim of quantity
(e.g. “i’ve eaten some of the cookie” when eaten all)

28
Q

conversational implicatures=

A

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))

29
Q

Earlier understanding of conversational implicatures can be found when?>

A

content & relations are more RELEVANT to children’s everyday lives (i.e. stories/scenarios they can relate to/experience)

30
Q

earlier understanding of conversational implicatures study> (breakfast foods)

A
  • 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)
31
Q

earlier understanding of conversational implicatures study> (breakfast foods)> results>

A
  • 3/4 year olds can understand implicature (“ive run out of milk”>will go for roll as have no milk)
32
Q

what are jokes based on>

A

linguistic ambiguity
(e.g. “how do you make a turtle fast?” “take away his food”> plays on double meaning of ‘fast’)

33
Q

linguistic devices for telling a coherent story>

A
  • tense
  • ‘if’ clauses
  • coherence-
34
Q

linguistic devices for telling a coherent story> tense>

A
  • stories are usually not about here and now, thus children need to master tense (“yesterday we went to the zoo”)
35
Q

linguistic devices for telling a coherent story> ‘if’-clauses>

A

i.e. “if he had gone home earlier, he would have missed the party”

36
Q

linguistic devices for telling a coherent story> coherence

A
  • includes sub clauses, pronouns & complex grammar & conjunction
    (“after he found the frog in the forest, the boy went back home”)
37
Q

Features of narratives before 3> (3)

A
  • parents produce most of it & dialogue-like
  • involves parents scaffolding
  • autobiographic
    (“what kind iss it? um ba, “shark?” yeah”)
38
Q

features of narratives at 3>

A
  • 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”)
39
Q

features of narratives at 4>

A
  • 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….”)

40
Q

are girls better lang users?> (2)

A
  • idea of girls learning lang faster
  • girls tend to talk more than boys
41
Q
  • girls vs boys speech>
A
  • 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
42
Q

problems with idea of ‘gender differences’?

A
  • 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

LING228- Child language acquisition (9 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions