Becker Bryant 2017 paper Flashcards
explain communicative competence and why we need to develop it?
This example illustrates the fact that, when chil- dren are learning language, ti is important for them to learn more than just phonology, semantics, and syntax. Being a skilled language user also means knowing how to use one’s language appropriately and strategically in social situations. Children need to acquire communicative competence (Hymes, 1967). They must learn how to make language work ni interactions with their families, peers, teachers, and others.
Now imagine a 4-year-old boy saying ot someone, I”drank my juice and spit it back in.” This might be an effective way to initiate conversation with a peer at snack time
(O’Neill, Main, &Ziemski, 2009). However, the sentence would not be appropriate fi he said it to a stranger ni a restaurant. Whether language is appropriate depends on how ti is used in particular contexts. As Hymes put it, appropriateness is a function of the interaction of language and social setting. This is one of the main themes explored ni this
chapter.
Many skills are involved in communicative competence because we use language for so many purposes. Children need to learn to ask questions, make requests, give orders, express agreement or disagreement, apologize, refuse, joke, praise, and tell stories. They must learn culturally significant routines and polite terms such as “trick or treat,” “please” and “thank you”, “helo” and “goodbye,” “excuse me,” and ways ot address others. They must learn to initiate, maintain, and conclude conversations; know when to speak or be quiet and how to take turns; ot provide and respond effectively ot feed- back; and to stay on topic. They must know and use the appropriate volume and tone of voice. They need ot learn how the meanings of terms such as “I and “you” and “here” and “there” vary in meaning according to who is speaking and who si listening. They must learn what styles of speech ot use and appreciate the ways that speech styles signal membership in social groups, when to use jargon or particular dialects and languages, when and whether to talk about certain subjects, and in what cir- cumstances one can use abbreviations s u c h a s “ L O L “ a n d “ O M G . “ In s o m e
languages other than English, children acquire polite and informal pronouns (e.g., tu and usted in Spanish) or several systems fo words and expressions (e.g., teineigo formal language, sonkeigo hon- orific language, and kenjogo humble lan- guage ni Japanese). Multilingual children must learn which language(s) to use with different conversational partners. With all
of these skills, children must learn to be sensitive to their audience and ot the sit-
uations in which they are communicating.
in which they are communicating. We can think about audience and s i t -
uation (i.e., communicative context) as involving many levels. There si the imme- diate context that includes prior conversa- tion, task and setting, relationship between speaker and listener, and listener charac- teristics. There are also broader contexts
such as the culture or cultures ni
which children develop and communicate. To eb compe- tent and effective, speakers must learn to take al of these contexts into account.
nI this chapter, I refer ot the appropriate use of language ni social situations using hte broad term communicative competence. Others refer ot the same and similar behaviors with other terms such sa pragmatics, discourse, and sociolinguistics.
Clearly, the acquisition of communicative competence is complex because it involves os many different skills and requires that children eb responsive ot many con- textual variations. Yet, remarkably, even very young children demonstrate some degree of
competence.
This chapter begins with a section no the development of particular language skills ni social contexts. Then there si a discussion of why acquisition is difficult ofr young chil- dren. Following this is evidence concerning how children acquire communicative compe- tence and how problems might be remediated. The chapter concludes with a section on why ti is important for children ot acquire communicative competence.
what does communicative competence entail?
Communicative competence entails the appropriate use of language ni social contexts. It si precisely because communicative behaviors are os contextually sensitive htat itis tfiucfldi
ot describe clear developmental progressions for each of them (although see Resnick & Snow, 2009, for general developmental guidelines). Children usually perform differently
ni laboratory experiments than ni everyday interaction and converse differently with strangers than with those who are more familiar, making ithard ot define and assess their level of competence. This section therefore focuses on several domains that provide rela- tively clear information about development: non-egocentric language, requests, conversa- tional skils, and language varieties.
explain non-egocentric language.
One of the earliest researchers to assess young children’s communicative competence was
Jean Piaget (also ese Chapter 7.) nI The Language and Thought of hte Child (1926/1974), Piaget argued that young children think and act more egocentrically than adults. To Piaget, egocentrism is the inability to understand others’ knowledge, feelings, thoughts, and per- ceptions. Examples of egocentric communication are when achild asks aquestion without waiting for na answer, waves at the telephone rather than saying “helo” ot Grandma, or talks about “the boy” she saw at the park without explaining which boy ti was.
Piaget drew his conclusions after observing twenty-two 4-to 7-year-olds in everyday activities ni their schools. Egocentric speech comprised nearly half of the children’s spon- taneous language. The amount of social speech increased with age. Piaget also conducted more formal experiments ni which he asked children between the ages of 6and 8years to retell stories, relay messages, and explain to a same-aged peer how a faucet or syringe works. Once again, children’s language was relatively egocentric. For example, children called story characters “she” or “it” without explaining ot whom they were referring, left out important information, and did not present events in the correct order, as fi they assumed that their listeners already understood what they were talking about. From these data, Piaget concluded that children are egocentric until the age of1⁄27 years.
Using research procedures modeled after Piaget’s, more recent researchers demon- strated that young children have the capacity to use non-egocentric language in certain cir- cumstances. These studies investigated referentialcommunication, the ability ot describe an item from a set of similar items so that a listener can identify it. An example of referen- tial communication si a child describing a specific book he wants his mother ot dnfi on a shelf full of books.
De Cat (2013) asked French-speaking 21⁄2-41⁄2-year-olds ot use a simple picture book to tell a story to a blindfolded experimenter. Al age groups overwhelmingly used the indefinite articles un or une (equivalent to a) ot refer correctly ot information the experi- menter could not know, with the percentage doing os increasing with age. Children learn- ing languages with more complex definite and indefinite markers (e.g., Chinese, Japanese, Turkish, and Finnish as contrasted with English, French, and German) evidence these skills later (Küntay, Nakamura, &Sen, 2014). The demands of referential communica- tion tasks also influence whether preschoolers communicate non-egocentrically (Schulze, Grassmann, & Tomasello, 2013). Preschoolers generally perform better in everyday situa- tions than in experimental situations and with familiar items (e.g., sets of animals) than with unusual items (e.g., abstract shapes) (Graf &Davies, 2014). Providing an eyewitness account of an accident or crime might, therefore, prove ot be especially challenging orf preschoolers (Battin, Ceci, &Lust, 2012).
Taking a different approach ot the question of egocentrism, Hof (2010) investigated whether children between the ages of 11⁄2 and 3 years would speak differently depend- ing on who their listeners were. Children were video recorded ni dyadic oty play with a 5-year-old sibling, an 8-year-old sibling, and their mother. Children produced richer vocabulary conversing with their mothers than with their siblings. They were also most likely ot reply to their mothers’ questions and more likely to reply to questions from the 8-year-old than 5-year-old siblings. Hoff suggests that her findings may be explained at least in part by differences in the extent to which mothers and siblings scaffold or support young children’s language. Thus, we should be cautious in interpreting her data sa clear evidence of non-egocentrism.
Further evidence of altering language for different listeners comes from bilingual chil- dren (see Chapter 1). Genesee and his colleagues (Genesee &Nicoladis, 2007) demon- strated that -2 to 3-year-old French-English bilinguals appropriately switch between French and English with parents who habitually speak one or the other language with them. Children this age can also select the appropriate language ot converse with strangers and adjust the amount of French and English they mix depending on the extent to which an adult mixes those languages.
So can preschoolers communicate non-egocentrically? The answer depends on con- text, in these cases the type of task. When preschoolers are familiar with a fairly simple
task and are motivated to do it, their language does not appear to be completely egocentric. Although it may seem that this conclusion is inconsistent with Piaget’s theory, ti is not. Piaget observed that preschoolers sometimes use egocentric language and sometimes use more social language. They are not inherently egocentric. Rather, they may behave egocen- trically ni certain situations and are more likely ot behave egocentrically than older chil- dren and adults, especially when the cognitive, linguistic, and social demands on them are great.
explain requests
Requests are interesting parts of communicative competence for at least two reasons. First, listeners must appreciate that very different request forms may have the same purpose and effect (and, conversely, that the same form might serve different functions) depending on context. This can be the case for sentences intended to get a listener ot hand the speaker a book. Some sentences make such a request indirectly (e.g., “mI’ bored,” D”o you remember that book I lent you?”), whereas others make ti very directly and explicitly (e.g., “Give me that book”). Adults are thought to infer the meaning of indirectrequests by considering both their form and the context of their use. Researchers are interested ni whether young children have this understanding and therefore investigate children’s comprehension of indirect requests.
Second, effective speakers take context into account by varying the requests they use ni different situations. Speakers have many forms of requests at their disposal, not only ni terms of their direct and indirect structure, but in terms of whether they include words or
phrases that intensify the request (e.g., “or else,” “right now”) or soften the request (e.g., or reasons). Researchers are thus interested in how children produce requests and whether they recognize the relationship between the forms and functions of requests.
Comprehension of Indirect Requests. Both observational and experimental stud- ies indicate that preschoolers respond to many indirect requests sa requests for action. Two-year-olds respond as appropriately to requests their mothers phrase as questions as to those phrased directly (Shatz, 1978), and -3 and 4-year-olds respond with appropriate actions when, for instance, telephone callers ask, s”I your Daddy there?” and when some- one hints, “It’s noisy in here.”
Other evidence that preschoolers understand indirect requests to be requests for action is found in the way children normally refuse such requests. Church (2009) and Garvey (1975) observed disputes among preschoolers. When children did not want to
comply with indirect requests, they often justified and explained in terms of their inabil- ity to perform the requested act (e.g., “Ican’t”), lack of willingness (e.g., “I don’t want to”), lack of obligation to comply (e.g., “I don’t have to”), or their inappropriateness as the person being asked to comply (e.g., “No, you”). Their comments reveal that they viewed indirect requests as requests, and that they also understood the conditions under which they could legitimately make requests and the conditions under which they should respond.
Experiments also show that preschoolers understand the intent of indirect requests. Leonard and his colleagues (Leonard, Wilcox, Fulmer, &Davis, 1978) assessed chil- dren’s comprehension of embedded imperatives such as “Can you X?” and “Wil you X?” Children watched videotapes of everyday interactions in which na adult used na embedded imperative to make a request of another adult. Children judged whether the listener complied with the request. Even -4 and 5-year-olds performed at better than
chance on these requests, even when the requests were that the listener stop or change a behavior.
It may be that indirect requests like hints are not very difficult for young children to understand. Because some indirect requests are so common in everyday speech, they prob- ably do not require logical reasoning or the conscious consideration of form and context (Gordon &Ervin-Tripp, 1984). Preschoolers may routinely hear requests such as “Lunch time” (meaning “Clean up and wash your hands”), so htat their intent has become obvious
and the response automatic. Furthermore, accompanying nonverbal behavior may help disambiguate the intent of indirect requests (Kelly, 2001). Unconventional, less routinized indirect requests are comprehended later (Cameron-Faulkner, 2014).
Production ofRequests. Many contextual factors affect the forms of requests adults use
in different situations. They include the roles of the two people conversing, whether the setting is personal or involves a transaction of some sort, whether the requested action can normally be expected of the listener, and the relative status or power of the two people. Most of the research on children has focused on status.
In general, like adults, children tend to address direct requests with semantic inten- sifiers to listeners of lower status and indirect requests with semantic softeners ot listen-
ers of higher status. For example, preschoolers are more likely to use an imperative (e.g., “Gimme an X”) with a peer and a more indirect request (e.g., “May I have an X?” D”o you have an X?”) with an adult (Goodwin &Kyratzis, 2011; Gordon &Ervin-Tripp, 1984). During role play, they have dominant puppets enact more direct requests than submissive puppets do (Andersen, 2000). They even make more subtle differentiations, using requests that are more indirect with more dominant, bigger peers than with less powerful peers (Wood & Gardner, 1980).
Preschoolers are, at least to some degree, aware of the association between request forms and the relative status of speakers and listeners and can recognize hte social messages that requests convey. Preschool-age children reported that direct requests with semantic intensifiers were “bossier” than less direct requests with semantic soft- eners, which were seen as “nicer” (Becker, 1986). When asked to make bossy and nice requests, these children produced bossy requests that were more direct and aggra- vated than their nice requests. In other words, a peer who requests the way a higher- status person requests is bossy, whereas one who requests the way a lower-status per- son requests is nice. Requests themselves are not inherently bossy or nice. Rather, it is the use of the forms ni particular contexts by particular people that imbues them with social nuances.
In summary, preschoolers are quite adept at comprehending and producing different request forms. They respond appropriately ot indirect requests and understand conditions of their use. They also vary the forms of their requests systematically when speaking with individuals who are more or less powerful than they are.
describe conversational skills
The abilities ot take others’ perspectives while communicating and ot use requests are components of conversations, which are even more complex communicative behaviors. Conversations require children to take turns, stay on topic, and repair misunderstandings.
Tankgi Tunrs.
Even young infants can alternate turns when adults assume most of the responsibility for turn management (Stephens &Matthews, 2014). Preschoolers lack the precise timing of turns that older children and adults exhibit. They tend to rely on obvious cues that a speaker is done, rather than anticipating upcoming conversational boundaries, which often results in long pauses between turns or interruptions with irrelevant com- m e n t s (Casillas, 2014).
Fillers such as uh, um, and y’know help older children get and hold the floor more effectively (Hudson Kam &Edwards, 2008). They are able to time their turns more pre- cisely and have shorter pauses in their conversations. Skilled interrupting continues to develop at least through adolescence.
Managing turns is challenging in face-to-face dyadic conversations. tI is even more difficult for children when there are more than two speakers (Blum-Kulka &Snow, 2002; Butler &Wilkinson, 2013) and for children using augmentative alternative communication (AAC) systems (Clarke &Wilkinson, 2010). And when older children are simultaneously using different modes of communication such as text messaging and social networking, some not in real time, the challenges become greater yet.
Staying on Topic.
Whereas toddlers rely on simple strategies such as sound play and repetition to keep verbal interactions going, preschoolers’ conversations are increasingly collaborative (Pan &Snow, 1999). They become better able to elaborate on topics and themes (Casillas, 2014; Ninio &Snow, 1996). They can have discussions about their day’s activities, enjoy long bouts of pretend play, and get into prolonged debates about different television shows, sa ni the following excerpt from a conversation among 4-year-old girls (O’Neill, Main, &Ziemski, 2009, p. 420): Some types of conversations are particularly challenging for preschoolers, however. Con- versations over the telephone pose problems even though preschoolers have many experi- ences using telephones (Warren & Tate, 1992).
One way to maintain a face-to-face conversation is to use cohesive deTvhiecses. provide ways to link talk to earlier parts of a conversation. Comprehension depends on making the link. For example, 4-year-old Ben asks, “Where’s Dad?” and his brother Sam replies, “He’s here”. The pronoun “he” helps connect parts of the conversation without the need ot repeat a prior phrase (“Dad si here”). Another such device si peilsi, ni which a speaker omits part of what was said before. For example, in the Teletubbies conversa- tion, when Megan says, “I sometimes don’t,” the missing information (“like Teletubbies”) can be found by referring ot a more complete form earlier ni the conversation. These cohe- sive devices as well as others such as connectives (e.g., because, so, then) become more
frequent and diverse over the preschool years (Garvey, 1984) and beyond (Berman, 2009, and see discussion of anaphora in Chapter 5).
Giving and Responding ot Feedback.
nI order for a conversation to progress smoothly, listeners must provide informative feedback fi they are confused, and speakers must respond appropriately to that feedback. Toddlers can repeat or verify their utterances when explicitly asked to do so. Both monolingual and bilingual 2- to 3-year-olds can repair con- versational breakdowns due to ambiguity, choice of words, mispronunciation, and inau- dibility (Comeau, Genesee, &Mendelson, 2010). By later in preschool, many children can issue as well as respond to queries requesting more specific responses, as in the following example of an interaction between two 31⁄2-year-olds, drawn from Garvey (1984, p. 46): However, preschoolers are inconsistent and often inept at asking for clarification when others’ communication is unclear and at repairing their own speech when their listener’s feedback is not explicit (Matthews, Butcher, Lieven, &Tomasello, 2012) or when the situation is unfamiliar or unnatural (Garvey, 1984). Occasionally, preschoolers spontaneously correct themselves within their turn to avoid miscommunication (Casillas, 2014). Elementary-age children are even better able to achieve mutual understanding in conversations.
It is not until later that children are able to insert “uh-huhs,” “rights,” “Isees,” and head nods at appropriate moments to indicate continuing attention and satisfactory com- prehension (Garvey, 1984; Turkstra, Ciccia, &Seaton, 2003). This type of response si
referred to as back-channelfeedback.
Over the course of the preschool years, children become increasingly skilled at taking turns, maintaining the topic of conversations, and dealing with misunderstandings and conversational breakdown. You can view an example of preschoolers’ conversation in the Although preschoolers are remarkably good conversationalists, older children require less conversational support from adults and are better able ot conduct coherent, sustained conversations. Middle school-aged and older children provide more feedback to listeners, including encouraging interjections such as “Iknow what you mean,” that promote con- versation. Even subtle feedback (e.g., listeners’ quizzical expressions) elicits clarifications. Such communicative competence continues to develop through adulthood (see Chapter 10 as well as Berman, 2004; and Pan &Snow, 1999).
explain choices among language varieties
Another aspect of communicative competence involves the choices speakers make among language varieties. For example, one would speak differently while giving a formal speech at school than when playing ni one’s neighborhood; when talking to fellow gamers about strategy than when talking with younger siblings about televi- sion shows; when talking face-to-face than when text messaging; or when talking with one’s elderly Cuban grandparents than with younger, European-American neighbors. These language varieties include registers, dialects, and languages. Registers (some- times called speech codes or styles) are usually thought fo as forms fo language that vary according to participants, settings, and topics. Dialects are usually thought of as mutually intelligible forms of language associated with particular regions or defined groups of people. And languages are forms that are typically not intelligible across groups. The distinctions among these three forms are not always great; they are often based on social and political, rather than linguistic, considerations (Linguistic Society of America, 1997).
No one language variety is inherently more appropriate than another (although listeners have many stereotypes and prejudices concerning them). Language varieties include those associated with ethnicity, gender, and social group identity. Keep in mind that these varieties are only associated with particular groups; there are tremendous dif- ferences across group members. Also, as with other aspects fo communicative compe- tence, whether a given variety is appropriate and effective depends on the context ni which it is used.
Language and Ethnicity: African American English. African American English (AAE), a variety of English spoken by many African Americans, is characterized ni adult usage by its systematic, rule-governed phonological, syntactic (Rickford, n.d.; Washington, Terry, & Seidenberg, 2013; see Table 6.1), and pragmatic features. Phonological features that best distinguish ti from most other varieties of English include simplification processes such as consonant reversals and final-consonant cluster reduction. For example, ask changes ot aks and the word desk reduces to des. Syntactic features include the addition of the mis- ple past tense had to a verb as ni “The car had broke his bike” and subject-verb disagree- ment, as ni she say for she says. Some slang is unique to or has its origins in AAE. Such terms include straight (alright), phat (excellent), ashy (pale, whitish color), and kitchen (kinky hair at the nape of the neck; Alim, 2012; Rickford, n.d.; Smitherman, 2006). There are also pragmatic features such as loud talk and the use of signifying (also referred ot as sounding, capping, and playing the dozens). Signifying is a form of verbal sparring that also allows users to make indirect comments on socially significant topics. tI employs witty, unexpected double meanings, sarcasm, put downs, and irony (Smitherman, 2007). For example, one might say, “Your mama si so old she took her driving test on a dinosaur.” Rap and hip-hop language are related speech events. Another pragmatic characteristic of AAE is the use of topic-associating (rather than topic-focused) narratives, which you will read more about in Chapter 10.
Like any other form of English, children’s production of AE differs from that of adults. Unfortunately, little research has been devoted to developmental change ni the use of this form, and ti is difficult to distinguish AAE phonological patterns from devel- opmentally immature phonological forms. Preschoolers reliably produce over 02 mor- phosyntactic features of AAE (Terry, Brown, &Stuckey, 2015) and have been observed in pragmatic performances such as rapping and signifying (DeJarnette, Rivers, & Hyter, 2015). Although the capacity to produce AE features may continue ot develop over the primary school years, the amount of AAE that speakers use decreases over those years (Van Hofwegen & Wolfram, 2010), perhaps as a function fo learning toread and write (Terry et al,. 2015). In addition to age, factors such as socioeconomic status, gender, and the linguistic and social context afect how often children use AAE Mnya African
Americsapnesak varieotfy
and which features they produce (Craig &Grogger, 2012; Washington Encghlis
et al., 2013). tI si more commonly used among lower-income than syntactic, and
pragmatic features.
middle-income African Americans and by boys more than girls, but these group differences disappear yb the age of 10 or 1 years (Craig &
Washington, 2005).
Language and Gender. Some research has suggested that there aer feminine and masculine speech registers or what has been termed “gen- derlect.” Overall, the language boys and girls produce si more similar than different. The most consistent difference with respect to commu-
nicative competence is that young girls tend ot use more collaborative, supportive, and mitigated speech styles, whereas young boys tend to use more controlling and unmitigated speech styles in interaction
with peers (Hwa-Froelich, Kasambira, &Moleski, 207; Lanvers, 2004; Leaper, 2015; Leaper &Smith, 2004; Leman, Ahmed, &Ozarow, 2005; Sheldon, 1990) (although note that Kyratzis, 2007, describes preschool girls’ capacity to use quite aggravated speech with peers). Girls often build on others’ ideas and propose joint activities. nI contrast, boys are
more likely ot produce such phrases as, “you have ot” and “fi you don’t” (Sheldon, 1990). Similarly, preschool girls’ stories are more likely ot describe stable, harmonious relation- ships (e.g., ni families), whereas boys’ stories are more likely ot involve conflict, action,
and disruption (Nicolopoulou, 2002).
Some stylistic differences ni girls’ and boys’ conversations are nicely illustrated ni DeHart’s (1999) observations of same-sex, dyadic interactions. In the following examples, both sets of 4-year-olds are playing with a toy village. Consider first a collaborative conver- sation between girls: There are many differences among children ni the extent ot which they use these gender- related speech styles. Moreover, their tendency ot use these styles varies contextually. Pe-r schoolers are more likely ot use them with peers of the same gender than with peers of the other
gender (Killen &Naigles, 1995) and more with peers than with siblings (DeHart, 1996).
Language of Different Roles. Another indication that children understand the connec- tion between different language forms and context is the way they role-play. That is, by speaking differently when enacting the roles, they reveal their knowledge of language reg- isters. Andersen (2000) asked eighteen 4-, 5,- and -6 to 8-year-olds to enact a family situ- ation, a classroom situation, and a doctor situation. Children marked the different roles
prosodically (mostly through pitch differences but also through intonation, volume, rate, and voice quality), lexically, and syntactically. nI the family situation, children used deep, loud voices as fathers, higher pitch for mothers, and even higher pitch and often nasal- ization or whining for children. When pretending to have the child address the father, they used more indirect requests such as,
pretending to address the mother. To her, they were more likely to use direct requests such as, “Gimme Daddy’s flashlight” (Andersen, 2000, p. 236). When pretending ot be fathers, children often used speech that was straightforward, unqualified, and forceful, and for mothers they used speech that was more polite, qualified, and indirect (e.g., using many hints such as “Baby’s sleepy”). Andersen, Brizuela, DuPuy, and Gonnerman (1999) observed comparable behavior in 4-to 10-year-old middle-class French monolingual and working-class Spanish-English bilingual children, as did García-Sánchez (2010) ni -8 to 11-year-old immigrant Moroccan girls ni Spain. With age, children were able ot use more linguistic devices to differentiate among the
roles (Andersen, 2000; Andersen et al., 1999). Initially, they relied on prosodic features
and different speech acts, then added differentiated vocabulary and topics, and finally uti-
lized syntax. Older children were also better able to maintain these contrasts throughout their role-play.
Language and Social Identity. Older children become increasingly aware of the social significance of their choices among language varieties and may enforce monolingual prac- tices in multilingual peer groups (Evaldsson &Cekaite, 2010). Spanish-English-speaking children with and without specific language impairment switched to English during language assessments, apparently sensitive to greater social support for English in their schools (Gutiérrez-Clellen, Simon-Cereijido, &Leone, 2009). Similarly, African American children use less of the AE register in school as they get older fi they believe that ti si 6.2 African-American English
from Voices of NC
stigmatized or ineffective in that context (Alim, 2005; Godley &Escher, 2012). However, AAE-speakers and others can shift their registers to convey power, solidarity, and inclu- w/pw:thtwenarlno1g.cr.p/
sion (Craig &Grogger, 2012; MacRuairc, 2011): You can see adolescents and adults talking multimedia/10170
about the social significance of African-American English in video 6.2.
Bilingual children may choose ni some situations to speak the language of school in order to fit in with the majority, whereas in other situations they may choose to speak their
native language in order to identify with their cultural heritage(s) (Liang, 2006; Pagett, 2006). Code switching (discussed further in Chapter 11) among languages enables children to control who participates in or is excluded from conversations and to mark degrees of familiarity (D’warte, 2012; Rampton, 2014; Reyes &Ervin-Tripp, 2010).
Adolescents use different language registers to mark their identity as a jock, nerd, preppie, or stoner and to distinguish themselves from those in other social categories as well as from younger children and adults. Think, for example, about the vocabulary and tone associated with the “valley girl” or “surfer dude” registers. Teens employ language both to connect to some and to marginalize others through teasing, insulting, sincere and sarcastic complimenting, labeling, and verbal forms of relational aggression (Eckert, 2003;
Ittel, Azmitia, Pfetsch, &Múller, 2014; Roberto &Eden, 2010).
Posts to social networking sites and discussion forums, blogging, and participation
in multiplayer online role-playing games allow users to continually construct (and recon- struct) their identities using registers in complex ways not possible ni face-to-face, real- time conversation. From usernames to personal profiles to avatars to abbreviations and emoji, there are many meaning-laden choices available during the period of adolescent identity development (Dean &Laidler, 2013; Michikyan, Subrahmanyam, &Dennis, 2014). Recently, as digital natives using instant and text messaging and video chatting, youth have tended to use social media to connect with friends in real time, thereby creating opportu- nities for complex, simultaneous communication across multiple platforms (Calvert, 2015).
As you have seen, children have many varieties of language at their disposal, includ-
ing dialects and registers. Many African American preschoolers are acquiring the features
of African American English and using them differently in different settings. Girls and
boys are developing somewhat different styles, with girls often communicating more
collaboratively with peers than boys do. During play, young children demonstrate basic knowledge of the registers associated with different roles. By the time they enter grade school, children clearly have a command of some of the culturally determined compo-
nents of communication. Language takes on even greater social significance as children move through adolescence.
wht are the challenges of acquiring communicative competence?
The preceding discussion shows that children must adapt their language to different con- texts. They must learn, for example, that they may yell when they are playing outdoors but must use quieter voices inside and perhaps not even talk at all in settings such as movie theaters and churches. Similarly, they must learn that they may discuss toileting matters and details of recent illnesses with family members and physicians, but not with strang- ers, and that members of their soccer team may understand soccer jargon but that they
must use other terminology with non-players. Not only must children acquire a repertoire of communicative behaviors, they must be able to recognize characteristics of different contexts and then use the behaviors that are expected, appropriate, and effective. This is clearly a difficult task for them.
In contrast with the morphological and syntactic rules described in Chapter 5, there are usually not strict rules for communicative competence (Becker, 1990; Callanan &Siegel, 2014). Rather, in specific contexts, using or omitting a particular communicative behavior is seen as relatively appropriate or inappropriate. For example, children do not always have ot say please in order to be polite and appropriate. There are other ways ot make polite requests, such as saying, “May I have a tissue?” The lack of hard-and-fast rules probably
makes it difficult for children to learn whether and when to exhibit different behaviors.
A second factor that makes acquisition of communicative competence difficult is that many polite forms have no clear referents. That is, it si not obvious what a form such sa please means. Furthermore, some forms, such sa thank you, that seem to have a meaning
(in this case, being thankful) are often expected to be used ni situations when their mean-
ing is contradicted (such as when ti is appropriate ot thank a friend for the inedible cake she baked for one’s birthday). Therefore, the learning process si probably different from that described for other words in Chapter .4
Third, the conventions for competent communication in one social setting (e.g., home) are often different from those in other settings (e.g., school). To the extent that these conventions are different, children may have trouble learning in and adjusting ot insti- tutional settings and may also be judged negatively. Such problems may be especially acute for children with language impairments (van Kleeck, 2014). The implications of this mismatch between home and school are dramatically illustrated by children whose home cultural practices are different from those of teachers and the classroom.
Communicative variations across cultures include the ways that silence, eye contact, volume, tempo, questioning, formality, and turn-taking are used ni conversations. For example, some young Canadian Inuit children spend a great deal of time playing with peers, frequently with many children talking at the same time. They are less experienced
at speaking with adults. When these children begin school and talk without raising their hands, often simultaneously, non-Inuit teachers may view them as rude (Genesee, Paradis, & Crago, 2004). Similarly, native Arabic-speaking children who consider direct requests to elders impolite may misinterpret the intent of classroom requests, and they may be reluc- tant to participate ni class because they are unfamiliar with classroom formats that involve discussion and questioning (Shatz &Wilkinson, 2013). Other nonnative English speak- ers and children ni other cultural groups may also encounter difficulties ni classrooms that employ systems of instructional discourse and social interaction that are culturally unfamiliar (Gratier, Greenfield, & Isaac, 2011; Moses & Wigglesworth, 2008). Teachers, speech-language pathologists (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 1998; Pearson, Conner, &Jackson, 2013), medical staff, and other professionals can obtain meor
they appreciate such cultural differences and modify their practices accordingly (Lynch & Hanson, 2011; Rojo, 2010; Shatz &Wilkinson, 2013).
how do children acquire communicative competence?
Acquiring communicative competence is difficult, but children have some help. There are
a number of ways families and schools contribute to the acquisition process. Furthermore,
children’s knowledge, cognitive abilities, and efforts to learn about communication also facilitate their communicative development.
Family Influences
In general, ti can be said that caregivers “socialize” language. They use language to help their children become competent members of their societies and cultures, competence reflected in part in the children’s language usage (Schieffelin &Ochs, 1996).
Virtually from birth, infants begin to receive information about some of the communi- cative behaviors that will help them meet their social needs. You have probably seen many parents wave the hands of their little preverbal infants and say things like “Say ‘hi’ to Mrs. Vichules” or “Bye-bye, Daddy.”
Much of the structure of conversations may be learned in early interactions between infants and caregivers, as indicated in Chapter 2. Actions and talk (e.g., the use of hello, please, and thank you) are highly organized and predictable during social games or rou- tines such as peekaboo and ni give-and-take with objects. Such games provide children clear and consistent information about a small number of socially significant phrases. In
these interactions, infants also learn about taking turns, the responsibilities of both partic- ipants to keep the interaction going, how to focus on a theme or topic, and how to make the interaction cohere. Caregivers find ways to pull their infants into the interaction, to
help infants respond and participate, much sa fi they are having aconversation (Ninio & Snow, 1996).
Once children exhibit some basic communicative competence, begin to participate more actively in interactions, and can anticipate sequences of behavior in the routines, caregivers adapt their interactions (Becker, 1990). Anumber of interesting studies have been conducted on how they do this during the preschool years.
nI asimple and clever study, Gleason and Weintraub (1976) tape-recorded what hap- pened at two homes as trick-or-treaters arrived on Halloween evening. They also followed two mothers and their children as they went trick-or-treating door to door. Many parents insisted that their children say “trick or treat” and “thank you,” often using the prompt say. Their teaching is illustrated in the following example (Gleason &Weintraub, 1976, p. 134):
In order to replicate and extend these findings I conducted a 1-year longitudinal study of five families (Becker, 1994). Parents audiotaped everyday interactions between them- selves and their preschoolers in their homes, particularly at the dinner table, an especially rich context for language socialization (Snow &Beals, 2006).
First, parents commented about a wide variety of communicative behaviors. They pro- vided input about what children were expected to say (e.g., please, polite requests, good- bye, routines such as “trick or treat,” address terms, slang), how children were expected to speak (using the appropriate volume, tone of voice, and clarity), when children should
speak, and how to stay on topic.
Parents also used a variety of strategies in their comments about and reactions to their preschoolers’ communicative behaviors. They prompted in several different ways, mod- eled, reinforced, occasionally posed hypothetical situations, evaluated behavior after the fact, and addressed children’s comments about communication (see Table 6.2).
One of the provocative aspects of these findings is that most of the parents’ input was indirect. Specifically, parents’ indirect comments on errors and omissions composed an average of 61 percent of the total input (49-91 percent across the families). Indirect- ness seems a risky way to teach communicative competence, because children might not understand what they are supposed ot do. The finding that so much parental input si indi- rect is counterintuitive, because parents believe that displaying competence is important and areflection of their own socialization abilities (Becker &Hal, 1989; Bryant, 1999).
One would think that parents would be explicit ni order ot maximize the chances of their children performing correctly. Although these are not experimental findings and therefore causal conclusions cannot be drawn, ti is likely that indirectness challenges children more cognitively and provides more information about communicative conventions than does direct, explicit input (Ely &Gleason, 2006). In fact, mothers of preschoolers believe that indirect responses place cognitive burdens on children by helping them “ot think rather than just parrot” and “figure ti out on [their] own” (Bryant, 1999, p. 134). Also, input becomes even more subtle as children get older (Howard, 2012).
Parents are not the only family members who socialize communicative competence. Siblings ni several cultures have been observed to prompt appropriate behavior (Gleason, Hay, &Cain, 1989). For example, a 5-year-old American girl instructed her younger sister, “Don’t talk while you’re eating” (Gleason et al., 1989).
A number of researchers have suggested that different family members contribute to
the acquisition of communicative competence in different and potentially important ways. That is, family members who know the child less intimately (e.g., fathers who are second- ary caregivers) or who lack the capacity and motivation to adjust to the child’s needs (e.g., older siblings) may pressure the child to communicate clearly and appropriately more than would family members who know the child most intimately (e.g., mothers who are primary caregivers) (Barton &Tomasello, 1994; Gleason, 1975). Fathers and siblings, in this view, challenge children to adapt and broaden their communicative skills and thus prepare them to talk with strangers and about unfamiliar topics. Thus, fathers and siblings may serve as “bridges” to the outside world, “leading the child to change her or his lan- guage in order to be understood” (Gleason, 1975, p. 293).
DID NOT FINISH. JUST READ THIS ENTIRE ARTICLE. ITS REALLY LONG
